Supply chain shocks—sudden disruptions to the flow of goods and services—have caused significant economic and societal harm over the past century, yet they are often studied in isolation. A gap exists in synthesizing lessons from these events to prepare for large-scale disruptions like Global Catastrophic Biological Risks (GCBRs). A structured analysis of historical shocks, paired with actionable insights, could help businesses, governments, and researchers build more resilient systems.

A Two-Part Approach to Understanding Supply Chain Disruptions

One way to tackle this challenge is through a two-tiered research approach. First, a broad survey could categorize major supply chain shocks from the past 100 years—such as the 1973 oil crisis, Fukushima disaster, and COVID-19 pandemic—along their causes and impacts. Second, an in-depth case study of a particularly damaging event, like COVID-19, could reveal why it was worse than others, examining factors like reliance on just-in-time manufacturing or weak international coordination. The output could be a concise, accessible report summarizing findings and deriving resilience strategies.

Why This Approach Stands Out

Unlike existing reports that focus on theoretical risks or technical supply chain models, this project would bridge historical patterns with practical, crisis-ready solutions. For example:

• For policymakers: Lessons from past shocks could inform policies on stockpiling medical supplies or diversifying trade routes.
• For businesses: A "resilience checklist" might highlight where to add redundancies without excessive cost.

Unlike the World Economic Forum’s broad risk assessments, this would zoom in on concrete historical examples. Unlike academic research, it would prioritize brevity and actionability.

Executing the Idea

A starting point might be a 2-page report distilled from well-documented cases. Key steps could include:

1. Interviewing experts to validate which past shocks best predict GCBR challenges.
2. Developing a framework (e.g., "5 Strategies from History") to make insights stick.
3. Testing drafts with stakeholders to ensure usefulness, expanding to 5 pages if needed.

The biggest hurdle—limited data on some historical shocks—could be mitigated by focusing on events with robust records, like COVID-19. Over time, the project could grow into workshops or industry-specific analyses.

By linking historical patterns to future threats, this project could offer a missing playbook for strengthening supply chains against catastrophic risks.