Computers & Industrial Engineering 167 (2022) 108000

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Computers & Industrial Engineering

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/caie

The link between information and digital technologies of industry 4.0 and
agile supply chain: Mapping current research and establishing new
research avenues
Diéssica Oliveira-Dias *, Juan M. Maqueira-Marín , José Moyano-Fuentes
Dept. of Business Organization, Marketing and Sociology, University of Jaen, EPS Linares, Linares (Jaen) 23700, Spain

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The use of Industry 4.0 (I4.0) Information and Digital Technologies (IDT) has given rise to new opportunities and
Agile Supply Chain challenges for designing and managing agile supply chains. Therefore, this study aims to investigate the role and
Industry 4.0 implications of IDT of I4.0 for the Agile Supply Chain (ASC) strategy through a systematic literature review of
Information and Digital Technologies
123 identified papers. The literature has been classified into three research lines based on the Technology Life
Supply Chain Agility
Supply Chain Agility 4.0 model
Cycle: (1) Mature IDT of I4.0 and ASC; (2) Emerging IDT of I4.0 and ASC, and (3) A generic approach to the role
and implications of IDT of I4.0 and ASC. This categorization gives an in-depth analysis of the relationship be­
tween the IDT of I4.0 and Agile Supply Chain and helps to clarify the way that the research has evolved. Among
other findings, the results show that there is a prominent relationship between different types of IDT of I4.0 and
ASC. These technologies can support the ASC by improving abilities to sense and respond to market changes and
customer demands. The paper also discusses the gaps found in the literature, presents an ASC 4.0 model enabled
by IDT of I4.0, and proposes new opportunities for future research.

1. Introduction
In today’s dynamic and turbulent environments, supply chains must
be able to reduce product development cycles, rapidly introduce new
products, and respond swiftly to volatile demand and diverse customer
requirements (Calatayud et al., 2019; Gligor et al., 2015; Swafford et al.,
2008; Tarafdar & Qrunfleh, 2017; Yusuf et al., 2004). As a result, it is
considered essential that the supply chain satisfies these demands
quickly for a firm’s competitive advantage to be improved (Gligor et al.,
2013; Gunasekaran et al., 2017a; Swafford et al., 2008). In this sense, an
Agile Supply Chain (ASC) is a supply chain strategy focused on the
abilities ability to understand and rapidly respond to market changes
and customer demands (Christopher, 2000).
Furthermore, the use of information technology is generally accepted
to be one of the ways to deploy the aforementioned strategy and achieve
supply chain agility. However, the advent of Industry 4.0 (I4.0), driven
by the emergence of advanced Information and Digital Technologies
(IDT) (Ghobakhloo, 2020; Hofmann & Rüsch, 2017), implies the
appearance of new opportunities, principles, and challenges in supply
chain management (Azzi et al., 2019; Ivanov et al., 2019). The adoption
of I4.0 technologies, referred to as IDT of I4.0, offers substantial
technological advances that allow the automated collection and analysis
of enormous quantities of data and enable real-time supply chain partner
integration (Calatayud et al., 2019; Ivanov et al., 2019). In this regard,
IDT of I4.0 is defined as a set of technologies that can support the digital
transition and facilitate the implementation of Industry 4.0 standards
(Chauhan & Singh, 2020; Ghobakhloo, 2020). The technologies in this
set evolve over time in a dynamic process in line with the Technology
Life Cycle (TLC) (Kim, 2003; Taylor & Taylor, 2012). And these tech­
nologies impact the supply chain. For example, the use of IDT of I4.0
such as e-business technologies or advanced manufacturing technolo­
gies allows the digitalization of a variety of processes throughout the
supply chain (Birasnav & Bienstock, 2019; Ghobakhloo, 2020). Besides,
the adoption of other IDT of I4.0 such as the Internet of Things (IoT), Big
Data and Cloud Computing can be useful for making more accurate
decisions and improving supply chain integration (Calatayud et al.,
2019; Mandal, 2018; Novais, Maqueira and Ortiz-Bas, 2019; Pagliosa
et al., 2021). More specifically, several examples highlight the impor­
tance of studying the relationship between IDT of I4.0 and ASC. Amazon
is using Big Data analytics to apply predictive forecasting to pre-ship
products to distribution centers close to final customers before they
place an order (Ardito et al., 2019; Lee, 2017). The goal is to anticipate

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: oliveira@ujaen.es (D. Oliveira-Dias), maqueira@ujaen.es (J.M. Maqueira-Marín), jmoyano@ujaen.es (J. Moyano-Fuentes).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2022.108000
Received 2 October 2020; Received in revised form 31 January 2022; Accepted 1 February 2022
Available online 5 February 2022
0360-8352/© 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
D. Oliveira-Dias et al. Computers & Industrial Engineering 167 (2022) 108000

demand by increasing the availability of products and, consequently, to
make the company’s supply chains more agile. Walmart, for example,
has been working on proof of concept projects to introduce blockchain
to trace products such as mangoes, leafy greens, chicken, and pork. As a
result, the company has been able to reduce the time needed to trace the
origin of the products from days to seconds (Hyperledger, 2019). In the
case of the fashion industry, Zara is a company that stands out for the
agility of its supply chain. One of the keys to its agility is the imple­
mentation of RFID-based technologies across the supply chain, which
gives the company a high degree of control over the goods and promotes
the omnichannel strategy (Inditex, 2020). Another example is the lo­
gistics company Aramex. By using IoT devices and Big Data analytics,
the company obtains details about its operations, such as driver routes,
to enhance delivery performance (Alberti-Alhtaybat et al., 2019).
In this sense, IDT of I4.0 would mainly contribute to enhancing
supply chain agility by enabling the acquisition of real-time information,
supporting information-sharing, and coordinating responses between
supply chain members.
Therefore, given the multiple applications offered by the IDT of I4.0
and the considerable importance of the ASC strategy for achieving
competitive advantage, the way that the two can be integrated has
garnered considerable attention from researchers and practitioners (e.g.,
Alicke et al., 2016; DHL, 2019; Dubey et al., 2019; Sheel and Nath,
2019), resulting in a substantial body of literature. However, whereas
previous contributions have analyzed specific technologies and their
impact on ASC, previous literature reviews on I4.0 technologies and
supply chain management have focused on specific supply chain char­
acteristics such as integration and sustainability (see Table 1). There­
fore, there is a lack of joined-up comprehensive approach that integrates
and analyzes the effects of all the IDT of I4.0 that have been covered in
the context of an ASC.
To address this gap, the main objective of this study is to identify the
role and implications of IDT of Industry 4.0 on the ASC strategy through
an extensive literature review. It also seeks to establish a literature
classification that detects the main research lines and identifies existing
gaps and paths for future research. The Systematic Literature Review
(SLR) technique (Denyer & Tranfield, 2009; Tranfield et al., 2003) is
used to achieve this research objective. Further, this study constructs an
ASC 4.0 model based on the existing IDT of I4.0 literature to illustrate
the relationships between IDT and ASC speed flows, and proposes in­
dicators for performance measurement.
This paper has been organized into six sections. After this

Table 1
Comparison of related literature reviews.
Authors and Time Literature review Selected Key concepts Supply Chain Research Purpose
year Horizon methodology Papers Characteristics

Chauhan and 2011 - Oct Systematic 334 I4.0 and SCM Supply Chains (generic To provide an overview of the Industry
Singh (2020) 2018 literature review approach) 4.0 concept in the context of SCM and
identify areas for future research.
da Silva et al. Not explicitly Literature review Not Technology transfer, Supply Chain of To contextualize Technology Transfer in
(2019) indicated (using Methodi explicitly Supply Chain, and I4.0 Industrial 4.0 scenario the context of SC oriented to I4.0.
Ordinatio) indicated
Abdirad and 2014–2018 Systematic 56 I4.0 and SCM Modern supply chains To provide an overview of the key topics
Krishnan literature review of I4.0 and SCM.
(2021)
Dallasega et al. 2012–2017 Systematic 39 Construction Supply Construction supply To analyze the extent to which I4.0
(2018) literature review Chain, proximity, and chain concepts can optimize proximity
I4.0 between actors in the construction
supply chain.
Birkel and Müller 2011–2019 Systematic 55 I4.0, SCM, and Triple Sustainable supply To summarize the literature on I4.0 in
(2021) literature review bottom line chains the context of the triple bottom line and
SCM.
Garay-Rondero 1989 – 2019 Systematic 170 Digital Supply Chain Traditional supply To present a conceptual model of the
et al. (2020) literature review chain and Digitalized new Digital Supply Chains.
Supply Chains
Manavalan and 2009 – 2018 Literature review Not IoT and Sustainable Sustainable Supply To review the role of IoT in sustainable
Jayakrishna explicitly Supply Chain Chain supply chain and provide a framework
(2019) indicated for assessing the preparedness of SC for
I4.0 transformation.
Núñez-Merino 1996 – 2019 Systematic 78 I4.0 and Lean Supply Lean Supply Chain To provide an overview of relationships
et al. (2020) literature review Chain (LSC) between Information and Digital
Technologies of I4.0 and LSC and areas
for future research.
Tiwari (2021) 2011 – May Systematic 59 I4.0 and Supply Chain Integrated Supply To explore the relationship between I4.0
2020 literature review integration Chain and SC integration.
Bag et al. (2018) 1998 – 2017 Systematic 53 I4.0 and Sustainable Sustainable Supply To identify the I4.0 enablers of supply
literature review Supply Chain Chain chain sustainability and propose
research areas for future studies.
Spieske and 2015 – Feb Systematic 62 SC resilience and I4.0 Resilient Supply Chain To explore the link between I4.0 and
Birkel (2021) 2021 literature review supply chain resilience and propose a
framework.
Gunasekaran 2004 – 2014 Literature review 100 IT, adaptation, Logistics and SCM To analyze the linkage between IT,
et al. (2017a) alignment, and agility supply chain, and competitive
in the Supply Chain advantage.
Humdan et al. 1999 – 2018 Systematic 56 Supply chain agility Agile Supply Chain To develop a supply chain agility
(2020) literature review definition and identify enablers and
performance implications.
Sharma et al., 1999 – 2016 Systematic 118 Supply chain agility Agile Supply Chain To explore the concept and definition of
2017) literature review supply chain agility and classify existing
studies on the field.
Gunasekaran Not explicitly Literature review Not Agile manufacturing Agile manufacturing To investigate agile manufacturing
et al. (2019) indicated explicitly Supply Chain enablers and practices.
indicated

2
D. Oliveira-Dias et al.
introduction, the second section offers a review of related studies. The
third section describes the methodology. Section four sets out the ob­
tained results and future research lines. Section five presents the pro­
posed model and, lastly, section six provides the conclusions of the
paper.
2. Related reviews
Previous literature reviews in the field have provided an overview of
the I4.0 concept in the context of supply chain management (Abdirad &
Krishnan, 2021; Chauhan & Singh, 2020). More specifically, some re­
views have focused on the link between I4.0 and some specific supply
chain features such as integration (Tiwari, 2021), sustainability (Bag
et al., 2018), and resilience (Spieske & Birkel, 2021). Another review
highlights the relationship between I4.0 technologies and the Lean
Supply Chain (LSC) strategy (Núñez-Merino, et al., 2020). In a similar
analysis to the latter, this study focuses on a different but related supply
chain strategy: the ASC. In this sense, LSC and ASC are highly relevant
strategies for achieving supply chain responsiveness (Qrunfleh & Tar­
afdar, 2013). However, whereas in LSC the focus is on waste elimination
and providing a medium-term response to changes in demand, ASC is
more oriented toward a quick, short-term reaction to market changes
and customer requirements (Moyano-Fuentes et al., 2019).
Furthermore, in the previous literature, some reviews have focused
on the study of supply chain agility definitions and enablers (Gunase­
karan et al. 2017a; Humdan et al., 2020; Sharma et al., 2017). However,
the study developed by Gunasekaran et al. (2017a) is a non-systematic
review that focuses on the manufacturing function and only mentions
the role of information technology briefly. The works of Humdan et al.
(2020) and Sharma et al. (2017) focus on ASC and likewise do not
analyze the role of technology in depth.
Therefore, by analyzing the different literature reviews (see Table 1),
a clear gap is identified between the role of IDT and the ASC strategy. So,
the current literature review presents the following differentiating fea­
tures with respect to previous literature reviews:
- It bridges the gap between IDT of I4.0 and ASC by providing a
comprehensive overview of the roles and applications of mature and
emerging IDT of I4.0 in the ASC context.
- It provides an overview of IDT applications and identifies the asso­
ciation with the sense and respond capabilities of the ASC as well as
their impact on the speed of supply chain flows.
- It identifies gaps and promising ideas for future research on IDT of
I4.0 and ASC.
- It offers an ASC 4.0 model based on the existing IDT of I4.0 literature
and suggests indicators for performance measurement.
3. Methodology
The Systematic Literature Review (SLR) methodology (Denyer &
Tranfield, 2009; Tranfield et al., 2003) has been used to achieve the
research objective. The five steps for SLR proposed by Denyer & Tran­
field (2009) have been followed: (i) Formulation of the research ques­
tion(s); (ii) Identification of studies; (iii) Selection and evaluation of
studies; (iv) Analysis and synthesis, and (v) Reporting of results and
discussion. The following gives a description of how these five steps
have been carried out in the specific framework of this work.
3.1. (i) Formulation of the research question(s)
The research question(s) must reflect the study’s scope and purpose
(Denyer & Tranfield, 2009; Tranfield et al., 2003). The work is based on
two main concepts, IDT of I4.0 and ASC, and the study objective is the
intersection between these two fields. In relation to these fields, the
following question has been defined as a general research question to
guide the present study:
3
Computers & Industrial Engineering 167 (2022) 108000
RQ: What is the state of knowledge of IDT of I4.0 use in the ASC
context?
This general question is divided into the following specific questions:
RQ1. What literature exists on IDT of I4.0 and ASC and how can it be
classified?
RQ2. What role and implications do IDT of I4.0 have for ASC?
RQ3. What future research directions can be identified based upon
the gaps detected?
3.2. (ii) identification of studies
This step involves searching for and locating studies to answer the
proposed questions. The literature searches were conducted in relevant
scientific databases in the area, Web of Science (WOS), Scopus, and
EBSCOhost. Search keyword selection was based on the key concepts.
Previous literature reviews in the field were consulted to identify which
search keywords were used in similar studies of IDT of I4.0 (Núñez-
Merino et al., 2020; Pagliosa et al., 2021) and ASC (Gligor et al., 2019;
Gligor & Holcomb, 2012). Finally, the study’s authors agreed on the
final group of search keywords used. Simple operators were used to
combine the search keywords and generate the search strings, including
truncated characters (e.g., *, “exact phrase”) and Boolean operators (e.
g., AND, OR). The search string also had to be adapted to each of the
databases, as their syntaxes differ. The search keywords used are given
in Table 2. Two groups of words were used to locate the literature on
ASC. The first was related to “agility” and included words such as agile,
rapid response, and quick response, and the second to “supply chain”.
The word “logistics” was included in the second group to identify studies
dealing with transportation, storage, and/or distribution issues on the
external level. Regarding IDT of I4.0 keyword selection, although one
research stream of the literature on Industry 4.0 considers that only
emerging IDT are part of this phenomenon (e.g., Culot et al., 2020),
there is a second stream of literature that considers that Industry 4.0
comprises a wide-ranging group of IDT, including mature IDT, applied
jointly and intensively to the industry (Dalenogare et al., 2018; Frank
et al., 2019; Ghobakhloo, 2020; Núñez-Merino et al., 2020). The present
work follows this second stream. Therefore, a broader set of keywords
comprising both specific IDT and more general concepts has been used
to identify the different IDT regardless of the phase of the life cycle in
which they are found. It was determined that the defined sets of search
keywords should appear in the following fields: title, abstract, or article
keywords, depending on the possibilities offered by the different data­
bases. As a result of this phase, 876 works were identified in WOS, 1114
in Scopus, and 275 in EBSCOhost (see Fig. 2).
Table 2
Search keywords and search string.
Concept Search string
ASC (agile OR agility OR “quick response” OR “rapid response”) AND
(“supply chain*” OR logistic*)
AND
IDT of (“information system*” OR “information technolog*” OR “information
I4.0 and communication* technolog*” OR “digital technolog*” OR ict OR
“technological innovation” OR “internet of things” OR iot OR cloud OR
web OR e-business OR e-commerce OR “enterprise resource planning”
OR erp OR “material* requirement* planning” OR mrp OR “electronic
data interchange” OR edi OR “radio-frequency identification” OR rfid
OR “business intelligence” OR software OR “artificial intelligence” OR
“big data” OR “industr* 4.0” OR “business to business” OR b2b OR
“business to consumer” OR b2c OR e-procurement OR “vendor
managed inventory” OR vmi OR “customer relationship management”
OR crm OR “cyber physical system*” OR blockchain OR “augmented
reality” OR “virtual reality” OR “additive manufacturing” OR robotic*
OR “3D print*” OR cybersecurity OR “industrial simulation” OR
“warehouse management system” OR “transportation management
system”)
D. Oliveira-Dias et al.
Fig. 1. Proposed framework for the literature classification. Source: Own elaboration.
3.3. (iii) selection and evaluation of studies
After the search phase, inclusion and exclusion criteria were deter­
mined for the selection and evaluation of the works. The first inclusion
criterion applied was the publication period of the works. This was
limited to 1999 - December 2019. The starting year for the search cor­
responds to the first publications on the ASC strategy, Mason-Jones &
Towill (1999) and Naylor et al. (1999). Apart from this, only works
written in English were considered in article, early access article or re­
view format, and published in research areas related to the study subject
area (e.g., business management/economics, engineering, computer/
information science). Duplicates of articles that were retrieved in the
search results for the different databases were also excluded. The
reference database used for the results was WOS and all duplicate
studies in subsequent searches were removed.
The next step was to discard any articles published in journals not
indexed in Journal Citation Reports (JCR) and/or SCImago Journal
Rank (SJR). The selected articles’ titles, abstracts, and keywords were
then analyzed to ensure that they were relevant to the research ques­
tions. During this step, works were removed that were clearly unrelated
to the topic under study (-402 papers). Following this, the works were
read through in full and those not related to the research issue (false
positives) were removed. Other works were discarded that considered
Agile solely from an internal focus, i.e., without considering the supply
chain. The search yielded a final selection of 123 papers (see Fig. 2).
3.4. (iv) analysis and synthesis
The following step was to review, codify, and analyze the papers in
the final selection. A database was created in Excel to code the content of
the articles. For this, information was collected on the relationships
between the key concepts, the purpose, and the contributions of each of
the documents, as well as complementary information such as the title,
author, journal, year of publication, methodology, and sector. A
framework was developed from the prior literature on the Technology
Life Cycle (TLC) (Kim, 2003; Taylor & Taylor, 2012) and I4.0 technol­
ogies (Ghobakhloo, 2020; Núñez-Merino et al., 2020) and was used as
the classification grouping criterion for the identification of the main
research lines. In the process of grouping papers, both the use of pre­
viously used classification taxonomies and the observation of common
patterns among the analyzed papers in Excel database codification are
considered good practice in the methods of research analysis and syn­
thesis (Novais, Maqueira and Bruque, 2019). The TLC shows how
technology evolves over time. This evolution represents the
4
Computers & Industrial Engineering 167 (2022) 108000
introduction, growth, maturity, and eventual decline of a technology
(Kim, 2003; Taylor & Taylor, 2012). Technologies are identified as
mature when their usage spreads (maturity stage), emerging when they
reach the marketplace (introduction and growth stages), and obsolete
when they enter into a state of decline (decline stage) (Kim 2003; Taylor
and Taylor 2012). The works were grouped into research sublines ac­
cording to the specific technology or groups of technologies used to
analyze the role and implications of IDT of I4.0 in ASC in greater depth.
The Gartner Hype Cycle for Emerging Technologies (Gartner, 2016) and
the previous literature on I4.0 technologies (Ghobakhloo, 2020; Núñez-
Merino et al., 2020) have been used to determine where each of the
technologies is located in the TLC. Thus, a two-level literature classifi­
cation framework was defined, as shown in Fig. 1, with each research
line and subline containing papers dealing with IDT of I4.0 and ASC
from different perspectives. Since the process of technology evolution is
a dynamic process in which technologies move on from one TLC stage to
another with the passage of time, the classification made in this article
should be considered a snapshot of the research characteristics at a
specific moment in time.
It should be noted that researchers reached a consensus on the coding
and classification, thus ensuring inter-coder reliability and reducing the
bias associated with a single researcher (Thomé et al., 2016).
3.5. (v) reporting of results and discussion
The last step consists of reporting the findings of the literature
analysis and synthesis. The results of this step are presented in the
following section. Fig. 2 illustrates the methodological procedure fol­
lowed in this study and described in a flow diagram in this section. The
diagram shows the flow of information through the different phases of
the SLR and gives the number of records identified, included, and
excluded and the reasons for their exclusion, as recommended by best
practice for conducting an SLR in operations management (Thomé et al.,
2016), in supply chain management (Durach et al., 2017), and in In­
formation Systems research (Okoli & Schabram, 2011).
4. Results
As commented, performing the five SLR steps identified 123 articles
that contribute to explaining the link between IDT of I4.0 and ASC. So,
papers can be classified into two proposed research lines with the
application of the grouping criteria: Mature IDT of I4.0 and ASC (RL1),
and Emerging IDT of I4.0 and ASC (RL2). It should be noted that no
articles were found that specifically deal with obsolete technologies.
D. Oliveira-Dias et al.
Fig. 2. Summary of the Systematic Literature Review. Source: Own elaboration.
Finally, a third research line (RL3) was formulated to include papers that
cannot be classified in any specific TLC stage. Thus, the three research
lines are:
• Mature IDT of I4.0 and ASC (RL1): The first main research line in­
cludes studies that analyze the support of advanced and mature in­
formation and digital technologies in ASC contexts.
• Emerging IDT of I4.0 and ASC (RL2): This research line includes
papers that analyze emerging and most advanced information and
digital technologies in ASC contexts.
• Generic approach to the role and implications of IDT of I4.0 and ASC
(RL3): This research line includes studies in which IDT of I4.0 have
been observed from a generic perspective.
The three research lines were further divided into various research
sublines according to the specific type of IDT of I4.0 addressed in RL1
and RL2 and specific themes in RL3. The fact that each paper could
5
Computers & Industrial Engineering 167 (2022) 108000
address more than one type of IDT of I4.0 meant that it was possible for a
single paper to be simultaneously classified into one or more groups.
Fig. 3 shows the final classification framework.
Table 3 shows the analyzed papers according to the classification
framework (Fig. 3). The data show that the “Mature IDT of I4.0 and ASC”
group stands out as the main Research Line with 63 papers (47% of the
papers). This research line was categorized into four specifics types of
IDT of I4.0: Radio Frequency Identification (RFID); Enterprise Resource
Planning (ERP); Advanced Manufacturing Technology (AMT), and E-
Business web technologies. The “Emerging IDT of I4.0 and ASC”
Research Line comprises 32 papers, approximately 23.9% of the total.
This line includes papers that address six types of IDT of I4.0: Artificial
Intelligence (AI); Internet of Things (IoT); Cloud Computing; Big Data;
Additive Manufacturing, and Blockchain. A generic approach to the role
and implications of IDT of I4.0 and ASC is the third Research Line with
39 papers (29.1%).
D. Oliveira-Dias et al.
Fig. 3. Final literature classification framework. Source: Own elaboration.
4.1. Descriptive analysis
This section gives a descriptive analysis of the articles included in the
review. First, the chronological evolution of the literature published in
the three Research Lines was analyzed. Fig. 4 shows the distribution of
these articles by year of publication (absolute and cumulative fre­
quencies of the number of papers by research line). Although the
number of publications has not evolved steadily over the years, interest
in the area has been observed to have risen gradually, especially in the
last 3 years (37.4% of the works). The first papers in RL1 were published
in 2000. Publications in RL2 and RL3 began in 2006, and 2019 is the
year with the highest number of publications to date in RL2, demon­
strating the current interest in this research line.
Second, by methodology used, it can be observed that the majority of
papers in RL1, RL2, and RL3 are quantitative-based studies. These pa­
pers employ survey research or are modeling-based studies. There are
also studies in the three Research Lines that apply conceptual, qualita­
tive, or mixed approaches (quantitative and qualitative approaches).
Table 4 presents the methodology-based classification of the selected
research papers by Research Line.
4.2. Analysis of literature classification
This section gives the literature classification and the results of the
analysis. Each research line is presented with its research sublines.
4.2.1. Mature IDT in ASC
In this research line, the following IDT of I4.0 in ASC contexts have
been studied: (1) RFID; (2) ERP systems; (3) AMT, and (4) E-Business
web technologies.
4.2.1.1. RFID in ASC. As Agile supply chains depend on timely, accu­
rate, and precise information, RFID technologies are useful tools that can
provide real-time automated data collection across the supply chain
(Butcher, 2007; Cheng, 2007; Shahin et al., 2016). RFID technologies
embedded in Business to Business (B2B) processes can increase in­
ventory visibility and information transparency (Cheng, 2007; Nabelsi &
Gagnon, 2016; Shahin et al., 2016) and speed up processes such as the
6
Computers & Industrial Engineering 167 (2022) 108000
loading and unloading of materials (Azevedo & Carvalho, 2012).
Therefore, the use of RFID systems enables supply chain partners to
manage information and material flows more quickly and flexibly
throughout the supply chain, allowing them to cooperatively react to
consumer requirements (Azevedo & Carvalho, 2012; Chan et al., 2015;
Hwang & Rho, 2016). One example is the implementation of smart
shelves that can detect RFID tags, thus enabling the monitoring and the
faster replenishment of products (Zhu et al., 2012). The literature has
also addressed RFID as a foundation for more complex systems to
develop agile decision-making systems (Aggarwal & Lim, 2013; Cheung
et al., 2012; Yan et al., 2014). In this sense, some RFID-based decision-
making systems have been developed to improve agility in reverse lo­
gistics (Aggarwal & Lim, 2013) and supply chain configuration and
integration, which are indispensable for managing an ASC strategy
(Cheung et al., 2012; Yan et al., 2014). However, the literature also
indicates that companies have primarily been using RFID systems to
improve their internal operations, rather than improving interdepen­
dent processes involving supply chain partners. Therefore, the imple­
mentation of RFID in intercompany networks is still at an early stage
(Hwang & Rho, 2016). Nonetheless, the fact that many companies have
already implemented RFID internally is also a good starting point for
expanding its use in the supply chain.
4.2.1.2. ERP systems in ASC. ERP’s role in ASC on the inter-
organizational level has been the object of several studies. On the one
hand, ERP can be seen as a system that allows integration with sub­
sidiaries and enables real-time visibility of end-customer demand in
manufacturing operations (Al-Nimer, 2019; Auramo et al., 2005). On
the other hand, other studies indicate that traditional ERP systems may
not provide the necessary agility to support ASC practices (Almahamid
& Hourani, 2015; Chiarini & Vagnoni, 2017; Seethamraju, 2014;
Sharma & Shah, 2015), due to their time-phased requirements logic that
appears to be incapable of responding to the volatile nature of markets
(Seethamraju, 2014).
In this regard, more advanced solutions such as ERP II systems are
presented and analyzed in the literature (Ponis & Spanos, 2009). Unlike
traditional ERP systems, ERP II enables greater integration between
supply chain partners and also enhances the functionality of core ERP
D. Oliveira-Dias et al.
Table 3
Literature classification.
RL IDT of I4.0 Papers
RL1 - Mature RFID Azevedo & Carvalho (2012);
(63 papers) Aggarwal & Lim (2013); Butcher
(2007); Chan et al. (2015); Cheng
(2007); Cheung et al. (2012);
Hwang & Rho (2016); Nabelsi &
Gagnon (2016); Shahin et al.
(2016); Yan et al. (2014); Zhu
et al. (2012)
ERP Almahamid & Hourani (2015); Al-
Nimer (2019); Auramo et al.
(2005); Banerjee (2015); Chiarini
& Vagnoni (2017); Ivanov & Teich
(2012); Ponis & Spanos (2009);
Seethamraju (2014); Sharma &
Shah (2015)
AMT Boughzala et al. (2014); Chae
et al. (2007); Dallasega et al.
(2019); Dotoli et al. (2006); Forget
et al. (2008); Ghobakhloo & Azar
(2018a); Huang et al. (2000);
Montreuil et al. (2000);
Panichayakorn & Jermsittiparsert
(2019); Setia et al. (2008);
Shamsuzzoha & Helo (2010);
Wallace et al. (2006)
E-Business web Ahn et al. (2012); Almahamid &
technologies Hourani (2015); Ameri & Dutta
(2008); Ameri & McArthur
(2013); Ameri & McArthur
(2014); Ameri & Patil (2012);
Auramo et al. (2005); Bicocchi
et al. (2019); Cândido et al.
(2009); Giannakis & Louis (2016);
Helo et al. (2006); Holmqvist &
Pessi (2006); Huang et al. (2000);
Iskanius & Helaakoski (2009);
Ivanov & Teich (2012); Janssen &
Feenstra (2010); Kovács & Kot
(2017); Kovács (2017); Kristianto
et al. (2011); Liu & Yan (2006); Lo
et al. (2008); Moynihan & Dai
(2011); Mustafid et al. (2018);
Nallusamy et al. (2015); Oh et at.
(2019); Pavlou & Vlachopoulou
(2008); Radke & Tseng (2015);
Rasouli (2019); Ribeiro et al.
(2009); Seethamraju (2014);
Shamsuzzoha & Helo (2010);
Sharma & Shah (2015);
Schonsleben (2000); Tolone
(2000); Tuominen et al. (2008);
White et al. (2005); Xu et al.
(2003); Yan et al. (2014); Yusuf
et al. (2004)
RL2 - Emerging AI Aggarwal & Lim (2013); Ameri &
(32 papers) Patil (2012); Cheung et al. (2012);
Chibani et al. (2018); Forget et al.
(2008); Giannakis & Louis (2016);
Jain et al. (2008); Panichayakorn
& Jermsittiparsert (2019);
Srinivasan (2007); Wallace et al.
(2006); Yu et al. (2018)
IoT Alberti-Alhtaybat et al. (2019);
Bicocchi et al. (2019); Yan et al.
(2014); Yerpude & Singhal (2017)
Cloud Computing Azevedo et al. (2012); Liu et al.
(2018); Radke & Tseng (2015);
Schniederjans et al. (2016);
Sharma & Shah (2015); Yan et al.
(2014); Yu et al. (2018)
Big Data Alberti-Alhtaybat et al. (2019);
Choi (2018); Dubey et al. (2019);
Giannakis & Louis (2016);
Gunasekaran et al. (2017b);
7
Computers & Industrial Engineering 167 (2022) 108000
Table 3 (continued )
RL IDT of I4.0 Papers
Mandal (2018); Mandal (2019b);
Pool et al. (2018); Radke & Tseng
(2015); Sangari & Razmi (2015);
Wamba & Akter (2019); Wamba
et al. (2020); Yan et al. (2014)
Additive Manuf. Kurpjuweit et al. (2019); Li et al.
(2019)
Blockchain Kurpjuweit et al. (2019); Sheel &
Nath (2019)
RL3 - Generic Capabilities generated by Bargshady et al. (2016); Bi et al.
approach(39 IDT of I4.0 (2013); Chen (2019); Chen &
papers) Chiang (2011); Dehgani &
Navimipour (2019); Far et al.
(2017); García-Alcaraz et al.
(2019); Malekifar et al., (2014);
Mandal (2019a); Motadel et al.
(2011); Ngai et al. (2011);
Qrunfleh & Tarafdar (2014);
Samizadeh et al. (2019); Yang
(2014)
Drivers and barriers of the Bi et al. (2013); Brusset (2016);
relationship between IDT DeGroote & Marx (2013); Ding
of I4.0 and ASC et al. (2012); García-Alcaraz et al.
(2017); Ghobakhloo & Azar
(2018b); Gunasekaran et al.
(2017a); Gunasekaran et al.
(2019); Liu et al. (2013); Kabra &
Ramesh (2016); Kumar et al.
(2017); Malekifar et al. (2014);
Mavengere (2013); Mathiyalakan
(2006); Minami et al. (2012);
Patel et al. (2017); Paulraj & Chen
(2007); Qrunfleh et al. (2012);
Rahimi et al. (2019); Russell &
Swanson (2019); Samdantsoodol
et al. (2017); Scholten et al.
(2010); Swafford et al. (2008);
Tan et al. (2017); Tarafdar &
Qrunfleh (2017); Vagnoni &
Khoddami (2016); Vickery et al.
(2010);
modules (Ponis & Spanos, 2009).
The literature also indicates that traditional ERP systems need to be
integrated with other technologies to achieve agile goals (Almahamid &
Hourani, 2015; Banerjee, 2015; Ivanov & Teich, 2012; Sharma & Shah,
2015). Thus, the integration of ERP and e-business technologies can
improve communication between partners and reduces gaps in real-time
information (Almahamid & Hourani, 2015; Sharma & Shah, 2015).
Furthermore, technological compatibility between the design system
(CAD/CAM) and ERP systems implies greater agility by meeting change
requirements through better coordination between the design and
manufacturing departments (Banerjee, 2015). Moreover, ERP modules
provided in a Cloud environment and their integration with other Cloud
Computing services can help small and medium scale enterprises (SMEs)
achieve ASC on smaller IT budgets (Sharma & Shah, 2015). Some papers
also address the intra-organizational aspects of ERP use and link it to a
certain extent with AMT functionalities (e.g., Al-Nimer, 2019; Almaha­
mid & Hourani, 2015; Chiarini & Vagnoni, 2017). In these papers, ERP
systems are seen as tools that deliver opportunities to increase man­
agement control. However, alone they may not be able to drive im­
provements in supply chain agility (Almahamid & Hourani, 2015;
Chiarini & Vagnoni, 2017).
4.2.1.3. AMT in ASC. AMT refers to a set of technologies utilized in
manufacturing activities. They include technologies for design such as
Computer-Aided application tools (e.g., Computer-Aided Design - CAD,
Computer-Aided Manufacturing – CAM and Computer-Aided Engineer­
ing - CAE), collaborative production management systems (e.g., flexible
manufacturing systems, Advanced Planning and Scheduling - APS
D. Oliveira-Dias et al.
Fig. 4. Absolute and cumulative frequencies of the number of papers by research line. Source: Own elaboration.
systems, Computer Integrated Manufacturing systems - CIM), material
requirement planning (MRP I), industrial simulation, and advanced ro­
botics solutions. Although their greatest effect is internal, they also have
a knock-on effect on the supply chain level by ensuring compliance with
deadlines, quality, and volume of planned manufacturing. AMT such as
CAD/CAM/CAE can be used to achieve ASC objectives by reducing the
time to market of new products or speeding up re-adjustments of the
assembly line (Ghobakhloo & Azar, 2018a; Huang et al., 2000). Flexible
manufacturing systems and CIM systems enhance agility and ability for
collaboration in manufacturing processes by connecting geographically
separated companies (Chae et al., 2007; Dotoli et al., 2006; Montreuil
et al., 2000). Furthermore, the use of industrial simulation contributes to
information gathering and finding better solutions for decision-making
in a more agile way by simulating change production scenarios and
the potential impact of actions (Boughzala et al., 2014; Dallasega et al.,
2019; Huang et al., 2000; Shamsuzzoha & Helo, 2010; Wallace et al.,
2006).
Another advanced manufacturing solution is APS systems (Forget
et al., 2008; Setia et al., 2008). Unlike other planning systems (e.g.,
Manufacturing Resource Planning Systems or MRP II), APS systems
allow customers to be sorted by importance (Setia et al., 2008). More­
over, APS systems consider finite capacity constraints and lead times can
be calculated dynamically, which facilitates real-time analysis for
planning, scheduling, and optimization decisions (Forget et al., 2008;
Setia et al., 2008). So, due to its superior fit, APS can enhance agility in
manufacturing processes and customer response (Forget et al., 2008;
Setia et al., 2008).
4.2.1.4. E-Business web technologies in ASC. E-Business web technolo­
gies are key tools in ASC contexts and play a critical role in the hori­
zontal/vertical integration of the supply chain (Tolone, 2000; Tuominen
et al., 2008; Yusuf et al., 2004). The use of e-business technologies offers
an opportunity to enable synchronous (for example, through the inte­
gration of companies) and asynchronous (for example, via tools such as
discussion forums, document attachments, document sharing, and email
messaging) coordination in the supply chain (Tolone, 2000; Xu et al.,
2003), a pre-requisite for developing an ASC. E-Business technology
adoption also improves information quality and transparency and sup­
ports planning collaboration among stakeholders to achieve ASC goals
(Almahamid & Hourani, 2015; Auramo et al., 2005; Giannakis & Louis,
2016; Lo et al., 2008; Nallusamy et al., 2015; Rasouli, 2019; See­
thamraju, 2014).
In general, these specific types of IDT pursue a higher degree of
automation and cost-effective management of supply chain processes
such as sales and operations planning, distribution, and customer order
management processes. The ultimate goal is to shorten lead times and
respond faster to customer demand (Ahn et al., 2012; Huang et al., 2000;
Mustafid et al., 2018; Seethamraju, 2014).
The literature includes studies of different systems based on e-
8
Computers & Industrial Engineering 167 (2022) 108000
business technologies for building and configuring agile supply chains
through optimization tools (e.g., Holmqvist & Pessi, 2006; Kovács,
2017; Kristianto et al., 2011; Pavlou & Vlachopoulou, 2008; Radke &
Tseng, 2015; Sharma & Shah, 2015) and, more specifically, systems that
support digital manufacturing markets with mechanisms to rapidly
locate, evaluate, and select suppliers (Ameri & Dutta, 2008; Ameri &
McArthur, 2013, 2014; Ameri & Patil, 2012). Furthermore, in the
fashion industry, e-business systems can accelerate the information flow
by offering solutions for sharing information across the supply chain
about customers’ orders, bills of materials, and other specifications (Lo
et al., 2008).
Additionally, Service Oriented Architecture (SOA), which is
currently widely used in e-business technologies, improves supply chain
agility by speeding up the formation and evaluation of supply chains at a
lower cost (Bicocchi et al., 2019; Cândido et al., 2009; Janssen &
Feenstra, 2010; Moynihan & Dai, 2011; Ribeiro et al., 2009).
4.2.2. Emerging IDT in ASC
The following IDT of I4.0 have been identified in the ASC context in
this research topic: (1) Artificial Intelligence (AI); (2) Internet of Things
(IoT); (3) Cloud Computing; (4) Big Data; (5) Additive Manufacturing,
and (6) Blockchain.
4.2.2.1. Artificial Intelligence in ASC. AI applications in ASC contexts
can be used to improve support systems for decision-making throughout
the supply chain (SC) and, more specifically, to support inventory
management, e-procurement activities, and the automation of various
processes (e.g., manufacturing activities, customer support). For this,
the literature employs a series of solutions, such as agent-based
modeling (Aggarwal & Lim, 2013), multi-agent system (Ameri & Patil,
2012; Giannakis & Louis, 2016; Jain et al., 2008), network case-based
reasoning (Cheung et al., 2012), multi-behavior agent model (Forget
et al., 2008), stochastic learning algorithm (Wallace et al., 2006), and
genetic algorithm approaches (Chibani et al., 2018; Yu et al., 2018).
For decision-making activities, AI automatically establishes the most
favorable options in certain scenarios, thus supporting management
decisions (Aggarwal & Lim, 2013; Cheung et al., 2012; Forget et al.,
2008; Giannakis & Louis, 2016; Jain et al., 2008; Srinivasan, 2007). In
inventory management, AI systems allow inventory optimization and
automatic and intelligent ordering when stock reaches the safety level
(Wallace et al., 2006; Yu et al., 2018) In e-procurement activities, AI
improves automation capabilities for connecting buyers and sellers and
determining quantities ordered over time (Ameri & Patil, 2012; Chibani
et al., 2018). Finally, AI is also applied to the automation of processes
such as manufacturing activities or customer service through smart ro­
bots and self-service applications (Panichayakorn & Jermsittiparsert,
2019).
4.2.2.2. Internet of Things (IoT) in ASC. In ASC contexts, IoT provides
D. Oliveira-Dias et al.
Table 4
Methodologies by research line of the papers.
Methodology Research Papers
Line
Conceptual RL1 Aggarwal & Lim (2013); Ahn et al.
(2012); Cândido et al. (2009); Cheng
(2007); Liu & Yan (2006); Lo et al.
(2008); Montreuil et al. (2000);
Nallusamy et al. (2015); Ponis & Spanos
(2009); Radke & Tseng (2015); Rasouli
(2019); Schonsleben (2000); Sharma &
Shah (2015); Tuominen et al. (2008); Xu
et al. (2003); Zhu et al. (2012)
RL2 Aggarwal & Lim (2013); Azevedo et al.
(2012); Radke & Tseng (2015); Sharma &
Shah (2015); Srinivasan (2007); Yerpude
& Singhal (2017)
RL3 Far et al. (2017); Gunasekaran et al.
(2017a); Gunasekaran et al. (2019);
Malekifar et al. (2014); Mathiyalakan
(2006); Mavengere (2013)
Qualitative RL1 Auramo et al. (2005); Azevedo &
Carvalho (2012); Butcher (2007);
Holmqvist & Pessi (2006); Nabelsi &
Gagnon (2016); Seethamraju (2014);
Setia et al. (2008); White et al. (2005)
RL2 Alberti-Alhtaybat et al. (2019);
Gunasekaran et al. (2017b)
RL3 Chen & Chiang (2011); Minami et al.
(2012); Ngai et al. (2011); Russell &
Swanson (2019); Scholten et al. (2010);
Tan et al. (2017)
Quantitative RL1 Almahamid & Hourani (2015); Al-Nimer
(2019); Ameri & Dutta (2008); Ameri &
McArthur (2013); Ameri & McArthur
(2014); Ameri & Patil (2012); Bicocchi
et al. (2019); Boughzala et al. (2014);
Chae et al. (2007); Chan et al. (2015);
Cheung et al. (2012); Chiarini & Vagnoni
(2017); Dallasega et al. (2019); Dotoli
et al. (2006); Forget et al. (2008);
Ghobakhloo & Azar (2018a); Giannakis &
Louis (2016); Huang et al. (2000); Hwang
& Rho (2016); Iskanius & Helaakoski
(2009); Ivanov & Teich (2012); Kovács &
Kot (2017); Kovács (2017); Kristianto
et al. (2011); Moynihan & Dai (2011); Oh
et at. (2019); Panichayakorn &
Jermsittiparsert (2019); Pavlou &
Vlachopoulou (2008); Ribeiro et al.
(2009); Shahin et al. (2016);
Shamsuzzoha & Helo (2010); Wallace
et al. (2006); Yan et al. (2014); Yusuf
et al. (2004)
RL2 Ameri & Patil (2012); Bicocchi et al.
(2019); Cheung et al. (2012); Chibani
et al. (2018); Choi (2018); Dubey et al.
(2019); Forget et al. (2008); Giannakis &
Louis (2016); Jain et al. (2008); Li et al.
(2019); Liu et al. (2018); Mandal (2018);
Mandal (2019b); Panichayakorn &
Jermsittiparsert (2019); Pool et al.
(2018); Sangari & Razmi (2015); Sheel &
Nath (2019); Wallace et al. (2006);
Wamba & Akter (2019); Wamba et al.
(2020); Yan et al. (2014); Yu et al. (2018)
RL3 Bargshady et al. (2016); Bi et al. (2013);
Brusset (2016); Chen (2019); DeGroote &
Marx (2013); Dehgani & Navimipour
(2019); Ding et al. (2012); García-Alcaraz
et al. (2017); García-Alcaraz et al. (2019);
Ghobakhloo & Azar (2018b); Kabra &
Ramesh (2016); Kumar et al. (2017); Liu
et al. (2013); Mandal (2019a); Motadel
et al. (2011); Paulraj & Chen (2007);
Qrunfleh & Tarafdar (2014); Qrunfleh
et al. (2012); Rahimi et al. (2019);
Computers & Industrial Engineering 167 (2022) 108000
Table 4 (continued )
Methodology Research Papers Total
Total Line
Samdantsoodol et al. (2017); Samizadeh
16 et al. (2019); Swafford et al. (2008);
Tarafdar & Qrunfleh (2017); Vagnoni &
Khoddami (2016); Vickery et al. (2010);
Yang (2014)
Mixed RL1 Banerjee (2015); Helo et al. (2006); 5
Janssen & Feenstra (2010); Mustafid
et al. (2018); Tolone (2000)
RL2 Kurpjuweit et al. (2019); Schniederjans 2
et al. (2016)
6 RL3 Patel et al. (2017) 1
Note: Due to the fact that a single paper could be simultaneously classified into
one or more research lines, the sum of papers by methodology is greater than the
6 total of paper in this review (1 2 3).
real-time information collection for supply chain visibility, localization,
8
and tracking capabilities, and can improve information-sharing and
collaboration (Alberti-Alhtaybat et al., 2019; Bicocchi et al., 2019; Yan
et al., 2014; Yerpude & Singhal, 2017). In a manufacturing environment,
machines equipped with IoT sensors generate constant information
flows (Bicocchi et al., 2019) enabling the optimization of preventive
2
maintenance. This action, in turn, reduces the risk of machine failure
6 and prevents downtime, which guarantees the agility of processes.
To achieve agility on the supply chain level, IoT should be integrated
with other technologies such as Cloud Computing and Big Data (Alberti-
34
Alhtaybat et al., 2019; Yan et al., 2014). In this sense, the integration of
IoT and Cloud Computing architecture can facilitate quick resource
sharing and participant collaboration along the entire supply chain (Yan
et al., 2014). IoT data, utilized for Big Data analytics, are expected to
significantly improve the agility of supply chain operations (Alberti-
Alhtaybat et al., 2019; Yan et al., 2014). For example, Aramex, a global
logistics player, collects data from IoT devices on processes and opera­
tions such as routes and consumption of resources and analyzes the
relevant data through Big Data analytics to make better and faster
strategic decisions (Alberti-Alhtaybat et al., 2019). Furthermore, the use
of IoT in conjunction with Vendor Managed Inventory (VMI) can reduce
order times and provide greater transparency (Yerpude & Singhal,
2017), which helps build an ASC.
4.2.2.3. Cloud Computing in ASC. Cloud Computing provides opportu­
nities for firms to more easily and more quickly integrate data and IT
applications with their partners by enhancing the speed of data trans­
actions and enabling real-time data access for all the parties involved in
22 the supply chain (Azevedo et al., 2012; Liu et al., 2018; Schniederjans
et al., 2016).
Cloud technologies also allow to scale IT resources up and down and
to rapidly employ IT applications, which are crucial enablers of a supply
chain to quickly respond to market changes (Liu et al., 2018; Sharma &
Shah, 2015). Likewise, Cloud Computing infrastructure also provides
enormous computing capacity that allows complex tasks to be solved at
high speed (Sharma & Shah, 2015). Besides, Cloud Computing can be
applied in a manufacturing context, i.e., Cloud Manufacturing (CMfg).
When this new manufacturing approach is used in conjunction with the
26 concept of delayed product differentiation or postponement it offers a
promising solution to respond to the dynamicity of market demand by
reducing manufacturing lead times (Yu et al., 2018).
The literature also indicates that Cloud technology facilitates agility
in the supply chain by enabling communication between different ac­
tors’ ERP systems (Sharma & Shah, 2015). Moreover, Cloud Computing
infrastructure is used to support Big Data management (Radke & Tseng,
2015; Yan et al., 2014) and/or IoT technologies (Yan et al., 2014), which
are combined, precisely, to accelerate data management processes
among members of the supply chain and thus achieve supply chain
agility.
9
D. Oliveira-Dias et al.
4.2.2.4. Big Data in ASC. With the advance in the use of IDT and the
consequent increase in the availability of information, tools such as Big
Data are useful for quickly and efficiently handling information in the
entire supply chain. In this regard, a close relation to Big Data, Business
Intelligence, is also considered an important tool that enhances alertness
capabilities by providing relevant information about the business envi­
ronment and supporting supply chain decisions (Pool et al., 2018; San­
gari & Razmi, 2015).
Big Data can also improve supply chain agility by helping managers
to sense changes in the environment (Dubey et al., 2019; Mandal, 2019b;
Wamba et al., 2019; Wamba & Akter, 2019), supporting demand plan­
ning (Alberti-Alhtaybat et al., 2019; Choi, 2018; Gunasekaran et al.,
2017; Yan et al., 2014), and increasing customer sensitivity (Giannakis
& Louis, 2016; Mandal, 2018).
Big Data can help to build supply chain visibility by enabling end-to-
end real-time information about supplier’s inventories in addition to
predicting changes in future product demand (Dubey et al., 2019;
Mandal, 2019b). More specifically, customer feedback on social media
platforms can complement sales information to support demand plan­
ning (Choi, 2018). Furthermore, data management offers the opportu­
nity to monitor supply chain activities and sense atypical events as well
as to identify potential supply chain issues, which is necessary to pro­
actively mitigate the risk of errors and disruption (Alberti-Alhtaybat
et al., 2019; Giannakis & Louis, 2016; Radke & Tseng, 2015). Big Data
also allow the identification of customer requirement trends and
consequently, enable products and services to be tailored accordingly
(Alberti-Alhtaybat et al., 2019; Giannakis & Louis, 2016). In e-com­
merce operations, one way to act proactively is to dispatch products to a
location close to the potential customer before the act of purchasing
takes place. In this regard, Big Data help to sense supply chain behavior
trends and respond accordingly, which in turn increases supply chain
agility.
4.2.2.5. Additive manufacturing in ASC. The application of Additive
Manufacturing or 3D printing in production is expected to shorten lead
times and in turn, enable a more agile supply chain (Kurpjuweit et al.,
2019; Li et al., 2019). Additive Manufacturing is known to be a rapid
prototyping tool that can reduce the development cycle time by enabling
new product designs to be quickly printed and evaluated (Kurpjuweit
et al., 2019). Moreover, Additive Manufacturing allows higher levels of
product customization (Kurpjuweit et al., 2019). In industries such as
the aerospace industry, which are characterized by high-value parts,
Additive Manufacturing can enable the rapid manufacture of spare parts
and increase the efficiency of inventory management (Kurpjuweit et al.,
2019; Li et al., 2019). This technology also leads to the appearance of
small and geographically distributed factories that produce smaller
batch sizes closer to the service locations, thus reducing delivery times
(Kurpjuweit et al., 2019; Li et al., 2019). Therefore, the reduction of
physical flows and the need for fewer components to produce products
can help mitigate problems related to demand unpredictability and
result in shorter lead times (Kurpjuweit et al., 2019; Li et al., 2019).
In the ASC context, Additive Manufacturing can complement con­
ventional manufacturing and it is useful, precisely, for low-to-medium
production volumes and high-variety production (Kurpjuweit et al.,
2019; Li et al., 2019). However, due to the digital nature of Additive
Manufacturing supply chains, there is concern about risks related to the
inter-organizational adoption of Additive Manufacturing processes (e.g.,
vulnerabilities to data theft, potential IP infringements, and an increased
risk of fake products), which can threaten supply chain agility (Kurp­
juweit et al., 2019).
4.2.2.6. Blockchain in ASC. Blockchain allows trading partners to share
information such as design-related documents and transaction data, as
well as to integrate other supply chain processes more quickly and more
reliably (Sheel & Nath, 2019). Hence, Blockchain prevents information
10
Computers & Industrial Engineering 167 (2022) 108000
asymmetries and provides greater visibility and agility in transactions
between supply chain members (Kurpjuweit et al., 2019; Sheel & Nath,
2019). Unlike traditional analog contracts, smart Blockchain contracts
can be self-executing. They can operate autonomously and automati­
cally without the need for intermediating institutions (e.g., in automated
payments), thus eliminating delays that would slow down the supply
chain. When there is digital trust between partners, this logic can reduce
or eliminate payment gaps and so provide supply chain agility (Kurp­
juweit et al., 2019; Sheel & Nath, 2019).
Blockchain can improve agility in manufacturing activities by
bringing automation with smart contracts and facilitating the exchange
of documents between supply chain partners (Kurpjuweit et al., 2019;
Sheel & Nath, 2019). More specifically, Blockchain can support and
improve security and monitoring issues related to additive
manufacturing processes such as intellectual property (IP) rights man­
agement, the monitoring of printed parts throughout their lifecycle, and
data security (Kurpjuweit et al., 2019)
Furthermore, Blockchain can facilitate processes such as demand
forecasting and inventory management by enabling better traceability of
inventory items and greater accuracy of information flows along the
supply chain, which in turn can lead to better delivery capabilities and
increase customer satisfaction (Kurpjuweit et al., 2019; Sheel & Nath,
2019).
However, issues such as a lack of understanding of the benefits and
impacts of Blockchain and the lack of qualified specialists are major
barriers that contribute to a low adoption rate (Kurpjuweit et al., 2019;
Sheel & Nath, 2019).
4.2.3. Generic approach to the role and implications of IDT of I4.0 and
ASC
Articles included in this research line are characterized by analyses
of the impact and relationships between IDT of Industry 4.0 and ASC in
general terms, without specifically analyzing any particular type of
technology on its own. Two research sublines were identified in this
research line: (1) Capabilities generated by IDT of 4.0, and (2) Drivers,
and barriers of the relationship between IDT of I4.0 and ASC.
4.2.3.1. Capabilities generated by IDT of I4.0. The effective use of IDT
can generate different capabilities that contribute to supply chain agil­
ity, such as IT integration and IT flexibility (Ngai et al., 2011). In this
sense, it has been found that an organization’s use of IT for sharing,
coordinating, and integrating information both between its own de­
partments and with its supply chain (IT integration) facilitates demand
forecasting, monitoring of the production process, and collaborative
decision making and improves supply chain agility (Bargshady et al.,
2016; Chen, 2019; Chen & Chiang, 2011; Far et al., 2017; García-Alcaraz
et al., 2019; Malekifar et al., 2014; Ngai et al., 2011; Samizadeh et al.,
2019). Further, in addition to contributing to a smooth flow of infor­
mation, IT integration also speeds up the physical and financial flows of
the supply chain (Ngai et al., 2011).
In a similar vein, IT flexibility, which refers to the ability of IT sys­
tems to adapt to changes in the shortest possible time and with the least
cost and effort, is also referred to as an ASC enabler (Bargshady et al.,
2016; Malekifar et al., 2014; Motadel et al., 2011; Ngai et al., 2011;
Qrunfleh & Tarafdar, 2014). Thus, IT flexibility has a positive impact on
ASC by addressing any sudden market changes and enabling the SC to
respond at the most appropriate time. For example, the Spanish com­
pany, Zara, known for its rapid design, production, and worldwide de­
livery of clothes, uses flexible applications to collect and analyze
customer data and exchange information between suppliers, which en­
ables the firm to adapt its production to market trends and execute its
ASC strategy (Ferdows et al., 2004; Qrunfleh & Tarafdar, 2014).
Therefore, both capabilities are important for increasing supply
chain agility. A supply chain can use different sets of IDT to develop
integration or flexibility according to its needs. It is indisputable that IT
D. Oliveira-Dias et al.
human resources play a major role in this by configuring the appropriate
IT applications (Bi et al., 2013; Dehgani & Navimipour, 2019).
4.2.3.2. Drivers, and barriers of the relationship between IDT of I4.0 and
ASC. A variety of studies have confirmed that the generic use of IDT of
I4.0 has a direct and positive impact on ASC (e.g., DeGroote & Marx,
2013; García-Alcaraz et al., 2017; Kabra & Ramesh, 2016; Kumar et al.,
2017;Vagnoni & Khoddami, 2016). However, some studies indicate that
the impact of the use of IDT on ASC is indirect, through the development
across the supply chain of other capabilities related to coordination
processes, such as SC integration, SC collaboration, and SC flexibility (Bi
et al., 2013; Liu et al., 2013; Paulraj & Chen, 2007; Samdantsoodol et al.,
2017; Swafford et al., 2008).
Therefore, to achieve agility, firms should not only invest in IDT, but
also in improving other supply chain capabilities. In fact, some findings
indicate that for IDT to be successfully implemented in the context of
ASC, the latter needs to be properly configured with the support of inter-
organizational integration and coordination (Mathiyalakan, 2006; Tan
et al., 2017; Vickery et al., 2010). Firms must have well-established
processes to effectively operate their IDT infrastructure and rapidly
implement the applications required to support agile practices (Ding
et al., 2012; Qrunfleh et al., 2012), on the contrary, the use of IDT can
adversely impact rather than improve supply chain agility (Ding et al.,
2012; Mathiyalakan, 2006). It has also been observed that a special
focus on organizational culture is essential to achieve the effective use of
IDT and coordination in the supply chain (Malekifar et al., 2014; Russell
& Swanson, 2019). Hence, managers must create a new mindset in
companies, with employees encouraged to learn and trust in the regular
use of technology (Russell & Swanson, 2019).
In short, some antecedents or drivers such as the willingness to share
information between supply chain partners and the proper integration of
supply chain flows are essential to improve supply chain agility (Bi et al.,
2013; Minami et al., 2012). Further, supply chains need to be flexible
and have the ability to identify and incorporate new relevant
knowledge.
On the other hand, some barriers such as a lack of knowledge or a
narrow view of technology, resistance to change, a lack of mutual trust
between partners and a lack of IDT alignment in the supply chain will
inhibit the positive outcomes of the IDT adoption on supply chain agility
(Mathiyalakan, 2006; Radke & Tseng, 2015; Russell & Swanson, 2019).
4.3. Identified gaps and paths for future research
The previous subsections have analyzed and synthesized the litera­
ture on IDT of I4.0 and the ASC context to identify the object of study in
this research area. So, the analysis enables the proposal of lines for
future research based on the research gaps detected in the main RLs.
4.3.1. Research gaps and future research in RL1
The role of mature IDT of I4.0 in enabling ASC is the most addressed
topic in the literature. However, some questions remain unexplored.
Limited attention has been paid to studying how each mature IDT can
enable specific agile processes and contribute to overcoming the main
barriers to increasing agility in the supply chain. Also, new studies could
be conducted into understanding how mature IDT can impact upstream
and downstream operations and how they affect supply chain agility.
Furthermore, in general, few studies focus on understanding how
mature IDT can support the adoption of emerging technologies and how
they can complement each other or how to balance the trade-offs be­
tween them for the shift to a more agile supply chain (e.g., Maqueira
et al., 2019), for example, the integration of ERP systems and Cloud
Computing and the joint use of AMT and AI solutions or IoT technolo­
gies. In this sense, the interactions between mature (AMT) and emerging
IDT (IoT, AI) are giving rise to smart factories and cyber-physical sys­
tems (CPS) with automated processes between suppliers and customers.
11
Computers & Industrial Engineering 167 (2022) 108000
Since CPS are considered to be one of the main concepts of Industry 4.0,
more studies are necessary in the field of the role that CPS play in supply
chain agility. Researchers are encouraged to exploit these issues by
combining qualitative methods like case studies and quantitative ap­
proaches. Researchers would then be able to establish roadmaps to guide
managers in the best use of mature and emerging IDT on the supply
chain level.
4.3.2. Research gaps and future research in RL2
Despite the recent interest in emerging IDT of I4.0, studies that
address the benefits and challenges of the adoption of these IDT and
their contribution to ASC are still in their early stages. There is a lack of
understanding about the role of other technologies such as virtual or
augmented reality, advanced and collaborative robots (CObots) and
cybersecurity. Virtual and augmented reality could increase supply
chain agility by speeding up warehousing activities and learning about
logistics processes (e.g., DHL, 2019). The application of advanced and
collaborative robots would also improve the agility of manufacturing
and logistics processes such as picking and packing. However, some
associated challenges have to be addressed, such as legal restrictions,
security, and safety issues.
There are also very few papers that investigate the role of Blockchain
and Additive Manufacturing in increasing the agility of the supply chain.
However, the benefits and challenges of their adoption on the supply
chain level are multiple (e.g., Azzi et al., 2019; Yılmaz, 2020). As the
level of adoption of these technologies is generally still low, alternatives
for future research would be qualitative approaches, such as focus
groups with experts and case studies. In this sense, researchers could
inform practitioners about the best practices on the internal and supply
chain levels. Another alternative is to conduct empirical survey studies
of IT professionals. This would help by giving companies advance notice
of which process each (or each group of) IDT of I4.0 could be valuable
for. In the future, it would also be interesting to investigate the joint
effect of three emerging IDT of I4.0 that usually work together in the
supply chain to provide agility: IoT, Cloud Computing, and Big Data,
which have been called base technologies of I4.0 (Frank et al., 2019).
Furthermore, new studies could investigate “soft” aspects of the emer­
gent IDT adoption and Human Resources relationship, such as techno­
logical change, resistance to change, and need for leadership in the ASC
context (e.g., Mandal, 2018).
4.3.3. Research gaps and future research in RL3
Further studies should be conducted in this research line to analyze
how the integration of ASC practices (e.g., virtualization, customer
sensitivity, process integration) and Industry 4.0 principles (e.g.,
modularity, interoperability, decentralization) supported by IDT of I4.0
can lead to the supply chain digital transition. The analyzed articles have
mostly focused on the way that IDT of I4.0 supports ASC. However, new
studies should deepen the research into the main barriers, enablers, and
best practices for a digital transition in the supply chain.
Another important current supply chain issue is minimizing the
consumption of finite resources. In this regard, new studies could
investigate the links between the Circular Economy, IDT of I4.0, and
ASC. Researchers could identify synergies, challenges, and trade-offs
related to these topics and provide guidelines for managers to support
sustainable, technological, and market-oriented supply chain
management.
5. IDT of I4.0 and agile supply chain 4.0 model
The analysis of the above sections enables the proposal of a repre­
sentative model of the role of IDT of I4.0 in ASC. Fig. 5 presents the
proposed model.
The model in Fig. 5 groups IDT into mature and emerging IDT and
shows how each IDT positively impacts the speed of physical (PHY) or
logistics flows, information flows (INF), financial flows (FIN) or cash-
D. Oliveira-Dias et al. Computers & Industrial Engineering 167 (2022) 108000

PHYSICAL FLOW SPEED

INFORMATION FLOW SPEED
Supports systems for decision-making Improves localiza on and tracking capabili es
FINANCIAL FLOW SPEED
Op mizes inventory management Op mizes preven ve maintenance
SERVICE FLOW SPEED
Automa on of e-procurement ac vi es Improves informa on-sharing and collabora on
Enables smart automa on of customer Provides real- me informa on to improve decision-
Supports collabora on between SC
service making
partners in manufacturing
Enables smart manufacturing Reduces order me
Simulates different produc on scenarios
Enables route op miza on
Facilitates real- me analysis for planning
and scheduling produc on
ARTIFICIAL Provide fast and efficient informa on handling
INTELLIGENCE Enable end-to-end real- me informa on
Inventory control, shipping and Monitor SC ac vi es and detect atypical events
traceability Iden fy customer need trends
AMT IoT An cipate SC trends
Real- me automated data collec on to
support decision-making Support demand and material planning
Real- me informa on-sharing with SC RFID BIG DATA Assist strategic decisions based on history and
partners predic ons
CLOUD
Integra on between SC partners COMPUTING Integra on of data and IT applica ons with partners
Material planning Enables real- me data access for all SC members
Automa c release of customer/work Scales IT resources up and down
ERP Improves ability to rapidly employ IT applica ons
orders
Collabora on between SC partners Accelerates comple on of computer tasks
E-BUS. BLOCKCHAIN Enables communica on between different actors’ ERP
TECHNOLOGIES Performs cloud manufacturing
Enable horizontal/ver cal SC integra on ADDITIVE Supports Big Data analy cs and IoT data management
Provide real- me coordina on MANUFACTURING
Provide asynchronous coordina on Integrates supply chain processes quickly and reliably
Support planning collabora on among Shares informa on between supply chain partners
stakeholders Enables agile produc on of spare parts Establishes smart contracts
Improve loca on, evalua on, and selec on Increases efficiency of spare parts Enables traceability of inventory items
of suppliers inventory Increases accuracy of the informa on flow
Support the forma on and evalua on of SC Enables rapid prototyping throughout the SC
Automated cost-effec ve management of Facilitates higher levels of customiza on Supports and improves security in addi ve
SC processes Enables decentralized manufacturing
manufacturing processes

MATURE IDT OF INDUSTRY 4.0 EMERGING IDT OF INDUSTRY 4.0

Provider FOCAL FIRM Customer

network network

PHYSICAL FLOW SPEED

AGILE INFORMATION FLOW SPEED

SUPPLY
FINANCIAL FLOW SPEED
CHAIN
SERVICE FLOW SPEED

Increasing
SENSE RESPOND

Fig. 5. Agile Supply Chain 4.0 model. Source: Prepared by authors.

12
D. Oliveira-Dias et al. Computers & Industrial Engineering 167 (2022) 108000

flow, and service flows (SER). These are the flows that make up a focal
firm’s supply chain and its two-way supplier and customer networks,
both of which could be located in the global context.
The figure also shows a series of key performance indicators (KPIs)
used in the literature to measure the impact of the Agile Supply Chain.
These indicators were grouped based on the sense and respond per­
spectives and depending on the flow to be analyzed (physical, infor­
mation, financial, or service).
KPIs related to the ability to sense are used to assess the focal firm’s
ability to capture relevant information from the business environment
such as inventory management data (physical flow), efficiency of fore­
casting activities (information flow), payment incident rate (financial
flow), and customer satisfaction (service flow). The indicators related to
the ability to respond aim to reflect the ability of the focal company to
streamline supply chain processes to cope with demand. Thus, this
second group of KPIs provides information about delivery speed capa­
bility (physical flow), automation of alerts or notifications (information
flow), resolution of financial incidents (financial flow), and the fre­
quency of new product/service introduction (service flow) (See Fig. 5 for
a complete list).
Furthermore, the findings presented in the previous section confirm
that IDT of I4.0 can act as an enabler of the ASC by improving the speed
of the supply chain flows and, consequently, the ability to sense and
respond to market changes and customer demands. This can be observed
in Table 5. Based on the results of the analysis, the table gives an
overview of the applications for each mature and emerging IDT of I4.0. It

Table 5
Applications of IDT of I4.0 and impact on ASC abilities and flows.
IDT of I4.0 Overview of applications ASC abilities ASC flows

Sense Respond PHY INF FIN SER

Mature IDT RFID Inventory control, shipping and traceability ● ● ● ●

Real-time automated data collection to support decision-making ● ● ● ● ●
Real-time information-sharing with supply chain partners ● ● ● ●
ERP Integration between supply chain partners ● ● ● ●
Material planning ● ● ●
Automatic release of customer orders and work orders ● ●
Collaboration between supply chain partners ● ● ●
AMT Supports collaboration between supply chain partners in manufacturing ● ● ● ●
processes
Simulates different production scenarios ● ● ● ●
Facilitates real-time analysis for planning and scheduling production ● ● ● ● ●
E-Business web Enable horizontal/vertical supply chain integration ● ● ● ●
technologies Provide real-time (synchronous) coordination ● ● ● ●
Provide asynchronous coordination ● ● ●
Support planning collaboration among stakeholders ● ● ●
Improve location, evaluation, and selection of suppliers ● ●
Support the formation and evaluation of supply chains ● ●
Automated cost-effective management of supply chain processes (orders, ● ● ● ● ● ●
payments, etc)
Emerging AI Supports systems for decision-making ● ● ●
IDT Optimizes inventory management ● ● ●
Automation of e-procurement activities ● ●
Enables smart automation of customer service ● ● ●
Enables smart manufacturing ● ● ● ●
IoT Improves localization and tracking capabilities ● ● ● ●
Optimizes preventive maintenance ● ● ●
Improves information-sharing and collaboration ● ● ● ●
Provides real-time information collection to improve decision- making ● ● ● ● ●
Reduces order time ● ● ●
Enable route optimization ● ● ● ●
Cloud Computing Integration of data and IT applications with partners ● ● ● ●
Enables real-time data access for all the parties involved in the supply chain ● ●
Scales IT resources up and down ● ● ●
Improves the ability to rapidly employ IT applications ● ● ●
Accelerates completion of computer tasks ● ● ● ●
Enables communication between different actors’ ERP systems ● ● ●
Performs cloud manufacturing ● ● ● ●
Supports big data analytics and IoT data management ● ● ●
Big Data Provide fast and efficient information handling ● ● ● ●
Enable end-to-end real-time information ● ● ● ●
Monitor supply chain activities and detect atypical events ● ● ●
Identify customer need trends ● ● ●
Anticipate supply chain trends ● ● ●
Support demand and material planning ● ● ●
Assist strategic decisions based on history and predictions ● ● ● ●
Additive Manufacturing Enables agile production of spare parts ● ● ●
Increases efficiency of spare parts inventory management ● ●
Enables rapid prototyping ● ● ●
Facilitates higher levels of customization ● ● ●
Enables decentralized manufacturing ● ● ●
Blockchain Integrates supply chain processes quickly and reliably ● ● ●
Shares information between supply chain partners ● ●
Establishes smart contracts ● ● ● ●
Enables traceability of inventory items ● ● ●
Increases the accuracy of the information flow throughout the supply chain ● ●
Supports and improves security in additive manufacturing processes ● ● ● ● ●

13
D. Oliveira-Dias et al.
also shows whether the applications are mainly related to the ASC
ability to sense or the ASC ability to respond, or even to both abilities. In
this regard, applications related to the ability to sense are those that help
supply chains to capture data on market changes and communicate them
across the supply chain (Calatayud et al., 2019; DeGroote & Marx,
2013). In contrast, applications associated with the ability to respond
support the development and execution of collaborative plans among
supply chain partners to accelerate supply chain processes and respond
to changes in the market (Calatayud et al., 2019; DeGroote & Marx,
2013). The table also shows whether the applications individually
generate impacts on the different supply chain flows (physical, infor­
mation, financial, and service). It is important to stress that this table
does not aim to be exhaustive but it does, nonetheless, provide reason­
able insights as it covers the foremost examples identified in the
literature.
According to Table 5, mature I4.0 technologies such as RFID and e-
business web technology have a positive effect on the supply chain’s
sense and respond abilities. In the case of mature ERP and AMT tech­
nologies, the literature mainly deals with applications related to the
ability to respond to market changes. In the case of emerging IDT of I4.0,
Big Data applications support new ways of sensing market changes and
help to respond to customer needs. AI can help to reduce manufacturing
lead times and improve responsiveness to changing market needs. The
literature on IoT and Cloud Computing is incipient but promises in­
creases to supply chain agility. The use of IoT applications can improve
supply chain visibility and enable faster decision-making. Cloud
Computing is a good support tool for integrating supply chain partners
and enabling coordination to respond to customer requirements. Addi­
tive Manufacturing also has high potential, especially to improve the
respond ability and Blockchain has the potential to improve both sense
and respond abilities. However, the Additive Manufacturing and
Blockchain applications that address supply chain challenges are still in
their early stages.
A reasonable number of applications have been identified regarding
the speed of the physical flow. RFID and AMT stand out in the group of
mature IDT due to their potential to improve the connectivity between
supply chain partners to manage the storage and transportation of ma­
terials and products by improving inventory control, shipping, trace­
ability, route optimization, and improving the speed of production.
Similarly, emerging IDT such as IoT and Additive Manufacturing are the
most important technologies to increase the speed of material/product
flow. The literature on information flows shows that the vast majority of
mature and emerging IDT can help to increase the speed of information
exchange. The applications are related to the different supply chain
processes such as planning, procurement, and production. In the case of
the financial flow, only a few applications emerge from the literature.
The most significant example is the use of blockchain to speed up pay­
ment processes. Finally, regarding the service flow, all mature and
emerging IDT have applications with the ability to add value in terms of
delivering a faster service tailored to customer needs. Appendix A pre­
sents a summary of the relationships between each of the mature and
emerging IDT and the speed of the supply chain flows according to the
article included in the SLR.
Another of this paper’s contributions is to show that, in some cases,
the role of some technologies in isolation does not have an impact on
ASC (e.g., traditional ERP), while in other cases it needs to be com­
plemented with other IDT to achieve a powerful impact on ASC (e.g., the
joint adoption of IoT, Big Data, and Cloud Computing). The comple­
mentarity between some mature and emerging IDT of I4.0 can be also
highlighted. The study indicates that the benefits of ERP systems can be
enhanced with Cloud Computing support as ERP modules provided as
SaaS (software as a service) are more flexible and agile than traditional
ERP systems. Moreover, by applying different solutions, AI can automate
e-business web technologies. RFID is broadly recognized to be one of the
enabling technologies that support IoT applications. Furthermore, by
analyzing the literature on emerging IDT of I4.0 and ASC this study also
14
Computers & Industrial Engineering 167 (2022) 108000
shows that combining these technologies can provide a variety of novel
solutions for improving supply chain agility.
It is also important to highlight that several challenges are related to
the digital transition of supply chains. Some challenges such as technical
complexity, security, and trust issues, and high IDT costs are usually
highlighted as major concerns in the literature (e.g., Kurpjuweit et al.,
2019; Mathiyalakan, 2006; Scholten et al., 2010). In addition, some of
the benefits of adopting emerging technologies can only be capitalized
on if the majority of suppliers and customers also adopt the technolo­
gies. In this sense, the lack of alignment could give rise to problems of
visibility and, consequently, may reduce supply chain agility (Radke &
Tseng, 2015; Tarafdar & Qrunfleh, 2017).
6. Conclusions
This study develops a framework that classifies the literature on IDT
of I4.0 and ASC (123 papers) according to the Technology Life Cycle.
Some IDT of I4.0 have been found to have been more explored than
others. Although the role of mature IDT of I4.0 in supporting the
implementation of agile practices in the supply chain has been addressed
more extensively than the role of emerging IDT of I4.0, papers in both
research lines have been published intensively in the last years.
Furthermore, IDT are also addressed in a generic approach to the ca­
pabilities derived from IDT I4.0 and the drivers and barriers of their use
for IDT of I4.0 to impact on ASC, which gives rise to the third research
line analyzed.
The literature on mature IDT of I4.0 and ASC (RL1) confirms that for
the main part, IDT such as AMT, RFID, and e-business web technologies
play an important role in increasing supply chain agility. These tech­
nologies support the execution of basic processes that enable greater
supply chain integration and visibility. On the other hand, findings on
emerging IDT of I4.0 (RL2) expand the variety of solutions to improve
ASC with a range of methods and sophisticated approaches. Considering
these findings, it is impossible to state which emerging technology has
the greatest influence on ASC. Instead, what emerges is that some can
play different roles. For example, Big Data applications are especially
useful for sensing market changes and Additive Manufacturing can
mainly affect the respond ability by improving delivery capabilities or
reducing development cycle times. Just as importantly, the combination
of different types of IDT can provide synergies that improve supply chain
agility. Further, from a generic perspective (RL3), the literature ad­
dresses the role of IDT capabilities, in addition to the role of supply chain
capabilities such as supply chain integration and supply chain flexibility.
The main findings of this work revolve around the following aspects:
• Both mature and emerging IDT can enhance supply chain agility by
improving abilities to sense and respond to market changes and
customer demands.
• The proper integration of mature and emerging IDT is a key element
for the development of agile supply chains.
• With the support of mature and emerging IDT, supply chains can
increase the speed of physical, information, financial, and service
flows.
• The adoption of emerging technologies can lead to positive outcomes
but the challenges and even negative effects should not be
underestimated.
• Indicators related to the supply chain flows and sense and respond
abilities can be used to evaluate the supply chain’s performance and
steer it toward an ASC 4.0 model.
6.1. Academic implications
A comparison of the findings of this review with the results of the
impact of IDT of I4.0 on LSC noted by Núñez-Merino et al. (2020)
highlights that, in general terms, IDT of I4.0 have a strong impact on the
D. Oliveira-Dias et al.
deployment of both strategies (LSC and ASC). It is also possible to
highlight findings in the literature that some mature IDT such as e-
business web technologies, RFID and AMT influence both supply chain
flexibility (LSC) (Núñez-Merino et al., 2020) and agility (ASC). This is a
major finding and coincides with the prior literature that determines
that flexibility is an antecedent of agility (Swafford et al., 2008). How­
ever, the literature also shows that other mature IDT such as Bar Code
Systems are only related to SC flexibility (e.g., Abernathy et al., 2000),
which implies that companies seeking agility in their supply chains
should replace these specific IDT with others that fulfill a similar func­
tion, such as RFID.
In the case of the emerging IDT and, more specifically, of a set of IDT
that is being widely adopted by companies, such as Cloud Computing,
Big Data, AI, and IoT, several pieces of the literature show that these
technologies impact both of these strategies (Giannakis & Louis, 2016;
Hofmann & Rüsch, 2017). Once again, the main implication of these
findings is that the use of these emerging IDT enables both flexibility and
agility to be achieved, so their deployment throughout the supply chain
is highly advisable. In contrast, other emerging IDT such as Virtual
Reality and Autonomous Vehicles to date have only been found to be
related to flexibility (e.g., Li et al., 2018), whereas the roles of Additive
Manufacturing and Blockchain—addressed in this review—are related
to agility (ASC) and have not been explored in the area of Lean strategy
in the supply chain. In other respects, findings on obsolete IDT, such as
in the specific case of Electronic Data Interchange (EDI), show that these
can help to achieve flexibility-related objectives (e.g., Abernathy et al.,
2000) but are not related to SC agility. In short, these findings reveal the
particularities of the role and the effect of the various IDT of I4.0 on the
two strategies and their main implications.
Furthermore, study provides an overview of the extant literature on
this topic that can be used by researchers to quickly locate relevant
material and future research topics.
6.2. Practical implications
From a practical point-of-view, this research offers managers an
overview of IDT of I4.0 applications and their impacts on supply chain
agility. So, this work will help managers to identify which IDT of I4.0
can make their supply chains agile. Thus, managers of companies pur­
suing an ASC strategy will be able to adopt certain technologies to
achieve their goals. Managers must be aware that obsolete IDT of I4.0
such as legacy systems do not provide the supply chain with agility, so
they must be replaced by other mature or emerging technologies if they
want to achieve ASC. They must also understand that RFID, AMT, and e-
business web technologies are the mature IDT of I4.0 that can give the
supply chain agility. In addition, all these technologies can be used for
sense and respond. Managers also need to know that the speed of
physical supply chain flows can be increased by mature technologies
such as RFID, ERP, and AMT and that RFID, ERP, AMT, and e-business
web technologies accelerate information and service flows. However,
the speed of financial flows is improved by only one of the mature
technologies: e-business web technologies.
Managers should also be aware that in the group of emerging IDT of
I4.0, AI, IoT, Cloud Computing, Big Data, 3D printing, and blockchain all
provide the supply chain with agility. Three emerging IDT of I4.0 that
are generally shown to achieve agility together deserve special atten­
tion: IoT, Cloud Computing, and Big Data. These technologies have been
called base technologies of I4.0 by some authors (Frank et al., 2019) as
they are critical for the objectives of effectiveness and efficiency pursued
by I4.0. All emerging technologies (I4.0, AI, IoT, Cloud Computing, Big
Data, 3D printing, and blockchain) can provide greater speed to the
physical, information, and service flows in the supply chain. However,
the only emerging IDT that influences the speed of financial flows in the
supply chain is blockchain. According to a McKinsey study, the appli­
cation of emerging IDT of I4.0 on the supply chain level could reduce
operational costs by 30 percent, decrease lost sales and inventories to an
15
Computers & Industrial Engineering 167 (2022) 108000
enormous extent and simultaneously boost supply chain agility (Alicke
et al., 2016). Therefore, the use of AI, IoT, Cloud Computing, Big Data,
3D printing, and blockchain will influence the achievement of ASC-
related objectives in companies and, at the same time, decrease oper­
ating costs and inventories, while simultaneously achieving faster
physical, information, and service flows in the supply chain.
Taking together the previous findings on Lean Supply Chain (Núñez-
Merino et al., 2020) and the findings of this work, companies should
intensify their use of mature IDT—especially e-business web technolo­
gies, RFID, and AMT—in their supply chains to make them flexible and
agile. This is in line with the prior literature, which finds that flexibility
is an antecedent of agility (Swafford et al., 2008). The main implication
of this is that if companies were to make intensive use of mature IDT in
their supply chains, they would achieve flexibility in the first instance
and that this would be essential for them to achieve agility in the second
instance
Managers will also learn from this work how, from a generic
perspective, IDT of I4.0 enable certain capabilities that are essential to
achieve ASC. Thus, they facilitate demand forecasting, monitoring of the
production process, and collaborative decision making (IT integration),
and also enable to address any sudden market changes and the SC to
respond at the most appropriate time (IT flexibility). In this sense, it will
be important for companies to develop certain capabilities provided by
IDT of I4.0 to achieve ASC, such as SC integration, SC collaboration, and
SC flexibility.
Table 5 and the ASC 4.0 (Fig. 5) model highlight a group of IDT of
I4.0 that can be used to improve supply chain sense and respond abilities
and to improve the speed of supply chain flows. The model would also
enable managers to identify the most appropriate monitoring indicators
to be able to set targets based on the past record or to set targets for
improvements depending on the type of flow and capacity.
Furthermore, it is clear from this study that the digital transition to
an ASC 4.0 is in its early stages. However, some technologies such as e-
business web technologies and AMT have been adopted by supply chains
since the 2000 s. Therefore, learning from the adoption of these mature
technologies is one way to facilitate the successful implementation of
emerging technologies throughout the supply chain.
Managers can also learn from the experiences of successful cases to
benchmark potential applications and the impact of adopting emerging
technologies to support the ASC strategy. For example, Zara has a global
supply chain acting both in emerging and developed economies with
support from emerging technologies such as Cloud Computing and Big
Data and implements a series of activities that allow the development of
agile supply chain practices. These practices enable the company to
produce new designs every week and sell them all around the world. In
this sense, this study has gone some way towards enhancing our un­
derstanding of the benefits, potential challenges, and impacts of the
implementation of mature and emerging Industry 4.0 technologies.
Managers could use the information in this paper as a starting point for
developing their initiatives and enhancing the agility and competitive­
ness of their supply chains. If Industry 4.0 enabling technologies (mature
and emerging) and ASC strategy practices are effectively employed,
companies will obtain the benefits of the synergy between digitalization
and market-oriented supply chain management.
6.3. Limitations and further research
Regarding limitations, it should be noted that, as can be the case with
any SLR, our search strategy may have missed or excluded some refer­
ences related to the area (e.g., works not indexed in the three selected
databases, articles that do not contain certain specific keywords).
However, restricting the search to the selected databases could be
considered a minor limitation, as the databases that were used have
wide coverage in the field. Moreover, the use of various databases re­
duces publication bias, while the involvement of a group of researchers
for the choice of search keywords and the selection of articles reduces
D. Oliveira-Dias et al. Computers & Industrial Engineering 167 (2022) 108000

the subjectivity of single researcher bias (Thomé et al., 2016). Another
limitation might be the subjectivity of the paper classification. However,
the established SLR steps and previously used classification taxonomies
have been used to mitigate this limitation. In addition, article classifi­
cation was agreed upon by a group of researchers.
Future papers with a similar focus to this work could continue to dig
deeper into the role that IDT of I4.0 play in other supply chain strategies.
It would be especially interesting to analyze the contribution that they
make in the resilient supply chain and the Green supply chain. This new
research could use the same methodology (SLR) and the same classifi­
cation criterion (TLC) as the present paper and the previous work by
Nuñez-Merino et al. (2020) to offer, in conjunction with these two
studies, a full overview of the role that IDT of I4.0 play in supply chain
strategies that can be used as alternatives or to complement one another.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Diéssica Oliveira-Dias: Conceptualization, Methodology, Investi­
gation, Writing – original draft. Juan M. Maqueira-Marín:
Conceptualization, Methodology, Validation, Writing – review & edit­
ing. José Moyano-Fuentes: Conceptualization, Methodology, Valida­
tion, Writing – review & editing.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgement
The authors acknowledge the financial support of Spanish Ministry
of Science, Innovation and Universities (Research Project PID2019-
106577GB-I00 by MCIN/AEI/10.13039/501100011033), UJA-FEDER
Andalusian Operational Program (Research Project 1261128) and
Andalusian Plan for Research, Development and Innovation-PAIDI 2020
(Research Project P20-00794).

Appendix A. . Impact of IDT on ASC flows by article

RL IDT of I4.0 Papers PHY INF FIN SER

Mature IDT RFID Azevedo & Carvalho (2012) ● ● ●

Aggarwal & Lim (2013) ● ● ●
Butcher (2007) ● ● ●
Chan et al. (2015) ● ● ●
Cheng (2007) ● ● ●
Cheung et al. (2012) ● ● ●
Hwang & Rho (2016) ● ● ●
Nabelsi & Gagnon (2016) ● ● ●
Shahin et al. (2016) ● ● ●
Yan et al. (2014) ● ● ●
Zhu et al. (2012) ● ● ●
ERP Almahamid & Hourani (2015) ●
Al-Nimer (2019) ●
Auramo et al. (2005) ● ●
Banerjee (2015) ●
Chiarini & Vagnoni (2017)
Ivanov & Teich (2012) ●
Ponis & Spanos (2009) ●
Seethamraju (2014) ●
Sharma & Shah (2015) ● ● ●
AMT Boughzala et al. (2014) ● ●
Chae et al. (2007) ● ● ●
Dallasega et al. (2019) ● ● ●
Dotoli et al. (2006) ● ●
Forget et al. (2008) ● ● ●
Ghobakhloo & Azar (2018a) ● ●
Huang et al. (2000) ● ●
Montreuil et al. (2000) ● ● ●
Panichayakorn & Jermsittiparsert (2019) ● ● ●
Setia et al. (2008) ● ● ●
Shamsuzzoha & Helo (2010) ● ● ●
Wallace et al. (2006) ● ●
E-Business web technologies Ahn et al. (2012) ● ●
Almahamid & Hourani (2015) ●
Ameri & Dutta (2008) ● ●
Ameri & McArthur (2013) ● ●
Ameri & McArthur (2014) ● ●
Ameri & Patil (2012) ● ●
Auramo et al. (2005) ● ● ●
Bicocchi et al. (2019) ● ● ●
Cândido et al. (2009) ● ●
Giannakis & Louis (2016) ● ● ●
Helo et al. (2006) ● ● ●
Holmqvist & Pessi (2006) ● ● ● ●
Huang et al. (2000) ●
Iskanius & Helaakoski (2009) ●
Ivanov & Teich (2012) ● ●
Janssen & Feenstra (2010) ● ●
Kovács & Kot (2017) ● ●
(continued on next page)

16
D. Oliveira-Dias et al. Computers & Industrial Engineering 167 (2022) 108000

(continued )
RL IDT of I4.0 Papers PHY INF FIN SER

Kovács (2017) ● ●
Kristianto et al. (2011) ● ● ●
Liu & Yan (2006) ● ● ● ●
Lo et al. (2008) ● ●
Moynihan & Dai (2011) ● ●
Mustafid et al. (2018) ● ●
Nallusamy et al. (2015) ●
Oh et at. (2019)
Pavlou & Vlachopoulou (2008) ● ●
Radke & Tseng (2015) ●
Rasouli (2019) ●
Ribeiro et al. (2009) ● ●
Seethamraju (2014) ●
Shamsuzzoha & Helo (2010) ● ●
Sharma & Shah (2015) ● ● ● ●
Schonsleben (2000) ● ●
Tolone (2000) ●
Tuominen et al. (2008) ● ●
White et al. (2005) ● ● ●
Xu et al. (2003) ●
Yan et al. (2014) ● ● ●
Yusuf et al. (2004) ●
Emerging IDT AI Aggarwal & Lim (2013) ● ● ●
Ameri & Patil (2012) ● ●
Cheung et al. (2012) ● ● ●
Chibani et al. (2018) ●
Forget et al. (2008) ● ●
Giannakis & Louis (2016) ● ● ●
Jain et al. (2008) ●
Panichayakorn & Jermsittiparsert (2019) ● ● ●
Srinivasan (2007) ● ●
Wallace et al. (2006) ● ●
Yu et al. (2018) ● ● ●
IoT Alberti-Alhtaybat et al. (2019) ● ● ●
Bicocchi et al. (2019) ● ● ●
Yan et al. (2014) ● ● ●
Yerpude & Singhal (2017) ● ● ●
Cloud Computing Azevedo et al. (2012) ●
Liu et al. (2018) ● ●
Radke & Tseng (2015) ● ●
Schniederjans et al. (2016) ● ●
Sharma & Shah (2015) ● ●
Yan et al. (2014) ● ●
Yu et al. (2018) ● ● ●
Big Data Alberti-Alhtaybat et al. (2019) ●
Choi (2018) ●
Dubey et al. (2019) ● ●
Giannakis & Louis (2016) ● ● ●
Gunasekaran et al. (2017b) ● ●
Mandal (2018) ● ●
Mandal (2019b) ● ●
Pool et al. (2018) ●
Radke & Tseng (2015) ● ●
Sangari & Razmi (2015) ● ●
Wamba & Akter (2019) ● ●
Wamba et al. (2020) ● ●
Yan et al. (2014) ● ●
Additive Manuf. Kurpjuweit et al. (2019) ● ●
Li et al. (2019) ● ●
Blockchain Kurpjuweit et al. (2019) ● ● ●
Sheel & Nath (2019) ● ● ● ●

References
SLR References
Aggarwal, R., & Lim, M. K. (2013). Aligning physical and virtual logistical spheres with
radio-frequency identification and agent-based modelling. International Journal of
Agile Systems and Management, 6(1), 66–82.
Ahn, H. J., Childerhouse, P., Vossen, G., & Lee, H. (2012). Rethinking XML-enabled agile
supply chains. International Journal of Information Management, 32(1), 17–23.
Al-Nimer, M. (2019). Examining the mediating role of agile supply chain approach
between ERP system implementation and organizational performance. International
Journal of Supply Chain Management, 8(4), 107–118.
Alberti-Alhtaybat, L. V., Al-Htaybat, K., & Hutaibat, K. (2019). A knowledge
management and sharing business model for dealing with disruption: The case of
Aramex. Journal of Business Research, 94, 400–407.
Almahamid, S., & Hourani, A. (2015). An empirical study on the impacts of ERP system,
e-business technologies and organizational collaboration on supply chain agility: PLS
perspective. International Journal of Advanced Operations Management, 7(3), 229–254.
Ameri, F., & Dutta, D. (2008). A matchmaking methodology for supply chain deployment
in distributed manufacturing environments. Journal of Computing and Information
Science in Engineering, 8(1), Article 011002.

17
D. Oliveira-Dias et al.
Ameri, F., & McArthur, C. (2013). A multi-agent system for autonomous supply chain
configuration. International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 66(5–8),
1097–1112.
Ameri, F., & McArthur, C. (2014). Semantic rule modelling for intelligent supplier
discovery. International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing, 27(6),
570–590.
Ameri, F., & Patil, L. (2012). Digital manufacturing market: A semantic web-based
framework for agile supply chain deployment. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, 23
(5), 1817–1832.
Auramo, J., Kauremaa, J., & Tanskanen, K. (2005). Benefits of IT in supply chain
management: An explorative study of progressive companies. International Journal of
Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 35(2), 82–100.
Azevedo, S. G., & Carvalho, H. (2012). Contribution of RFID technology to better
management of fashion supply chains. International Journal of Retail and Distribution
Management, 40(2), 128–156.
Azevedo, S., Prata, P., Fazendeiro, P., & Cruz-Machado, V. (2012). Assessment of Supply
Chain Agility in a Cloud Computing-based framework. Scalable Computing: Practice
and Experience, 13(4), 295–301.
Banerjee, A. (2015). Information technology enabled process re-engineering for supply
chain leagility. International Journal of Information Technology and Management, 14
(1), 60–75.
Bargshady, G., Zahraee, S. M., Ahmadi, M., & Parto, A. (2016). The effect of information
technology on the agility of the supply chain in the Iranian power plant industry.
Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 27(3), 427–442.
Bi, R., Davidson, R., Kam, B., & Smyrnios, K. (2013). Developing Organizational Agility
through IT and Supply Chain Capability. Journal of Global Information Management,
21(4), 38–55.
Bicocchi, N., Cabri, G., Mandreoli, F., & Mecella, M. (2019). Dynamic digital factories for
agile supply chains: An architectural approach. Journal of Industrial Information
Integration, 15, 111–121.
Boughzala, D., Nourelfath, M., Frayret, J. M., & Léger, F. (2014). Agility design and
deployment framework: Case of forest products industry. International Journal of
Agile Systems and Management, 7(1), 61.
Brusset, X. (2016). Does supply chain visibility enhance agility? International Journal of
Production Economics, 171, 46–59.
Butcher, T. (2007). Radio Frequency Identification: An enabler of agile supply chain
decision-making. International Journal of Agile Systems and Management, 2(3),
305–320.
Cândido, G., Barata, J., Colombo, A. W., & Jammes, F. (2009). SOA in reconfigurable
supply chains: A research roadmap. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence,
22(6), 939–949.
Chae, H., Choi, Y., & Kim, K. (2007). Component-based modeling of enterprise
architectures for collaborative manufacturing. International Journal of Advanced
Manufacturing Technology, 34(5–6), 605–616.
Chan, H. L., Choi, T. M., Hui, C. L., & Ng, S. F. (2015). Quick response healthcare apparel
supply chains: Value of RFID and coordination. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man,
and Cybernetics: Systems, 45(6), 887–900.
Chen, C. J. (2019). Developing a model for supply chain agility and innovativeness to
enhance firms’ competitive advantage. Management Decision, 57(7), 1511–1534.
Chen, W. H., & Chiang, A. H. (2011). Network agility as a trigger for enhancing firm
performance: A case study of a high-tech firm implementing the mixed channel
strategy. Industrial Marketing Management, 40(4), 643–651.
Cheng, L. C. (2007). Impacts of Radio Frequency Identification technology on logistics
performance in agile supply chain. International Journal of Agile Systems and
Management, 2(3), 278–304.
Cheung, C. F., Cheung, C. M., & Kwok, S. K. (2012). A Knowledge-based Customization
System for Supply Chain Integration. Expert Systems with Applications, 39(4),
3906–3924.
Chiarini, A., & Vagnoni, E. (2017). Strategies for modern operations management:
Answers from European manufacturing companies. Benchmarking, 24(4),
1065–1081.
Chibani, A., Delorme, X., Dolgui, A., & Pierreval, H. (2018). Dynamic optimisation for
highly agile supply chains in e-procurement context. International Journal of
Production Research, 56(17), 5904–5929.
Choi, T. M. (2018). Incorporating social media observations and bounded rationality into
fashion quick response supply chains in the big data era. Transportation Research Part
E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 114, 386–397.
Dallasega, P., Rojas, R. A., Bruno, G., & Rauch, E. (2019). An agile scheduling and control
approach in ETO construction supply chains. Computers in Industry, 112, Article
103122.
DeGroote, S. E., & Marx, T. G. (2013). The impact of IT on supply chain agility and firm
performance: An empirical investigation. International Journal of Information
Management, 33(6), 909–916.
Dehgani, R., & Jafari Navimipour, N. (2019). The impact of information technology and
communication systems on the agility of supply chain management systems.
Kybernetes, 48(10), 2217–2236.
Ding, M. J., Kam, B. H., & Lalwani, C. S. (2012). Operational routines and supply chain
competencies of Chinese logistics service providers. International Journal of Logistics
Management, 23(3), 383–407.
Dotoli, M., Fanti, M. P., Meloni, C., & Zhou, M. C. (2006). Design and optimization of
integrated e-supply chain for agile and environmentally conscious manufacturing.
IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics Part A: Systems and Humans, 36
(1), 62–75.
Dubey, R., Gunasekaran, A., & Childe, S. J. (2019). Big data analytics capability in supply
chain agility: The moderating effect of organizational flexibility. Management
Decision, 57(8), 2092–2112.
18
Computers & Industrial Engineering 167 (2022) 108000
Far, S. M., Akbari, M., & Clarke, S. (2017). The effect of IT integration on supply chain
agility towards market performance (a proposed study). Informing Science, 20,
99–117.
Forget, P., D’Amours, S., & Frayret, J. M. (2008). Multi-behavior agent model for
planning in supply chains: An application to the lumber industry. Robotics and
Computer-Integrated Manufacturing, 24(5), 664–679.
García-Alcaraz, J. L., Maldonado-Macías, A. A., Alor-Hernández, G., & Sánchez-
Ramírez, C. (2017). The impact of information and communication technologies
(ICT) on agility, operating, and economical performance of supply chain. Advances in
Production Engineering and Management, 12(1), 29–40.
García-Alcaraz, J. L., Martínez-Loya, V., Díaz-Reza, J. R., Blanco-Fernández, J., Jiménez-
Macías, E., & López, A. J. G. (2019). Effect of ICT integration on SC flexibility, agility
and company’ performance: The Mexican maquiladora experience. Wireless
Networks. in press.
Ghobakhloo, M., & Azar, A. (2018a). Business excellence via advanced manufacturing
technology and lean-agile manufacturing. Journal of Manufacturing Technology
Management, 29(1), 2–24.
Ghobakhloo, M., & Azar, A. (2018b). Information Technology Resources, the
Organizational Capability of Lean-Agile Manufacturing, and Business Performance.
Information Resources Management Journal, 31(2), 47–74.
Giannakis, M., & Louis, M. (2016). A multi-agent based system with big data processing
for enhanced supply chain agility. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 29
(5), 706–727.
Gunasekaran, A., Subramanian, N., & Papadopoulos, T. (2017a). Information technology
for competitive advantage within logistics and supply chains: A review.
Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 99, 14–33.
Gunasekaran, A., Yusuf, Y. Y., Adeleye, E. O., & Papadopoulos, T. (2017b). Agile
manufacturing practices: The role of big data and business analytics with multiple
case studies. International Journal of Production Research, 56(1–2), 385–397.
Gunasekaran, A., Yusuf, Y. Y., Adeleye, E. O., Papadopoulos, T., Kovvuri, D., &
Geyi, D. G. (2019). Agile manufacturing: An evolutionary review of practices.
International Journal of Production Research, 57(15/16), 5154–5174.
Helo, P., Xiao, Y., & Jiao, J. R. (2006). A web-based logistics management system for
agile supply demand network design. Journal of Manufacturing Technology
Management, 17(8), 1058–1077.
Holmqvist, M., & Pessi, K. (2006). Agility through scenario development and continuous
implementation: A global aftermarket logistics case. European Journal of Information
Systems, 15(2), 146–158.
Huang, C. Y., Ceroni, J. A., & Nof, S. Y. (2000). Agility of networked enterprises -
parallelism, error recovery and conflict resolution. Computers in Industry, 42(2),
275–287.
Hwang, Y. M., & Rho, J. J. (2016). Strategic value of RFID for inter-firm supply chain
networks: An empirical study from a resource and social capital perspective.
Information Development, 32(3), 509–526.
Iskanius, P., & Helaakoski, H. (2009). Agility in a project-oriented supply chain.
International Journal of Management and Enterprise Development, 7, 358–372.
Ivanov, D., & Teich, T. (2012). Integrated customer-oriented product design and process
networking of supply chains in virtual environments. International Journal of
Networking and Virtual Organisations, 11(1), 48.
Jain, V., Benyoucef, L., & Deshmukh, S. G. (2008). What’s the buzz about moving from
“lean” to “agile” integrated supply chains? A fuzzy intelligent agent-based approach.
International Journal of Production Research, 46(23), 6649–6677.
Janssen, M., & Feenstra, R. (2010). Service portfolios for supply chain composition:
Creating business network interoperability and agility. International Journal of
Computer Integrated Manufacturing, 23(8–9), 747–757.
Kabra, G., & Ramesh, A. (2016). Information Technology, Mutual Trust, Flexibility,
Agility, Adaptability: Understanding Their Linkages and Impact on Humanitarian
Supply Chain Management Performance. Risk, Hazards and Crisis in Public Policy, 7
(2), 79–103.
Kovács, G. (2017). Global Economic Changes, Optimization of Virtual Enterprises -
Software Development. Polish Journal of Management Studies, 15(2), 125–131.
Kovács, G., & Kot, S. (2017). Economic and social effects of novel supply chain concepts
and virtual enterprises. Journal of International Studies, 10(1), 237–254.
Kristianto, Y., Ajmal, M. M., & Helo, P. (2011). Advanced planning and scheduling with
collaboration processes in agile supply and demand networks. Business Process
Management Journal, 17(1), 107–126.
Kumar, V., Verma, P., Sharma, R. R. K., & Khan, A. F. (2017). Conquering in emerging
markets: Critical success factors to enhance supply chain performance.
Benchmarking, 24(3), 570–593.
Kurpjuweit, S., Schmidt, C. G., Klöckner, M., & Wagner, S. M. (2019). Blockchain in
Additive Manufacturing and its Impact on Supply Chains. Journal of Business
Logistics. ahead of print.
Li, Y., Cheng, Y., Hu, Q., Zhou, S., Ma, L., & Lim, M. K. (2019). The influence of additive
manufacturing on the configuration of make-to-order spare parts supply chain under
heterogeneous demand. International Journal of Production Research, 57(11),
3622–3641.
Liu, H., Ke, W., Wei, K. K., & Hua, Z. (2013). The impact of IT capabilities on firm
performance: The mediating roles of absorptive capacity and supply chain agility.
Decision Support Systems, 54(3), 1452–1462.
Liu, M., & Yan, J. W. (2006). Web-based architecture and technologies of agile supply
chain management system. International Journal of Agile Systems and Management, 1
(1), 29–45.
Liu, S., Chan, F. T. S., Yang, J., & Niu, B. (2018). Understanding the effect of cloud
computing on organizational agility: An empirical examination. International Journal
of Information Management, 43, 98–111.
D. Oliveira-Dias et al.
Lo, W. S., Hong, T. P., & Jeng, R. (2008). A framework of E-SCM multi-agent systems in
the fashion industry. International Journal of Production Economics, 114(2), 594–614.
Malekifar, S., Taghizadeh, S. K., Rahman, S. A., & Khan, S. U. R. (2014). Organizational
Culture, IT Competence, and Supply Chain Agility in Small and Medium-Size
Enterprises. Global Business and Organizational Excellence, 33(6), 69–75.
Mandal, S. (2018). An examination of the importance of big data analytics in supply
chain agility development: A dynamic capability perspective. Management Research
Review, 41(10), 1201–1219.
Mandal, S. (2019a). Exploring the influence of IT capabilities on agility and resilience in
tourism: Moderating role of technology orientation. Journal of Hospitality and
Tourism Technology, 10(3), 431–444.
Mandal, S. (2019b). The influence of big data analytics management capabilities on
supply chain preparedness, alertness and agility: An empirical investigation.
Information Technology and People, 32(2), 297–318.
Mathiyalakan, S. (2006). Research issues in agile supply chain management. International
Journal of Agile Systems and Management, 1(3), 213–228.
Mavengere, N. B. (2013). Information technology role in supply chain’s strategic agility.
International Journal of Agile Systems and Management, 6(1), 7–24.
Minami, C., Nishioka, K., & Dawson, J. (2012). Information transparency in SME network
relationships: Evidence from a Japanese hosiery firm. International Journal of Logistics
Research and Applications, 15(6), 405–423.
Montreuil, B., Frayret, J. M., & D’Amours, S. (2000). A Strategic framework for
networked manufacturing. Computers in Industry, 42(2), 299–317.
Motadel, M., Toloie-Eshlaghy, A., & Halvachi-Zadeh, D. (2011). Assessment of supply
chain agility in the automotive industry of Tehran. European Journal of Scientific
Research, 61(2), 210–229.
Moyano-Fuentes, J., Bruque-Cámara, S., & Maqueira-Marín, J. M. (2019). Development
and validation of a lean supply chain management measurement instrument.
Production Planning and Control, 30(1), 20–32.
Moynihan, P., & Dai, W. (2011). Agile supply chain management: A services system
approach. International Journal of Agile Systems and Management, 4(3), 280–300.
Mustafid, Karimariza, S. A., & Jie, F. (2018). Supply chain agility information systems
with key factors for fashion industry competitiveness. International Journal of Agile
Systems and Management, 11(1), 1–22.
Nabelsi, V., & Gagnon, S. (2016). Information technology strategy for a patient-oriented,
lean, and agile integration of hospital pharmacy and medical equipment supply
chains. International Journal of Production Research, 55(14), 3929–3945.
Nallusamy, S., Suganthini Rekha, R., Balakannan, K., Chakraborty, P. S., & Majumdar, G.
(2015). A proposed agile based supply chain model for poultry based products in
India. International Journal of Poultry Science, 14(1), 57–62.
Ngai, E. W. T., Chau, D. C. K., & Chan, T. L. A. (2011). Information technology,
operational, and management competencies for supply chain agility: Findings from
case studies. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 20(3), 232–249.
Oh, S., Ryu, Y. U., & Yang, H. (2019). Interaction effects between supply chain
capabilities and information technology on firm performance. Information Technology
and Management, 20(2), 91–106.
Panichayakorn, T., & Jermsittiparsert, K. (2019). Mobilizing organizational performance
through robotic and artificial intelligence awareness in mediating role of supply
chain agility. International Journal of Supply Chain Management, 8(5), 757–768.
Patel, B. S., Samuel, C., & Sharma, S. K. (2017). Evaluation of agility in supply chains: A
case study of an Indian manufacturing organization. Journal of Manufacturing
Technology Management, 28(2), 212–231.
Paulraj, A., & Chen, I. (2007). Strategic buyer–supplier relationships, information
technology and external logistics integration. Journal of Supply Chain Management,
43(2), 2–15.
Pavlou, S. T., & Vlachopoulou, M. (2008). SCEDRA: An information system framework
for e-SC operations. International Journal of Business Information Systems, 3(4), 431.
Ponis, S. T., & Spanos, A. C. (2009). ERP II systems to support dynamic, reconfigurable
and agile Virtual Enterprises. International Journal of Applied Systemic Studies, 2(3),
265–282.
Pool, J. K., Jamkhaneh, H. B., Tabaeeian, R. A., Tavakoli, H., & Shahin, A. (2018). The
effect of business intelligence adoption on agile supply chain performance.
International Journal of Productivity and Quality Management, 23(3), 289–306.
Qrunfleh, S., & Tarafdar, M. (2013). Lean and agile supply chain strategies and supply
chain responsiveness: The role of strategic supplier partnership and postponement.
Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 18(6), 571–582.
Qrunfleh, S., & Tarafdar, M. (2014). Supply chain information systems strategy: Impacts
on supply chain performance and firm performance. International Journal of
Production Economics, 147, 340–350.
Qrunfleh, S., Tarafdar, M., & Ragu-Nathan, T. S. (2012). Examining alignment between
supplier management practices and information systems strategy. Benchmarking, 19
(4), 604–617.
Radke, A. M., & Tseng, M. M. (2015). Design Considerations for Building Distributed
Supply Chain Management Systems Based on Cloud Computing. Journal of
Manufacturing Science and Engineering, 137(4), Article 040906.
Rahimi, A., Raad, A., Alem Tabriz, A., & Motameni, A. (2019). Providing an interpretive
structural model of agile supply chain practices. Journal of Modelling in Management.,
15(2), 661–684.
Rasouli, M. R. (2019). Intelligent process-aware information systems to support agility in
disaster relief operations: A survey of emerging approaches. International Journal of
Production Research, 57(6), 1857–1872.
Ribeiro, L., Barata, J., & Colombo, A. (2009). Supporting agile supply chains using a
service-oriented shop floor. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 22(6),
950–960.
19
Computers & Industrial Engineering 167 (2022) 108000
Russell, D. M., & Swanson, D. (2019). Transforming information into supply chain
agility: An agility adaptation typology. International Journal of Logistics Management,
30(1), 329–355.
Samdantsoodol, A., Cang, S., Yu, H., Eardley, A., & Buyantsogt, A. (2017). Predicting the
relationships between virtual enterprises and agility in supply chains. Expert Systems
with Applications, 84, 58–73.
Samizadeh, R., Aghagoli, S., & Vatankhah, S. (2019). The effect of IT integration on
improving agility, integration and performance of supply chain. International Journal
of Advanced Operations Management, 11(1–2), 126–141.
Sangari, M. S., & Razmi, J. (2015). Business intelligence competence, agile capabilities,
and agile performance in supply chain An empirical study. International Journal of
Logistics Management, 26(2), 356–380.
Schniederjans, D. G., Ozpolat, K., & Chen, Y. (2016). Humanitarian supply chain use of
cloud computing. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 21(5),
569–588.
Scholten, K., Scott, P. S., & Fynes, B. (2010). (Le)agility in humanitarian aid (NGO)
supply chains. International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management,
40(8), 623–635.
Schonsleben, P. (2000). With agility and adequate partnership strategies towards
effective logistics networks. Computers in Industry, 42(1), 33–42.
Seethamraju, R. (2014). Enterprise systems and demand chain management: A cross-
sectional field study. Information Technology and Management, 15(3), 151–161.
Setia, P., Sambamurthy, V., & Closs, D. J. (2008). Realizing business value of agile IT
applications: Antecedents in the supply chain networks. Information Technology and
Management, 9(1), 5–19.
Shahin, A., Pool, J. K., & Khalili, A. (2016). Investigating the impact of RFID technology
utilisation on supply chain and performance with a case study in Iran’s
manufacturing industries. International Journal of Procurement Management, 9(6),
751–770.
Shamsuzzoha, A. H. M., & Helo, P. T. (2010). Distributed supply chain in a global
environment. International Journal of Logistics Systems and Management, 7(4), 393.
Sharma, S., & Shah, B. (2015). Thinking cloud-enabled adept and agile supply chain for
SMEs: A conceptual study. International Journal of Business Information Systems, 19
(3), 342–365.
Sheel, A., & Nath, V. (2019). Effect of blockchain technology adoption on supply chain
adaptability, agility, alignment and performance. Management Research Review, 42
(12), 1353–1374.
Srinivasan, R. (2007). Artificial intelligence methodologies for agile refining: An
overview. Knowledge and Information Systems, 12(2), 129–145.
Swafford, P. M., Ghosh, S., & Murthy, N. (2008). Achieving supply chain agility through
IT integration and flexibility. International Journal of Production Economics, 116,
288–297.
Tan, F. T. C., Tan, B., Wang, W., & Sedera, D. (2017). IT-enabled operational agility: An
interdependencies perspective. Information and Management, 54(3), 292–303.
Tarafdar, M., & Qrunfleh, S. (2017). Agile supply chain strategy and supply chain
performance: Complementary roles of supply chain practices and information
systems capability for agility. International Journal of Production Research, 55(4),
925–938.
Tolone, W. J. (2000). Virtual situation rooms: Connecting people across enterprises for
supply-chain agility. CAD Computer Aided Design, 32(2), 109–117.
Tuominen, T., Kitaygorodskaya, N., & Helo, P. (2008). Achieving agility in supply chains
with the help of IT. International Journal of Electronic Customer Relationship
Management, 1(4), 374–389.
Vagnoni, E., & Khoddami, S. (2016). Designing competitivity activity model through the
strategic agility approach in a turbulent environment. Foresight, 18(6), 625–648.
Vickery, S. K., Droge, C., Setia, P., & Sambamurthy, V. (2010). Supply chain information
technologies and organisational initiatives: Complementary versus independent
effects on agility and firm performance. International Journal of Production Research,
48(23), 7025–7042.
Wallace, J., Tsoularis, A., & Tassabehji, R. (2006). Stochastic automata and supply chain
agility in the time-limited supply industry. International Journal of Agile Systems and
Management, 1(4), 407–421.
Wamba, S. F., & Akter, S. (2019). Understanding supply chain analytics capabilities and
agility for data-rich environments. International Journal of Operations and Production
Management, 39(6), 887–912.
Wamba, S. F., Dubey, R., Gunasekaran, A., & Akter, S. (2020). The performance effects of
big data analytics and supply chain ambidexterity: The moderating effect of
environmental dynamism. International Journal of Production Economics, 222, Article
107498.
White, A., Daniel, E. M., & Mohdzain, M. (2005). The role of emergent information
technologies and systems in enabling supply chain agility. International Journal of
Information Management, 25(5), 396–410.
Xu, H. Q., Besant, C. B., & Ristic, M. (2003). System for enhancing supply chain agility
through exception handling. International Journal of Production Research, 41(6),
1099–1114.
Yan, J., Xin, S., Liu, Q., Xu, W., Yang, L., Fan, L., … Wang, Q. (2014). Intelligent supply
chain integration and management based on cloud of things. International Journal of
Distributed Sensor Networks, 2014, 1–15.
Yang, J. (2014). Supply chain agility: Securing performance for Chinese manufacturers.
International Journal of Production Economics, 150, 104–113.
Yerpude, S., & Singhal, T. K. (2017). Augmentation of Effectiveness of Vendor Managed
Inventory (VMI) Operations with IoT Data – A Research Perspective. International
Journal of Applied Business and Economic Research, 15(16), 469–482.
D. Oliveira-Dias et al.
Yu, C., Mou, S., Ji, Y., Xu, X., & Gu, X. (2018). A delayed product differentiation model
for cloud manufacturing. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 117, 60–70.
Yusuf, Y. Y., Gunasekaran, A., Adeleye, E. O., & Sivayoganathan, K. (2004). Agile supply
chain capabilities: Determinants of competitive objectives. European Journal of
Operational Research, 159(2), 379–392.
Zhu, X., Mukhopadhyay, S. K., & Kurata, H. (2012). A review of RFID technology and its
managerial applications in different industries. Journal of Engineering and Technology
Management, 29(1), 152–167.
Complementary references
Abdirad, M., & Krishnan, K. (2021). Industry 4.0 in Logistics and Supply Chain
Management. A Systematic Literature Review. Engineering Management Journal, 33(03),
187–201.
Abernathy, F. H., Dunlop, J. T., Hammond, J. H., & Weil, D. (2000). Retailing and supply
chains in the information age. Technology in Society, 22(1), 5–31.
Alicke, K., Rachor, J., & Seyfert, A. (2016). Supply Chain 4.0 – the next-generation
digital supply chain. McKinsey & Company. https://www.mckinsey.com/business-
functions/operations/our-insights/supply-chain-40–the-next-generation-digital-
supply-chain .Accessed 18 September 2020.
Ardito, L., Petruzzelli, A. M., Panniello, U., & Garavelli, A. C. (2019). Towards Industry
4.0: Mapping digital technologies for supply chain management-marketing
integration. Business Process Management Journal, 25(2), 323–346.
Azzi, R., Chamoun, R. K., & Sokhn, M. (2019). The power of a blockchain-based supply
chain. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 135, 582–592.
Bag, S., Telukdarie, A., Pretorius, J. H. C., & Gupta, S. (2018). Industry 4.0 and supply
chain sustainability: Framework and future research directions. Benchmarking, 28(5),
1410–1450.
Birasnav, M., & Bienstock, J. (2019). Supply chain integration, advanced manufacturing
technology, and strategic leadership: An empirical study. Computers & Industrial
Engineering, 130, 142–157.
Birkel, H., & Müller, J. M. (2021). Potentials of industry 4.0 for supply chain
management within the triple bottom line of sustainability – A systematic literature
review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 289, Article 125612.
Calatayud, A., Mangan, J., & Christopher, M. (2019). The self-thinking supply chain.
Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 24(1), 22–38.
Chauhan, C., & Singh, A. (2020). A review of Industry 4.0 in supply chain management
studies. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 31(5), 863–886.
Christopher, M. (2000). The Agile Supply Chain: Competing in Volatile Markets.
Industrial Marketing Management, 29(1), 37–44.
Culot, G., Nassimbeni, G., Orzes, G., & Sartor, M. (2020). Behind the definition of
Industry 4.0: Analysis and open questions. International Journal of Production
Economics, 226, Article 107617.
da Silva, V. L., Kovaleski, J. L., & Pagani, R. N. (2019). Technology transfer in the supply
chain oriented to industry 4.0: A literature review. Technology Analysis and Strategic
Management, 31(5), 546–562.
Dalenogare, L. S., Benitez, G. B., Ayala, N. F., & Frank, A. G. (2018). The expected
contribution of Industry 4.0 technologies for industrial performance. International
Journal of Production Economics, 204, 383–394.
Dallasega, P., Rauch, E., & Linder, C. (2018). Industry 4.0 as an enabler of proximity for
construction supply chains: A systematic literature review. Computers in Industry, 99,
205–225.
Denyer, D., & Tranfield, D. (2009). Producing a Systematic Review. In The SAGE
Handbook of Organizational Research Methods (pp. 671–689). Sage Publi.
DHL. (2019). Logistics Trend Radar. DHL Customer Solutions & Innovations. https://www.
dhl.com/content/dam/dhl/global/core/documents/pdf/g0-core-trend-radar-
widescreen-2019.pdf.Accessed 18 September 2020.
Durach, C. F., Kembro, J., & Wieland, A. (2017). A new paradigm for systematic
literature reviews in supply chain management. Journal of Supply Chain Management,
53(4), 67–85.
Ferdows, K., Lewis, M. A., & Machuca, J. A. D. (2004). Rapid-Fire Fulfillment. Harvard
Business Review, 82(11), 104–110.
Frank, A. G., Dalenogare, L. S., & Ayala, N. F. (2019). Industry 4.0 technologies:
Implementation patterns in manufacturing companies. International Journal of
Production Economics, 210, 15–26.
Garay-Rondero, C. L., Martinez-Flores, J. L., Smith, N. R., Caballero Morales, S. O., &
Aldrette-Malacara, A. (2020). Digital supply chain model in Industry 4.0. Journal of
Manufacturing Technology Management, 31(5), 887–933.
Gartner. (2016). Gartner Hype Cycle. Gartner Consulting. https://www.gartner.com
/en/documents/3383817/hype-cycle-for-emerging-technologies.Accessed 20
September 2020.
Ghobakhloo, M. (2020). Determinants of information and digital technology
implementation for smart manufacturing. International Journal of Production
Research, 58(8), 2384–2405.
Gligor, D. M., Esmark, C. L., & Holcomb, M. C. (2015). Performance outcomes of supply
chain agility: When should you be agile? Journal of Operations Management, 33–34,
71–82.
20
Computers & Industrial Engineering 167 (2022) 108000
Gligor, D. M., & Holcomb, M. C. (2012). Understanding the role of logistics capabilities in
achieving supply chain agility: A systematic literature review. Supply Chain
Management: An International Journal, 17(4), 438–453.
Gligor, D., Gligor, N., Holcomb, M., & Bozkurt, S. (2019). Distinguishing between the
concepts of supply chain agility and resilience: A multidisciplinary literature review.
International Journal of Logistics Management, 30(2), 467–487.
Gligor, D. M., Holcomb, M. C., & Stank, T. P. (2013). A Multidisciplinary Approach to
Supply Chain Agility : Conceptualization and Scale Development. Journal of Business
Logistics, 34(2), 94–108.
Hofmann, E., & Rüsch, M. (2017). Industry 4.0 and the current status as well as future
prospects on logistics. Computers in Industry, 89, 23–34.
Humdan, E. A., Shi, Y., & Behnia, M. (2020). Supply chain agility : A systematic review of
definitions, enablers and performance implications. International Journal of Physical
Distribution & Logistics Management, 50(2), 287–312.
Hyperledger. (2019). Case Study: How Walmart brought unprecedented transparency to
the food supply chain with Hyperledger Fabric Challenge. In Hyperledger. https://
www.hyperledger.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Hyperledger_CaseStudy_Wal
mart_Printable_V4.pdf Accessed 15 November 2021.
Inditex. (2020). INDITEX Annual Report. https://static.inditex.
com/annual_report_2020/assets/pdf/pdfseng/BLOQUES_ING/ANUAL RE
PORT_ING_12_web.pdf. Accessed 15 November 2021.
Ivanov, D., Dolgui, A., & Sokolov, B. (2019). The impact of digital technology and
Industry 4.0 on the ripple effect and supply chain risk analytics. International Journal
of Production Research, 57(3), 829–846.
Kim, B. (2003). Managing the transition of technology life cycle. Technovation, 23(5),
371–381.
Lee, C. K. H. (2017). A GA-based optimisation model for big data analytics supporting
anticipatory shipping in Retail 4.0. International Journal of Production Research, 55
(2), 593–605.
Li, X., Shen, G. Q., Wu, P., Fan, H., Wu, H., & Teng, Y. (2018). RBL-PHP: Simulation of
Lean Construction and Information Technologies for Prefabrication Housing
Production. Journal of Management in Engineering, 34(2), 04017053.
Manavalan, E., & Jayakrishna, K. (2019). A review of Internet of Things (IoT) embedded
sustainable supply chain for industry 4.0 requirements. Computers and Industrial
Engineering, 127, 925–953.
Maqueira, J. M., Moyano-Fuentes, J., & Bruque, S. (2019). Drivers and consequences of
an innovative technology assimilation in the supply chain: Cloud computing and
supply chain integration. International Journal of Production Research, 57(7),
2083–2103.
Mason-Jones, R., & Towill, D. R. (1999). Total cycle time compression and the agile
supply chain. International Journal of Production Economics, 62(1), 61–73.
Naylor, J. B., Naim, M., & Berry, D. (1999). Leagility: Integrating the lean and agile
manufacturing paradigms in the total supply chain. International Journal of
Production Economics, 62, 107–118.
Novais, L., Maqueira, J. M., & Ortiz-Bas, Á. (2019). A systematic literature review of
cloud computing use in supply chain integration. Computers & Industrial Engineering,
129, 296–314.
Novais, L., Maqueira, J. M., & Bruque, S. (2019). Supply chain flexibility and mass
personalization: A Systematic Literature Review. Journal of Business & Industrial
Marketing, 34(8), 1791–1812.
Núñez-Merino, M., Maqueira, J. M., Moyano-Fuentes, J., & Martínez-Jurado, P. J.
(2020). Information and digital technologies of Industry 4.0 and Lean supply chain
management: A systematic literature review. International Journal of Production
Research, 58(16), 5034–5061.
Okoli, C., & Schabram, K. (2011). A Guide to Conducting a Systematic Literature Review
of Information Systems Research. Sprouts: Working Papers on Information Systems, 10
(26), 1–49.
Pagliosa, M., Tortorella, G., & Ferreira, J. C. E. (2021). Industry 4.0 and Lean
Manufacturing: A systematic literature review and future research directions. Journal
of Manufacturing Technology Management, 32(3), 543–569.
Sharma, N., Sahay, B. S., Shankar, R., & Sarma, P. R. S. (2017). Supply chain agility:
Review, classification and synthesis. International Journal of Logistics Research and
Applications, 20(6), 532–559.
Spieske, A., & Birkel, H. (2021). Improving supply chain resilience through industry 4.0:
A systematic literature review under the impressions of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Computers and Industrial Engineering, 158, Article 107452.
Taylor, M., & Taylor, A. (2012). The technology life cycle: Conceptualization and
managerial implications. International Journal of Production Economics, 140(1),
541–553.
Thomé, A. M. T., Scavarda, L. F., & Scavarda, A. J. (2016). Conducting systematic
literature review in operations management. Production Planning and Control, 27(5),
408–420.
Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., & Smart, P. (2003). Towards a Methodology for Developing
Evidence-Informed Management Knowledge by Means of Systematic Review. British
Journal of Management, 14(3), 207–222.
Tiwari, S. (2021). Supply chain integration and Industry 4.0: A systematic literature
review. Benchmarking, 28(3), 990–1030.
Yılmaz, Ö. F. (2020). Examining additive manufacturing in supply chain context through
an optimization model. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 142, Article 106335.