Facts and figures
- CASSANDRA = Common Assessment and analysis of risk in global supply chains
- The three-year project CASSANDRA is part of the European Commission’s Seventh Framework programme for Security
- CASSANDRA kicked off in June 2011 in Rotterdam, the Netherlands
- The CASSANDRA consortium comprises of 26 innovative industry leaders in the fields of Supply Chain Management, Logistics, IT, and Customs
- There are 26 CASSANDRA partners, from 9 different countries with a total budget of 15 million euro
- 60% of total budget will be spend directly on innovation whilst 24% of budget is used to demonstrate the CASSANDRA concept in Living Labs
One of the key project results was the applied living lab methodology. It contains that the ambition to share data among stakeholders (apart from pure information needed to fulfill the individual task or obligation) depends upon strong stakeholder commitments and is driven mainly by voluntary collaboration.
Two different areas were identified during the application of the methodology: a business–to–business data sharing environment and a business–to–government area. In the latter the evolution of value chains and corresponding information exchange practices has provided the basis for the current legal framework. Procedures like the submission of a pre-arrival declaration allow for complying to those requirements, and accepting the quality of secondary and often aggregated information.
In the business–to–business data sharing environment the individual interests of stakeholders may be contradictory and have to be aligned. This very sensitive issue is well known and has to be mastered for mutual benefits.
During project runtime, most economic actors were aware of key business risks (including supply chain risks) and have considered four feasible ways to manage them: terminate or avoid, tolerate or accept, transfer, and treat or control risks. In a few cases this consideration has resulted in applying internal control and/or chain control mechanisms in order to treat identified risks in a different, more effective way. The option taken (sometimes done explicitly, sometimes done implicitly) often followed commercial rationales showing there is not a tendency to aim for enhanced control. It also showed managing supply chain and business risks is never the same as managing customs risks: there are complementarities, but also conflicting objectives.
By using a certain level of internal control, economic actors are considered as trusted traders and therefore compliant. As long as the applied legal standards are not sharpened, most commercial actors might not feel strong urgency to re-adjust the current approach of managing business risks.
A methodology to address these challenges in a structured way in a multi-stakeholder ecosystem has been developed and facilitated the process made in the Living Labs that accelerated the realization of the innovation agenda.