Agile or Lean? — VOEC's Resilience Configuration

A four-round, advanced supply-chain resilience simulation set inside Volunteer Outdoor Equipment Co. (VOEC), a USD 540M mid-market outdoor-gear manufacturer in Knoxville, Tennessee, on a 38% gross / 9% operating margin.

It is April 2026 and two shocks collide in one quarter: a transpacific port disruption stretches Vietnam lead times from 75 to ~115 days with wild arrival variance, while an influencer surge makes one performance tent line go viral (sell-through triples in three weeks).

VOEC is simultaneously SHORT the full-margin hot SKU (fill rate 61% on the viral line, 82% overall vs a 95% target, ~USD 14M of full-margin demand unserved) and LONG USD 22M of slow basics facing 20–30% markdowns — the textbook mismatch between supply-chain design and demand type.

Inventory has climbed to USD 96M against a USD 110M revolving facility already drawn to USD 98M at SOFR + 3.0%; another month at this draw triggers a covenant conversation.

Playing the Logistics & Supply-Chain Director, you run the company through four rounds: (1) DIAGNOSE the portfolio — classify SKUs as functional/predictable (lean candidates) vs innovative/volatile (agile candidates) and place VOEC on Goldsby's three resilience dimensions (preparedness, alertness, agility); (2) PLAN the buffer and sourcing architecture per product family — keep cheap lean ocean sourcing for basics, add a near-shore agile source for performance SKUs, or run a dual-sourcing leagile split with a decoupling point, every choice consuming working capital; (3) DECIDE the live shock response — how much of the viral SKU to expedite by air (USD 4.20/unit vs USD 0.45 ocean), how to allocate scarce supply across channels, what to mark down now vs hold, and how much to invest in ALERTNESS (control-tower visibility, supplier early-warning, demand-sensing); and (4) RECOVER by committing a coherent resilience configuration to the board and the bank, proving the design lifts fill rate and the agility index WITHOUT breaching the working-capital line, and that it is robust to the NEXT shock, not just this one.

The math rewards selective buffering matched to demand variability, a lean/agile decoupling point, a SKU-level margin test on expediting, alertness paired with agility, and durable standing capability — and punishes the five classic errors: blanket safety stock that breaches the line, one-size-fits-all lean or agile, indiscriminate air freight, agility without alertness, and a single-shock patch.

Final KPIs track Fill Rate (%), Working-Capital headroom (USD M to the line), Agility Index (0–100), and Total Logistics Cost impact (USD M vs status quo).

An advanced simulation for participants used to working with the main frameworks and trade-offs of the subject, designed for executive education and experienced professionals.