Resilience handles disruptions like port fires, but total value is bigger. It means constantly optimizing your supplier network for cost and service, even when nothing is broken. Proactive planning beats reactive firefighting.
I can say total value is a big thing. Resilience is only a subset of it. So we are agreeing with Jeremy, and I can just add an example to that theory which Jeremy shared. Like, example, what is resilience? Suppose your supply chains are ready for any kind of shortages, environmental situations, economical, political situations. Your port got a fire, or supplier had a fire, or, you know, any kind of— and how your supply is able to react. And it cannot be, uh, it has to be proactively planned. It cannot be, you know, that suddenly fire and now you're waking up and planning that, okay, now what should I do? So how resilient is the supply chain depends upon your planning or the strategizing of the whole chain. Now when it comes to total value, a good example can be suppose you don't have any issue right now going on, everything is working very nice and fine, but still you are seeing that, okay, if I see my whole network of, imagine toothbrush supply or a toothpaste supply, Is it the most optimized network right now? Or I can still reassess the whole web of global supply chain and see that maybe this supplier should supply to these 2. Cost-wise, I'm getting this benefit, or my service improves if I get from there versus there. So all that, you're creating value here, not reacting to a firefighting situation. So I'm just trying to give example that resilience is a part of the total value. I can say total value is a big thing. Resilience is only a subset of it.
