For a variety of reasons, supplier responses to any crisis are often short-lived, Uemura said.
"The cost of products is very competitive, and everybody focuses on this disaster every couple of years, but quickly the focus becomes cost," he said.
"Mitigating risk is definitely a good thing, but it's always going to cost more than just having one plant," Uemura added. "Having two plants costs more. Having to dual-source costs more. People have, I wouldn't say 'forgotten,' but shifted, the focus more towards cost than risk mitigation. There's a lot more that can be done, but it's a balance."
As automakers and suppliers assess their options to address this year's chip shortage, cost continues to ring critical.
"There's a price for everything," Snipes said. "If you go from a dual-sourcing strategy to a single-sourcing strategy, whether you're focused on just-in-time or you're going to carry more inventory, there's a price to pay. It could be more cost, or you expose yourself to more risk."
Whether the industry's fresh desire for risk mitigation will fade just as it did 10 years ago is yet to be seen.
Bill Diehl, who was CEO of advisory firm BBK during the 2011 crisis and is now an independent industry consultant, believes that many of the solutions considered after the Fukushima disaster would not apply today.
Part of the current predicament is that the auto industry must now compete for microchip supply against the needs of Big Tech — a reality that did not exist to any great extent 10 years ago.
"The chip issue we have today is a new dynamic for the automotive industry," Diehl said. "The OEMs 10 years ago should have been more proactive in trying to understand their supply chain."
This year's crisis is a challenge that the industry should have taken steps to mitigate, Diehl said. "I'm just not sure that they've taken advantage of the lessons learned that they should've."