How do you put a value on avoiding a problem that seemingly no longer exists because you’ve already spent money on eliminating it?
This is the classic Catch-22 dilemma faced by many corporate security managers when trying to justify further investments in steeling the supply chain against disruptions.
It’s a vexing problem, but there are ways around it.
The obvious conundrum is that hardening the corporation, its processes, and its supply chain requires investment. If nothing happens and no crises materialize, this effort is, in hindsight, deemed to be a waste of money by senior executives. There is some justification if an actual disruption was sidestepped or its impact mitigated. But even then, it is difficult to quantify the benefits of dodging the bullet. Read More…