New Blog Post for Testing

The defense supply chain is stronger with continuous, real-time monitoring.

GAO‑25‑107283, a report recently released by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), highlights critical supply chain vulnerabilities across the Department of Defense’s 200,000+ supplier ecosystem. Areas for improvement include limited traceability of foreign-origin materials, visibility into lower-tier vendors, and streamlined contractual reporting.

The dangers aren’t necessarily what’s visible at the prime supplier level but rather the dangers hidden in sub-suppliers that can wreak havoc on a supply chain before anyone sees the threat coming.

These findings are based on procurement data from fiscal years 2020 through 2024, reviewed DOD documents, and interviewed DOD officials and contractor representatives. Drawing on these insights, GAO issued three recommendations:

    1. Identify resources, priorities, and time frames to implement efforts to integrate and share supply chain data.
    2. Identify an organization responsible for implementing leading commercial practices.
    3. Test the use of contract requirements to obtain country-of-origin information from suppliers.

Meeting these recommendations will require DOD to think more broadly than a linear supply chain, to examine and predict the cascading effects across interconnected suppliers. Three foundational capabilities will advance this goal: real-time continuous supply chain monitoring, AI-driven risk detection and predictive capabilities to support scenario planning.

The Critical, Compounding and Escalating Need for Action

Currently, there is no centralized governance within DOD or timeline for executing supply chain visibility reforms. Yet the risks are escalating too quickly to wait. Three vulnerabilities stand out in GAO‑25‑107283:

      1. Lack of country-of-origin data in procurement systems obscures exposure to supplier risk.
      2. Small and lower-tier suppliers remain largely untracked, creating hidden weak links in the supply chain.
      3. Supplier disclosure clauses remain untested, leaving DOD with low contractual enforceability.

GAO‑25‑107283 builds on a long-term objective first identified in September 2018: to reduce the national security risks that come with reliance on foreign sources of supply for weapons systems. In October 2024, DOD reinforced this point, stating that “supply chain visibility is essential for the military services to ensure operational readiness and strategic advantage.”

The risks, however, are accelerating faster than reforms.

Beyond the Numbers: Proof Points Making Headlines

Recent examples demonstrate how vulnerabilities buried throughout the supply chain network can result in difficult-to-anticipate costs and media coverage.

How interos.ai Supports GAO’s Recommendations with Total Supply Chain Transparency

GAO-25-107283 makes clear, visibility alone is not enough. The DOD needs actionable tools that move from reporting problems after the fact to predicting and preventing them before they escalate. That requires real-time data, AI-powered risk detection and enforceable supplier accountability.

interos.ai was built with these needs in mind.

The Knowledge Graph™ provides a living map of global supply chains, including the defense supply chain, while the interos.ai platform layers on continuous monitoring, automated alerts, governance integration and contractual enforcement.

 

Together, these capabilities deliver on the three foundations GAO’s findings call for: continuous monitoring across every tier, AI-driven detection of emerging risks and predictive insights to support scenario planning.

The Window for Action Is Now

GAO-25-107283 makes the stakes clear: without multi-tier visibility and enforceable supplier accountability, DOD remains exposed to adversarial leverage and cascading disruption.

Revision Military, CATL, and F-35 program disruptions aren’t isolated issues, they are signals of systemic vulnerabilities.

At interos.ai, transparency isn’t the end state. It’s the foundation for predictability and resilience. By operationalizing GAO’s recommendations, we give leaders the tools to act in real time.

The risks are compounding. The window for action is now.

If you’re looking to move from report-dependent awareness to action-oriented risk management, interos.ai is ready to help bridge that gap.

Speak to an Expert

Blog Test – Scheduled post

2020 was a global inflection point for supply chains – and so much more. Economic nationalism, a splintering internet, and geopolitical tensions were simmering long before 2020, but were accelerated by the pandemic. The global shock also deepened the growing global divide between authoritarian and democratic ideologies around technology, expediting the emergence of distinct

Blog Test – Push to Live-Test

2020 was a global inflection point for supply chains – and so much more. Economic nationalism, a splintering internet, and geopolitical tensions were simmering long before 2020, but were accelerated by the pandemic. The global shock also deepened the growing global divide between authoritarian and democratic ideologies around technology, expediting the emergence of distinct technospheres of influence. Driven by geopolitical shifts and the rapid evolution of emerging technologies, these tectonic shifts are already reshaping and redefining global supply chains. At last week’s RSA, I had the opportunity to discuss these global shifts and what forward-leaning companies should consider when seeking “Supply Chain Resilience in a Time to Techtonic Geopolitical Shifts”.

In addition to the horrific human toll, the COVID-19 pandemic punctuated the global order between Before Times and the post-pandemic era.

A Tale of Two Techno-Ideologies

The Chinese model of digital authoritarianism has spread aggressively. The model leverages technology to surveil, repress, and manipulate domestic and foreign populations. The tools and tactics inherent in this techno-ideology increasingly wreak havoc on both citizens and supply chains. With the steady beat of digital supply chain attacks, internet shutdowns, digital sovereignty stifling cross-border data flows, and government surveillance and mandates to access data, the digital authoritarian model is taking root across the globe.

A counter-weight is starting to emerge based on the aspirational visions of a secure, open, trusted, and free Internet. This nascent digital democracy model is beginning to address security and privacy through a multi-stakeholder lens and prioritizes collaboration and cooperation as well as individual data rights and protections.

Just as these distinct approaches continue to accelerate the splintering of the Internet, they are now leading to a splintering of supply chains and the technologies that undergird them. Government and private sector entities alike are increasingly reimagining supply chains based on trustworthy networks – with a specific focus on trusted suppliers and products.

Techno-spheres of Influence & Their Impact on Supply Chains

How are these divergent ideologies impacting global supply chains? There are (at least) three core areas: trade wars, regulatory shifts, and global hot spots. In each of these, geopolitics and diverging approaches to technology are changing the risk calculus and cost of doing business at home and abroad.

  • Global Trade Wars: Just as the weaponization of cyber has shifted power structures across the globe, so too is the weaponization of trade. Governments are increasingly seeking to leverage industrial policy for national interests. Weaponized cyber programs are being paired with specific industrial policies to threaten supply chains. As the IMF recently summarized, “Technology wars are becoming the new trade wars.” And these technology wars are further exacerbated by opposing perspectives on the rules and norms surrounding the use of technology.

These disputes continue to influence corporate decisions regarding reshoring, onshoring, as well as alternative suppliers especially when geographic concentration risks are considered. In recent surveys, almost a quarter of companies plan to relocate supply chains and three-quarters have enhanced their scope of existing reshoring. Tariffs and market pressures have driven many of these changes, but a shifting regulatory landscape provides additional fodder for reassessing supply chain resilience.

  • Regulatory Shifts: To offset the risks posed by digital authoritarians, democracies across the globe have begun to prohibit or restrict foreign technologies. The U.S. Departments of Commerce, Treasury, State, Homeland Security, and Defense have all produced an uptick in export, re-export and capital flows restrictions. As the chart below highlights, the Bureau of Industry and Security at the Department of Commerce alone has added over 350 different Chinese entities to restricted lists since 2019.

Many countries are also leveraging industrial policy, such as the patchwork of 5G restrictions within Europe as well as India and Australia. China has also implemented its own unreliable entity list which could further pose challenges for global brands. Finally, the data protection and privacy landscape provides one more layer of complexity. Many countries are crafting similar laws to the GDPR. On the other hand, some nations are creating regulations in the mold of Cambodia’s internet autarky, Kazakhstan’s digital certs, and Ecuador’s all-seeing eye. All of these policy approaches introduce localized data risks.

  • Global Hot Spots: While major power competition dominates national security discourse, global supply chains are also impacted by a rise in instability. Cyber and emerging technologies have introduced asymmetric power, wherein small countries can have an oversized impact due to the minimal resources and diminished price required to harness offensive cyber or emerging technologies. North Korea, Russia, and Iran are the usual suspects when considering the asymmetric nature of power, especially when considering the reach of campaigns such as SolarWinds or Iranian and North Korean campaigns against the financial industry.

Similar capabilities are now available across the globe and further exacerbate instability and unrest. For instance, Vietnam and Lebanon both have advanced persistent threat groups (APTs) linked to global campaigns. Meanwhile, localized conflicts between Armenia and Azerbaijan, Western Sahara and Morocco as well as the Tigray region have integrated foreign-made drones and disrupted energy markets, trade routes, and manufacturing supply chains, respectively.

Building Operational Resilience Amidst Techtonic Shifts

What can be done to build resilience under these dynamic conditions? First, a collective security approach is essential. As a Wall Street Journal logistic report noted, “A substantial investment in securing customer data at one company can easily be undermined by a supplier with weak financial incentives for safeguards.” Second, in preparing for the ‘new normal,’ avoid the inherent inclination to prepare for yesterday’s risks and disruptions. This is not simply a new Cold War or the end of globalization, but rather a new order that includes risks new and old. Finally, gaining visibility across your entire supply chain ecosystem – as well as the data that flows through it – is paramount. Data and privacy risks are increasingly localized, and borders do exist on the internet.

Of course, these ongoing global shifts introduce a range of challenges. Decoupling and reshoring are expensive and costly, but it is important to keep in mind that it is not an all-or-nothing approach: We must prioritize based on criticality and dependencies. Keeping up with the regulatory shifts is also increasingly difficult, especially since some of these changes may occur below the radar if you don’t have a way to track them. And of course, mental models are hard to shift. It’s easier to assume the new normal will look like it did in Before Times, but that could leave organizations ill-prepared for tomorrow’s disruptions.

Despite these challenges, there are also significant opportunities. Resilience can be a competitive advantage. Preparations now for the range of disruptions will pay off down the road. Collective security and collaboration can further strengthen resilience and help lead to more trustworthy and reliable networks. Finally, technology can help overcome blind spots and provide greater visibility and insights into the range of current and potential future disruptions.

Now is the time to either shape the future or be shaped by it. Based on the fascinating interactive Q&A session at RSA, there seems to be growing interest in these shifts and desire to do the hard work of building more resilient supply chains. Now it is on us to avoid a collective failure of imagination and reimagine supply chain resilience on par with these tectonic shifts.

Forget the Super Bowl, the Real Monday Morning Quarterbacks are Targeting AI

Author: Dr. Andrea Little Limbago, SVP, Applied AI, interos.ai 

“DeepSeek R1 is AI’s Sputnik moment” claimed Marc Andreesen following their announcement of the open source reasoning model that rivals those made by Silicon Valley tech giants at a fraction of the compute.  

Last week, the Chinese startup launched an open source AI assistant that by Monday had become the number one downloaded app on Apple.  

Concerns over this breakthrough instigated a $1 Trillion loss in tech stock shares and have reignited the debate over closed versus open systems. 

Whether or not this is a Sputnik moment, there are many prognostications surrounding this release. While it is too early to know the long-term impact of this latest shock to the AI world, it is important to both take this breakthrough seriously while also not jumping to the wrong conclusions.  

The discourse is certainly going to evolve, but this is not the time for quick conclusions about strategic priorities that will shape the future of AI and geopolitics. 

  1. Stargate is not necessary: Many are wondering whether DeepSeek will ‘deep-six’ Stargate, President Trump’s $500 B AI project aimed at developing AI infrastructure in the US. For years, technological bifurcation – the splintering of the physical infrastructure that serves as the backbone of the digital world – has created a divergent system between Chinese backed technologies and those produced by the US and like-minded countries. Governments are moving toward greater data sovereignty and tech sovereignty under the auspices of national security. Stargate is a natural progression of this movement. Given recent attacks on physical infrastructure, including on ViaSat as well as underseas cables, maintaining tech sovereignty over the infrastructure that powers AI is part of the broader global splintering of the internet and technological infrastructure into technospheres. If anything, DeepSeek’s announcement will only deepen this growing divide. 
  2. Export controls don’t work: US export controls on the most sophisticated chips inadvertently sparked innovation by requiring Chinese companies to do more with less, or so the argument goes. Export controls will never be perfect, but that does not mean they may not be effective. The array of tech-related export controls have made it much harder for China to develop their own semiconductor industry, and perhaps is better compared to tech containment. Whether its enforcement challenges, or the notion that you can’t ban math – to pull from arguments over encryption bans in recent years – make AI technologies easier to circumvent than other emerging technologies. 
  3. Security as an afterthought: With record-breaking downloads, yet again we are witnessing the flight to new tech with security as an afterthought. Nevertheless, DeepSeek had to halt new registrants due to ‘large-scale malicious attacks’. The security risks not only pertain to DeepSeek, but rather include the broad range of attacks, from data poisoning to model corruption. But wait, there’s more. China’s data policies enable the government to access data from companies located in China. Furthermore, given the tight connection between the government and companies, it is naïve to assume complete separation of the Chinese government from DeepSeek going forward, including manipulation and backdoors. 
  4. Authoritarian regimes have the innovation edge in AI: While this has not been a prime take-away this week, there has been a growing debate about which regime type has the AI edge, largely based on the greater access to all kinds of data by authoritarian regimes. However, it ignores the censorship and propaganda that can poison the AI models. Existing Chinese GenAI models have already demonstrated censorship and disinformation, and initial research shows DeepSeek’s AI suffers the same problem. Garbage in, garbage out may give democracies the edge, including in reasoning models. 

 

Over a decade ago, Edward Snowden’s revelations helped deepen the divide between Silicon Valley and DC. DeepSeek may finally be the impetus that brings the two group together. Is this the spark that rejuvenates the close allegiance between the tech sector and the US government, similar to Hewlett Packer, Texas Instruments, and IBM from the early days of the Cold War?  

Will the AI-focused export controls passed earlier this month target DeepSeek before it becomes a TikTok regulatory problem? If so, how will China retaliate?  

The only certainty is that we are still in the early days of this generation-defining technology. AI is more than the technology, but must be viewed through the regulatory, national security, and social systems lens in which it is deeply intertwined. 

Go Deeper:  What’s in Store for 2025 

You can view our take on the 5 trends to look out for in 2025 in our latest report, including our breakdown on the need for Secure AI and the larger Bifurcation of technology along geopolitical fault lines:   

Introducing Ask Interos: The AI Assistant Your Supply Chain Has Been Waiting For

Let’s face it, managing a supply chain can sometimes feel like trying to solve a Rubik’s cube… while it’s on fire… during a hurricane. Between geopolitical tensions, natural disasters, cybersecurity threats, and a global pandemic that seemed to change the game overnight, the world’s supply chains are ever evolving. On top of that, there is more data to review than ever before. 

But what if you could cut through the noise and just ask for the answers? What if you had an AI-powered assistant who could find the risks, alert you to recent events, and help you make informed decisions faster?  

Meet Ask Interos, Your New Favorite Supply Chain Assistant 

We’re excited to introduce Ask Interos, the new AI-driven interface designed to make managing your supply chain as easy as… well, asking a question! Instead of combing through endless reports and dashboards, now you can just ask a question, and the answers are delivered instantly.

Imagine this: You open Ask Interos, and ask, “Show me all the companies in my ecosystem that are in a specific country.” Within seconds, you get a map, supplier details, risk factors, and even a heads-up on recent events. No more endless manual searches. No more guesswork-just quick, clear insights. 

What Can Ask Interos Do for You? 

For leaders and analysts struggling to assess and monitor their supply chain, Ask Interos is your strategic co-pilot empowering you to stay one step ahead of risk. Answer critical supply chain questions in real-time, cut through the noise and transform hidden risks into manageable opportunities.

Here are just a few things Ask Interos can help you with: 

  1. Identify Risks by Location
    Find out which suppliers are based in a specific country and assess their risks, whether it’s natural disasters or political unrest. 
  2. Track Your Restricted Lists
    Keep tabs on suppliers and check if any are on restricted lists such as UFLPA, the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act, and pose compliance risks. Ask Interos can also clarify regulatory definitions so you can always be up-to-date on the most recent restrictions lists. 
  3. Real-Time Event Monitoring
    Stay updated on events like cyberattacks or natural disasters affecting your suppliers, so you can respond before disruptions escalate. 
  4. Supplier Connections and Dependencies
    Discover how your suppliers are interconnected and identify potential ripple effects in your extended supply chain. 
  5. Historic Natural Hazard Risks
    Get insight into whether your suppliers have been impacted by natural disasters in the past, so you can assess their resilience for the future. 

Why Ask Interos?  

At Interos, we know how hard it can be to keep up with all the moving parts of your supply chain—especially when those “parts” could be halfway around the world. That’s why we built Ask Interos, to give you a tool that’s both smart, easy to use and designed to help you act quickly.  

With real-time insights, multi-tier visibility, and easy-to-understand data visualizations, Ask Interos empowers you to stay one step ahead of risk and make decisions with confidence. 

Ready to Ask? 

If you’re ready to take control of your supply chain and start getting faster, clearer insights, Ask Interos is here to help. It’s time to stop reacting and start asking.

Try Ask Interos today and discover a better way to manage your supply chain.

Request a Demo

Taming Digital Supply Chain Threats: NYSE CISO’s Battle Plan for the AI Era

Author: Dianna O’Neil 

In Interos’s latest Voices of Innovation session, NightDragon Founder & CEO Dave DeWalt, tackled today’s new breed of digital supply chain threats with Steve Pugh, Chief Information Security Officer (CISO) of the Intercontinental Exchange, Inc., better knowns as the New York Stock Exchange. As CISO, Pugh is responsible for securing critical economic infrastructure across multiple subsidiaries, geographies, and regulatory jurisdictions. 

Together Pugh and DeWalt explore the fluid landscape of digital risk and the critical role of AI supply chain risk intelligence in addressing escalating threats.  

Speed and Scale: The Core Challenges 

Pugh emphasized that the fundamental issues in digital supply chain risk management are the speed and scale of dispersed and sophisticated threats originating from bad actors, cyber criminals, adversarial nations, and other dynamic and fast-moving entities all over the world. “The key for a lot of my peers and colleagues is how do we keep up and innovate at that same speed [as bad actors], and then match the scale?” Pugh emphasized the staggering complexity of today’s attacks underscore the need for rapid adaptation and scalable solutions in the face of evolving risks. 

Building on this, DeWalt described the current global threat environment as “the perfect supply chain risk storm,” highlighting flashpoints with implications for digital supply chain stability.  

  • Heightened geopolitical tensions 
  • Regional conflicts 
  • Shifting dependencies on nations 
  • Increased cyberattacks targeting supply chains and third-party providers 

Unmasking “Unknown Unknowns”

Against this backdrop, Pugh noted the need to effectively communicating supply chain risk to high-level stakeholders, including corporate boards, to align on critical threats and move from insight to action, aided by emerging technologies that allow enterprises to take a proactive security posture. 

Pugh emphasizes two domains: visibility and control. “At the board level, we talk about it in two domains. The first is visibility, and then the second is control. And you really can’t talk about control unless you have the right level of visibility in your supply chain.” He focused on the critical importance of comprehensive supply chain visibility, using AI risk mapping and monitoring, as a prerequisite for effective risk management. 

Pugh elaborated by referencing Donald Rumsfeld’s “known knowns, unknown knowns, and unknown unknowns” matrix. He stated, “There’s a lot of unknown unknowns… that’s where the complexity really gets tough.” To illustrate this complexity, he shared an example from the experience of colleague at external engineering firm: that person experienced a catastrophic incident caused by “one bolt from a supplier somewhere in the world” failing—not due to malice but simply due to negligence or defect. He drew a parallel with third-party software and technology providers, noting how vulnerable third-party software solutions from obscure tiers of the supply chain can have significant consequences across interconnected digital supply chains. 

AI to the Rescue

Both DeWalt and Pugh expressed optimism about the role of AI and advanced risk intelligence in addressing supply chain challenges, particularly the ability of AI to deliver enhanced visibility and risk analysis at speed and scale. 

AI enables the ingestion and analysis of vast amounts of data from various sources, providing insights into complex supply chain relationships in real-time. Pugh explained, “AI can come alongside us and almost be a companion, to scale up and do so at speed and reason over all of these different data points.” Given the hundreds of millions of businesses globally, with billions of sub-tier supply chain interdependences, this capability is crucial for managing multi-tier risks effectively. 

Pugh detailed three primary ways AI is enhancing software development and security: 

  • Reasoning over code to find and fix defects quickly 
  • Generating cleaner, more secure code 
  • Enabling co-development with AI for native integration 

“We end up in this place where… you end up with some really good code that has fewer defects,” Pugh noted. He elaborated on how AI can create a “virtuous software development cycle” that significantly reduces potential vulnerabilities over time. 

Converging Physical and Cyber

Pugh’s role at NYSE encompasses both physical and cybersecurity—a trend that DeWalt sees increasing across industries. This convergence allows for a more comprehensive approach to risk management since physical threats can impact digital assets, unleashing a ripple effect with devastating financial consequences. 

Amid these changing dynamics, Pugh sees the CISO role evolving into that of a “risk business partner” to company leadership. “I think the role of the CISO is evolving to become more of a risk business partner,” he explained. This broader perspective allows for a more holistic approach to security and risk management across an organization. 

Channeling Optimism

As digital supply chain risks continue to evolve and expand, integrating AI technologies and continuous supply chain lifecycle risk intelligences alongside converging physical and cybersecurity offers promising solutions. Pugh’s final thoughts reflected a promising outlook: “I am optimistic on AI… I think it’s something that will certainly help us.” By embracing these generational innovations while maintaining a real-time view of risk management, organizations can better navigate the complex and fraught landscape of global supply chains in the digital age. 

Technology such as Interos Watchtower™ utilizes AI to continuously map and monitor relationships across the risk lifecycle to help enterprises mitigate physical and digital threats before they escalate to crisis. 

To learn more about how Interos can fortify your supply chain, contact us 

 

 

What Satellites Reveal About Concentration Risk in Multi-Tier Supply Chains

The Space Development Agency (SDA), a U.S. Space Force agency, is sounding the alarm on concentration risk in the satellite supply chain.

The SDA has ambitious plans to deploy hundreds of small satellites in low-Earth orbit, but risks have emerged with contractors relying on single sources for critical subsystems, threatening to delay the project. Col. Alexander Rasmussen, chief of SDA’s Tracking Layer program, emphasized the need for government contractors to diversify the supplier base for mission-critical components and to get supply chains “energized” early.

Concentration risk is endemic across multiple public and private sector organizations, fueled by interdependent supply chains with tens of thousands of potential failure points.

A single incident can trigger catastrophic ripple effects, paralyzing operations and inflicting severe financial damage. Interos data shows that large enterprises lose $34 million annually due to disruptions triggered by concentration risks.

Examples of at-risk goods and services include:

Semiconductors

The world’s semiconductor manufacturing is concentrated in Taiwan, specifically at the Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC) and United Microelectronics Corp (UMC). Any disruption to their operations, whether due to earthquakes and other natural disasters, geopolitical tensions, or other factors, could have severe ripple effects across global supply chains for electronics, automobiles, and other vital industries reliant on semiconductors.

Rare Earth Metals

China dominates the global supply of rare earth metals, which are critical components in many high-tech products, including smartphones, electric vehicles, and military equipment. Any disruption to China’s rare earth production or export policies could significantly impact global manufacturing and technology industries.

Global Shipping Chokepoints

A significant portion of global maritime trade passes through a handful of critical chokepoints, such as the Strait of Hormuz, the Strait of Malacca, and the Panama Canal – all of which have continue to grapple with disruptions triggered by geopolitical tensions, accidents, or natural disasters, could severely impact global supply chains and trade flows.

Strategies to Mitigate Concentration Risk

Addressing concentration risk requires a multi-faceted approach anchored in real-time supply chain lifecycle risk intelligence. Here are some practical strategies identify and mitigate concentration threats:

  • Comprehensive Supply Chain Mapping: Companies must gain multi-tier visibility into their supply chains to identify potential concentration risks and other threats. This involves mapping all suppliers and their interdependencies.
  • Predictive Risk Intelligence and Monitoring: Leveraging advanced risk analytics platforms like Interos, businesses can continuously monitor physical and digital supply chains for geopolitical, financial, cyber, regulatory, ESG, catastrophic, and other risks. Real-time alerts and predictive analytics enable proactive mitigation strategies.
  • Supplier Diversification: Reducing reliance on a single supplier or region by diversifying the supply base can mitigate concentration risk. However, this must be balanced against the potential increase in complexity and costs.
  • Nearshoring and Reshoring: Bringing production closer to end markets or back to domestic facilities can reduce exposure to geopolitical risks, trade tensions, and transportation disruptions.
  • Collaboration and Transparency: Fostering collaboration and transparency across the supply chain ecosystem can enhance risk visibility and enable coordinated risk mitigation efforts.

Addressing concentration risk and other supply chain vulnerabilities is not a one-time exercise but a strategic process that requires continuous monitoring, adaptation, and investment.

By prioritizing proactive and predictive supply chain technology like Interos, companies can fortify their operations against potential disruptions, safeguard their bottom line, and maintain a competitive edge.

Click here to learn how Interos can secure your supply chain against concentration risk and other threats.

A long time ago in a supply chain far, far away…

The Millennium Falcon might look like a piece of junk but it can do point five past lightspeed and
– as they say in the bars of Tatooine – it’s got it where it counts.

Not bad for a bucket of bolts won in a card game.

In celebration of May the Fourth, Interos turned its artificial intelligence-powered supply chain
risk management technology on the company that makes the ship that made the Kessel Run in
less than 12 parsecs.

Our report is based on a detailed analysis of Star Wars lore with all companies mentioned
appearing in canon, the official collection of stories and history that Lucasfilm accepts as part of
the Star Wars saga. Our analysts dove deep into the available data, conducting a legitimate
analysis using the Interos platform.

What we found is a supply chain littered with risks as the Falcon operates in a universe with just a little bit of political instability, making it more than difficult to ensure the procurement of the
right part at the right time. This may go without saying, but it turns out an intergalactic war
fought between all-powerful space-wizards is bad for the widespread availability of necessary
parts and raw materials.

Let’s dive into our insights. Please note that none of our analysts died to bring you this
information, but there were algorithms and machine learning involved.

1. Koensayr Manufacturing (power converter): Medium Financial Risk

The Falcon uses a power converter from Koensayr Manufacturing, perhaps one of the top
makers of starfighters in the galaxy. However, Koensayr took a hit when the Empire took control
of the galaxy, losing out on several government contracts it held with the Galactic Republic. This
is not great news for Koensayr’s financial stability, so Han and Chewie may want to keep an ear
open for a new power converter supplier, just in case.

2. Torplex (deflector shield): Low Financial Risk | Medium Operational Risk

As partners with the Corellian Engineering Corporation (CEC) and later Sienar-Jaemus Fleet
Systems, Torplex deflector shields were quite common in a galaxy rife with competitors. That
gives them a low financial risk, but the company may find itself at risk for espionage with other
players in their field, so we tag them with a medium operational risk.

3. Coaxium (hyperfuel): High ESG Risk | High Operational Risk

A necessary part of a hyperdrive’s ignition chamber and sometimes used as fuel, coaxium
comes from planets like Kessel, known for its enslaved workforce and reputation for corruption.
After its rise, the Empire began to attempt to monopolize production of the substance as well.

4. Girodyne (sub-light engines): High Operational Risk

The company that makes engines for starfighters and other galaxy-traversing ships has a fairly
diverse product set. All these moving parts, though, require specialization and we worry
Girodyne finds itself at a high operational risk, since it leans so heavily on its own suppliers for
success.

5. Phylon Transport (tractor beam): Low Political Risk | Low Financial Risk

The maker of the Falcon’s tractor beam emitter found itself in a good spot, thanks to
relationships with CEC and the Kuat Drive Yards, two major ship producers.

6. Cloud City (gas mining colony): High Political Risk

The Falcon likely used tibanna gas to cool its hyperdrive, which would be abundantly available
in Cloud City. Sadly, Han and Chewie’s last trip there ended… poorly. Cloud City remains on
many intergalactic restrictions lists as of this writing, so the Corellian Engineering Corporation
may want to look for suppliers elsewhere.

The Official Interos i-Score™

The Millennium Falcon’s supply chain certainly has its challenges. The galaxy is filled with
spaceships and spaceship parts, meaning that if Han and Chewie cannot get a replacement
part directly from a supplier, there are certainly secondary options available.

However, and this should go without saying, an intergalactic economy that includes the
presence of the Death Star can never be completely safe. (Our system is not calibrated to
calculate how vaporizing an entire planet like Alderaan impacts intricate supplier models, but we
safely assume it’s high.)

For these reasons, we will give the Corellian Engineering Corporation, makers of the Millennium Falcon, an Interos i-Score™ of 77, indicating medium overall risk. If Han or any other pilot is
worried about their ship’s supply chain and ever wants to improve their operational resiliency, they
can find us at the cantina in Mos Eisley.

Special thanks to Lucasfilm for its input on this project. All information was sourced through
official, canonical, Star Wars sources.

 

Satellite Supply Chain Concentration Risk: Starlink and the U.S. Dominate the Market

 By Geraint John

Satellites are becoming the new supply chain battleground in critical infrastructure as countries seek to bolster their military capabilities and national security against the threat of war.

However, this is not some James Bond-style plot in which rival powers vie for control of space-based nuclear weapons, as in the 1995 film GoldenEye, but something more prosaic: a quest for bomb-proof internet connectivity.

Ukraine’s success in stemming the Russian army’s advances across its territory have been credited, at least in part, to its access to Starlink, a constellation of more than 3,000 low-orbit satellites owned and operated by Elon Musk’s company, SpaceX.

Ukraine’s military relies on Starlink’s fast, reliable internet access to share battle plans, co-ordinate operations and target Russian positions.

In the words of a Ukrainian soldier quoted in a recent Economist article: “Starlink is our oxygen.” Without it, “our army would collapse into chaos”.

The Satellite Supply Chain: Low Orbit, High Potential

Other nations concerned about their vulnerability to attack and the security of their land- and seafloor-based fiber-optic cables for internet traffic, are keeping close tabs on Ukraine’s experience.

Taiwan, which has seen tensions with China escalate during the past year, is reported to be seeking private investment to establish its own satellite communications network.

China itself has submitted plans for a 13,000-satellite constellation, Russia has designs on a 264-satellite network, while the European Union agreed late last year to begin developing its own low-orbit system.

Japan, South Korea and Australia are among other countries looking to operate similar constellations of their own in the future.

Unlike traditional geostationary Earth orbit (GEO) communication satellites, which fly more than 35,000km above the planet’s surface, low-Earth orbit (LEO) satellites operate much closer to home.

Starlink’s satellites orbit just 550km from Earth, which means they can receive and transmit data much faster, making high-bandwidth internet streaming and video services possible.

Other benefits include the fact that:

  • They communicate with users on the ground via portable and easily powered receiving equipment
  • Their (stronger) signals are harder to jam
  • Russian efforts to hack them have so far been ineffective
  • Because there are hundreds of satellites serving each location, physically taking the network down – through, say, a missile attack – would require enormous scale and vast expense.

 

America’s World Domination May Lead to Imbalanced Supply Chains

The United States dominates global satellite ownership, with 63% of the almost 5,500 commercial, military, civil and government satellites launched to date, according to data compiled by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), a U.S.-based nonprofit organization.

Its dominance in LEO satellites – which comprise 86% of the total satellite population – is even more pronounced, thanks to Starlink.

The U.S. owns almost 50 times as many LEO communication satellites as Russia, and almost 90 times more than China, according to UCS.

Building on this data, Interos has created a satellite concentration and diversification metric. The metric demonstrates the resilience the U.S. has in this area, with extremely high satellite diversification, whereas Russia and China are both rated a high concentration risk.

This is good news for supply chains in the U.S., but those in less diversified areas may increasingly be more prone to internet disruptions or complete blackouts.

Taiwan has just one GEO communications satellite, through a joint venture with Singapore’s telecoms provider, while Ukraine doesn’t own any and relies on those of its allies.

Communications Satellites Owned by Selected Countries.

While Considering Future Satellite Trends, Beware Single Sources in Space

Aside from the potential for cyber interference in this newly critical and rapidly expanding infrastructure, from a supply chain perspective the main risk is arguably the extreme concentration of suppliers.

At present, Starlink is a de facto monopoly for customers outside of China and Russia, because of its dominance of launch capacity. Its Falcon 9 rockets took off more than 60 times last year and each is capable of carrying over 50 LEO satellites.

Rivals Blue Origin, owned by Jeff Bezos, the United Launch Alliance – a joint venture between Boeing and Lockheed Martin – and France’s Arianespace are all in the process of readying new rockets.

UK-based OneWeb – which partners with France’s Eutelsat and Airbus – is currently dependent on SpaceX after its access to Russian launch facilities was scuppered last year. And Virgin Orbit last month failed in its inaugural attempt to launch nine LEO satellites from British soil using a rocket mounted below a reconfigured 747.

Interos has implemented a new satellite concentration risk score, which evaluates the concentration of accessible communication satellites in a country. A country with more satellites or increased access receives a high score and has less risk of satellite disruptions. This score currently shows France as being very high risk – even higher than Russia and China – whereas the UK is medium risk. However, diversification should be an important objective for these and other countries over the next few years.

While industry analysts expect there to be four or five active competitors in this global market eventually, for now SpaceX can call the shots.

For example, although it abandoned a suggestion in October that it would start charging Ukraine for its services, it has restricted use of its network in Russian-occupied territory such as Crimea, according to The Economist.

Government, military and commercial procurement chiefs would therefore be wise not to put all of their bets in this new space race on Mr. Musk’s satellite network, which may well become the next frontier in supply chain concentration risk.