Just-in-Time Supply Chains: The Hidden Risks of Efficiency 2026

Just-in-time supply chains have long been praised for their efficiency, but the pandemic exposed their fragility. As companies eliminated inventories and spare capacity to cut costs, they unknowingly transferred savings into risks that remained invisible until disruption struck.

This pattern of excessive optimisation is not limited to manufacturing. It extends to public services, national defence, and beyond, where the pursuit of efficiency can undermine the very systems we rely on.

The Efficiency Trap: When Optimisation Backfires

In a recent article, Steven Strogatz and Alex Townsend highlighted the dangers of excessive optimisation in mathematics and artificial intelligence. But the problem is far broader. The widespread adoption of just-in-time supply chains illustrates how optimising for one goal—cost reduction—can create systemic vulnerabilities.

By minimising inventories, businesses improved efficiency but also removed the buffers that absorb shocks. When the pandemic disrupted global manufacturing, those buffers were gone, and the consequences were severe.

How Just-in-Time Supply Chains Transferred Risk

Just-in-time (JIT) systems rely on precise coordination and minimal stock. They work well under stable conditions but fail when circumstances change abruptly. The savings from reduced inventory are real, but so are the risks that come with them.

These risks are often hidden until a crisis hits. Then, the lack of spare capacity becomes a critical bottleneck, leading to shortages, delays, and higher costs.

• JIT reduces inventory but increases vulnerability to disruptions.
• Savings from efficiency are often offset by crisis-related losses.
• Public services and defence also suffer from over-optimisation.
• Resilience requires spare capacity, which may appear wasteful but is essential.
• Optimising for cost alone can undermine an organisation's core purpose.

The Broader Impact: Public Services and National Defence

The same thinking that shaped supply chains has influenced public services. Hospital beds, experienced staff, and strategic stockpiles are often seen as wasteful when measured against immediate demand. Yet their value lies in their availability during emergencies.

Europe's dependence on American military capabilities is another example. What seemed financially efficient in peacetime has created strategic vulnerabilities as the reliability of US commitments comes into question.

Optimising the Wrong Objective

The fundamental error is not optimisation itself, but optimising the wrong objective. A system designed to minimise expenditure may succeed brilliantly at doing so while becoming progressively less capable of fulfilling its actual purpose.

For supply chains, the objective should be resilience, not just cost. For public services, it should be readiness, not just efficiency. For defence, it should be security, not just savings.

Table: Comparing Efficiency and Resilience in Supply Chains

What to Watch Next

As disruptions become more frequent, companies and governments must rethink their approach. The challenge is to balance efficiency with resilience, recognising that some redundancy is necessary for survival. The background to this story is set out in GPS Disruption From Solar Storm Exposes Fragility of Navigation. A related thread runs through US Chip Industry Still Relies Heavily on China Supply Chain.

Recent events, such as the Kyiv food shortages caused by Russia targeting supply chains, underscore the need for robust systems. Similarly, the race to secure rare earth supply chains highlights how critical materials are for modern economies.

The EU factory job cuts looming as China colonises supply chains show the real-world consequences of dependency. And the food security crisis demonstrates why just-in-time supply chains need a backup. These examples illustrate that without resilience, efficiency can become a liability.

Ultimately, the lesson is clear: optimising for cost alone is a trap. We must design systems that can withstand shocks, even if that means accepting some inefficiency. Earlier coverage in Manufacturing Supply Chain Challenges shows how the argument developed. A closer look at the same subject appears in Harlequins' Lost Swagger: Inside the Club's Fragility Crisis.

FAQ