processes
Article
Blockchain Technology for Oil and Gas: Implications and
Adoption Framework Using Agile and Lean Supply Chains
Javed Aslam 1 , Aqeela Saleem 1 , Nokhaiz Tariq Khan 2 and Yun Bae Kim 1, *
Citation: Aslam, J.; Saleem, A.; Khan,
N.T.; Kim, Y.B. Blockchain Technology
for Oil and Gas: Implications and
Adoption Framework Using Agile
and Lean Supply Chains. Processes
2022, 10, 2687. https://doi.org/
10.3390/pr10122687
Academic Editor: Jui-Yuan Lee
Received: 2 November 2022
Accepted: 6 December 2022
Published: 13 December 2022
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affil-
iations.
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
Processes 2022, 10, 2687. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr10122687
1 Department of System Management Engineering, Sungkyunkwan University,
Suwon 16419, Republic of Korea
2 Faculty of Business and Management, Information Technology University, Lahore 54590, Pakistan
* Correspondence: kimyb@skku.edu
Abstract: Oil and gas (O&G) supply chain management (SCM) is complex because it deals with differ-
ent geographic locations to manage demand and supply, transportation, inventory, and distribution.
Blockchain technology has created an interesting research gap in the SCM domain, and this study is
designed to describe the relevancy of blockchain technology for O&G SCM. SCM is based on agile
and lean supply chains (SCs). Agile SC focuses on increasing flexibility and responsiveness to gain
competitive advantages, and lean SC is based on eliminating waste and processes to improve firm
performance. This study is an initial effort to propose a framework that suggests the implication of
blockchain for O&G by providing an overview of O&G SCM. Data were collected from SC managers
of O&G companies, and we analyzed the impact of agile and lean SCs on firm performance. The
results indicate that agile SC is highly important for O&G industries in comparison to lean SC. This
study proposes the key requirements of agile SC and how blockchain can uplift agile SC technology
with state-of-the-art properties such as data-driven management, information sharing, data privacy,
cyber-security, transparency, smart contracts, visibility, traceability, and reliability, which boost SC
agility as well as firm performance.
Keywords: blockchain technology; supply chain management; lean supply chain; agile supply chain;
oil and gas
1. Introduction
Oil and gas (O&G) are considered the world’s most important sources of energy, and
their products underpin modern society, fueling vehicles for the transportation and delivery
of supplies. O&G-related products are critically important for almost every industry due
to their usage in daily life [1]. The supply chain (SC) is one of the most effective tools for
achieving business objectives, such as controlling manufacturing processes or providing
a competitive edge by delivering a product more quickly, efficiently, and effectively to
the right place, at the right time, and of the right quantity [2–4]. The transition from a
traditional SC to smart SC comprises four stages. The first stage is a determination of
where the SC stands now (using, e.g., enterprise resource planning (ERP)). The second
stage comprises product innovation focused on the customer; SCs with stable structures
already in the second stage must focus on process innovation, which is the third stage. The
final stage is where the SCs are revamped for both product and process innovation. This
process of innovation can be achieved through emerging technologies such as the Internet
of Things (IoT), information and communication technologies (ICT), big data, artificial
intelligence (AI), and blockchain [5,6]. Industry 4.0 combines these concepts, as they are
interlinked [7–10]. For example, big data can be produced through IoT and needs to be
processed through AI. Similarly, IoT may require strong ICT and blockchain. As one of the
hurdles in IoT implementation is security, blockchain may play a vital role. Recently, many
challenges have arisen in maintaining modernized SCs, as process innovation is abrupt.
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/processes
Processes 2022, 10, 2687 2 of 18

Innovations must align with the need for emerging technologies, as different vendors
are participating globally in SC processes. In this context, a shared common database is
essential, along with maintaining all transactions in a ledger [11].
O&G SCM is complex because it deals with different geographic locations at the
same time to manage the demand and supply, transportation, and distribution of O&G
products in more competitive environments. To cope with increasing competition, many
SCs have started adopting lean SC practices in general, and just-in-time (JIT) approaches in
particular [12,13]. These types of practices for managing and eliminating “waste” provide
higher levels of productivity and efficiency, and potentially remarkably increase produc-
tivity and efficiency for small- and medium-sized SCs [14]. Furthermore, participating in
agile practices provides flexibility and responsiveness to SC functions [15–17]. Blockchain
technology has created an interesting research gap in the SC domain, as it replaced old
technologies and reduced human interactions during service delivery while optimizing
logistics via virtual agent techniques and providing secure and real-time information [18].
Lean and agile practices play a significant role in the O&G industry to boost SC perfor-
mance. Agile SCs focus on increasing flexibility and responsiveness to gain competitive
advantages. In this context, blockchain may increase firm responsiveness by reducing
uncertainty and increasing the trust level of suppliers and customers through a real-time
information-sharing platform, along with transparency, reliability, privacy, and visibility
in all SC functions [19,20]. In contrast, a lean SC is based on eliminating waste, processes,
poor information, and resources to improve firm performance and efficiency [21,22], and
blockchain may provide immutable and irrevocable data-driven management and smart
contracts, which increase the lean performance.
This study describes the relevancy of blockchain technology for O&G SCM and focuses
on agile and lean supply chain practices. This study proposes a framework which suggests
the importance of blockchain for O&G. This study analyzes the impact of agile and lean
SC on firm performance, illustrating the relevancy of blockchain technology with agile
and lean SCs in the context of the O&G industry. To this end, the Pakistan O&G sector
was chosen because this sector is highly neglected by researchers, and the Pakistan O&G
sector plays a vital role in the economy and it is necessary to uplift this sector. To fill the
research gaps, this study represents an initial effort to examine the need for blockchain in
SCs according to lean and agile SCs. We identified SC practices according to agile and lean
SCs; then, we analyzed the impact of these practices on firms’ SC performance. Based on
the literature, we developed an understanding of blockchain’s relevancy to agile and lean
SCs. We gathered empirical evidence regarding which SC approaches (agile and lean) are
highly implemented. Then, we identified which SC types are suitable for the adoption of
blockchain. To support this study, the oil and gas industries were chosen to validate the
results. This study highlights the following research questions.
RQ1: How does blockchain technology fit into the oil and gas supply chain?
RQ2: How do agile and lean supply chain practices improve oil and gas performance?
RQ3: How are agile supply chain optimized using blockchain?
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. Section 2 focuses on the liter-
ature review, including SCM practices and blockchain technology. Section 3 discusses
the methodology and results of the study, and Section 4 presents a discussion. Finally,
conclusions, implications, and future work are presented in Section 5.

2. Literature Review
2.1. Oil and Gas Industry and Supply Chain Management
The O&G value chain is based on three stages: upstream, midstream, and downstream.
Upstream involves multiple activities, such as exploration and production of O&G with
the help of acquiring the land rights for digging to find O&G reserves. Midstream SC is
involved with the transportation and storage of the raw products, and finally, downstream
SC focuses on the refining and distribution of products (Figure 1). In the modern era,
exploring O&G reserves uses the latest theological equipment, which is based on artificial
es 2022, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 18

Midstream SC is involved with the transportation and storage of the raw products, and
finally,
Processes 2022, 10, 2687 downstream SC focuses on the refining and distribution of products (Figure 1). In 3 of 18
the modern era, exploring O&G reserves uses the latest theological equipment, which is
based on artificial intelligence (AI). After the exploration of reserves, production activities
also consist of intelligence
modern technology, such
(AI). After theasexploration
mechanicalofdigging and
reserves, automatedactivities
production fracking.also consist of
With the advancement of technology, O&G exploration and production
modern technology, such as mechanical digging and automated fracking. methods devel- With the ad-
oped rapidly in recent years
vancement of using artificial
technology, O&G intelligence,
explorationbigand
data, and the Industrial
production methodsInter-
developed rapidly
net of Things (IIoT), such
in recent as marine
years digital platforms,
using artificial intelligent
intelligence, O&G
big data, andfields, and drilling,
the Industrial Internet of Things
and predictive(IIoT),
maintenance using machine
such as marine learning algorithms
digital platforms, [23]. Using
intelligent O&G fields, these emerg-and predictive
and drilling,
ing technologies, the O&G using
maintenance industry is gradually
machine learning developing
algorithmsin[23].
the Using
direction of emerging
these automa- technologies,
tion, digitalization, and intellectualization. Unfortunately, the operational
the O&G industry is gradually developing in the direction of automation, activity, espe- digitalization,
cially SCM, is and
relatively less developed
intellectualization. because the the
Unfortunately, useoperational
of emergingactivity,
technologies is lim-
especially SCM, is relatively
ited, and this causes poor SCM,
less developed high operational
because costs, higher
the use of emerging lead time,
technologies is and higher
limited, andun-this causes poor
certainty. SCM, high operational costs, higher lead time, and higher uncertainty.

Figure 1. Oil and gas supply chain stages.

Figure 1. Oil and gas supply chain stages.
According to the oil consumer
According to theindex, Pakistan is
oil consumer the 33rd
index, largestiscountry
Pakistan the 33rdto consume
largest country to con-
O&G products. sume O&G products. In Pakistan, the consumption of petroleumfor
In Pakistan, the consumption of petroleum products is mainly trans- is mainly for
products
portation, energy production (power sector), and manufacturing. Among
transportation, energy production (power sector), and manufacturing. Among them, the them, the
transport industry’s consumption is 60%, the energy production sector consumes
transport industry’s consumption is 60%, the energy production sector consumes 32%, 32%,
and the manufacturing sector uses 8%.sector
and the manufacturing Due to the8%.
uses higher
Duedependency
to the higherofdependency
major industries
of major industries
on O&G products,on O&Gthe smooth
products, flow
theof supplyflow
smooth is critically
of supply important for important
is critically Pakistan’s for
O&GPakistan’s O&G
sector. Unfortunately, Pakistan O&G reserves meet just one-fifth of the total demand,
sector. Unfortunately, Pakistan O&G reserves meet just one-fifth of the total demand, and and
the remaining the
demand is fulfilled
remaining demandvia is
high-price imports
fulfilled via [24]. Therefore,
high-price Pakistan
imports [24]. O&GPakistan
Therefore, is O&G is
highly dependent on importing O&G products around the globe, and the entire
highly dependent on importing O&G products around the globe, and the entire SCM is SCM is
more complexmore because it deals
complex with different
because geographic
it deals with different locations.
geographicDuelocations.
to the importance
Due to the importance
of O&G products in Pakistan,
of O&G productsthe in SCM of this
Pakistan, thesector
SCM should be optimized,
of this sector should be responsive,
optimized, responsive,
flexible, fully integrated,
flexible, fullyand with a highly
integrated, secure
and with payment
a highly platform,
secure paymentwithplatform,
end-to-end
with end-to-end
visibility to avoid any hurdles for the smooth flow of products to meet the demand and
supply requirements on time. Consequently, blockchain technology is highly recommended
for Pakistan’s O&G industry to manage supply chain operations more effectively using
state-of-the-art technological properties such as transparency, cyber-security, real-time
Processes 2022, 10, 2687 4 of 18

information sharing, reliability, traceability, and end-to-end visibility. O&G SCM deals with
various organizations, suppliers, stakeholders, and customers; therefore, decision-making
is difficult in this complex SC structure, and many uncertainties may exist. These can
be overcome by using a strong integration system among all SC functions. Ideally, this
integration is achieved through real-time information sharing; however, the idea of such
real-time information sharing through web-based platforms has been challenging over time
owing to security issues. Consequently, blockchain provides a better understanding of SC
operations through real-time information sharing, visibility, and transparency to minimize
uncertainties and improve SC performance [25,26]. In one study, blockchain technology
was used in a digital distributed ledger for SCs to design a digital platform summarizing
the information and documents of a shipment that could be managed [27]. An SC can be
enhanced by using a digital infrastructure system such as blockchain, where all participants
(such as vendors) can access and share product-related information such as the rate/price,
payment (in a transparent manner), delivery status, lead time, and shipment details with
delivery tracking. In this system, suppliers or customers can monitor product and payment
issues in detail using digital control. Blockchain technology provides greater security than
traditional information technology (IT) infrastructure [28,29]. Blockchain may enhance IT
by providing different usable applications related to SC and operations management with
the help of advanced computing and distributed software. The application of blockchain
to the SC is based on a combination of different theories to allow for the implementation
of the blockchain structure in the SC [30], such as network theory, resource-based view,
transaction cost theory, transaction cost analysis, and principal–agent theory [31]. In the
literature, the implementation of blockchain for SCM has been widely discussed, but most
approaches are from a generic perspective. Therefore, it is important to understand the
blockchain needs according to the SC type. This study is an initial effort toward providing
a framework for understanding the implementation of blockchain as per SC type, based on
the oil and gas sectors of Pakistan.

2.2. Agile and Lean Supply Chain, Supply Chain Management-Related Firm Performance, and
Blockchain Technology
The supply chain network depends on a set of different activities called SC practices
for completing the SCM process and delivering the final product to customers with an effi-
cient integrated system. These practices include sourcing, managing supplier relationships,
procuring raw materials, production planning, scheduling, warehousing and inventory
management, ordering techniques, distribution management, providing transportation,
and managing logistics [32–35]. In this study, 12 SC practices were derived from identi-
fied SC types, and their needs for blockchain were discussed according to the essential
blockchain features of each type. An SC network can be classified as agile (responsiveness)
or lean (eliminating waste) according to the operational needs of the SC [16,36–39]. Further-
more, SCM-related firm performance is generally based on five dimensions: increases in
sales, more accurate costing, increases in coordination with vendors, increases in coordina-
tion between departments, and increases in coordination with customers [15,16]. An agile
SC focuses on flexibility and the ability to handle changes in supply and demand under
uncertain conditions. Agile SCs respond quickly and effectively to changes in customer
preferences in unpredictable environments [40,41]. Consequently, an agile SC must develop
strong partnerships and interactions among suppliers, partners, and customers to build
flexibility and responsiveness. An agile-based SC avoids certain warehouse costs by using
outsourcing and third-party logistics (3PL) techniques while minimizing inventory. The
literature shows that agile SCs are based on different SC practices, such as close partner-
ships with suppliers, close partnerships with customers, outsourcing, e-procurement, 3PL,
subcontracting, and using many suppliers; these help the SC maintain flexibility in manag-
ing the uncertainty in supply and demand [15–17]. Blockchain is a modern internet-based
technology offering a high-tech technological architecture for SCs with various benefits
including transparency, visibility, and security in transactions during procurement [42–44].
Processes 2022, 10, 2687 5 of 18

Blockchain can help agile-based SCs perform more responsibly and flexibly because it has
an inherent capacity for integration among all SC networks. It can provide more accurate
stock management and demand forecasting, improve the tracing and tracking of inventory,
and remove payment problems by providing or facilitating digital trust in third parties,
subcontractors, and suppliers [45,46]. Blockchain technology is useful for these types of
SC practices because they require strong integration, effective flows of information, and
transparency within the entire SC, and boost firm SC performance by developing effective
coordination among vendors, customers, and departments [47,48].
In contrast, a lean SC focuses on maximizing savings through continuous improve-
ment techniques and eliminating waste and processes from SC networks. The lean SC
represents a traditional “factory” chain for producing high volumes at a low cost [49,50].
Lean SCs focus on reliability and predictability rather than flexibility and adaptability. This
type of SC is widely used in production, as the primary purpose of lean SCs is to reduce
costs and improve firm performance by more accurate costing and reduced inventory levels.
There are numerous lean SC practices, e.g., JIT, strategic planning, benchmarking, holding
safety stock, and using few suppliers [21,22,51,52]. Lean SC practices help firms reduce
their lead times and optimize their performance by using JIT delivery/supply, providing
effective planning for inventory (raw, in-process, and finished), and maintaining useful
collaboration within the organization. Therefore, an effective lean SC firm can produce
high-quality products with minimal waste. Lean practices also focus on eliminating un-
necessary processing and/or providing process improvement techniques [53]. Lean SC is
highly dependent on information-sharing systems, trust levels, and financial transactions
with vendors [54]. Lean SCs face many challenges, such as those concerning the links
between physical and information flows, accessibility, continuity of information, and trust.
In this context, ERP and IoT have been used for resolving information-sharing and trust
problems [55–57]. There is active adoption of ERP and IoT for lean practices [58,59], but the
acceptance of emerging technologies such as big data, AI, and blockchain remains slow and
questionable [60]. Blockchain has effective properties for lean SCs for improving lean firm
performance, including immutable and irrevocable information sharing, data-driven man-
agement, trust, smart contracts, centralized data, and control [61–63]. Table 1 summarizes
the blockchain properties and their implications in agile and lean SC environments.

Table 1. Blockchain properties and implications for agile and lean supply chains.

Blockchain Properties for Blockchain Adoption for Agile and Lean

Supply Chain Types and Practices
Supply Chains Supply Chains
Outsourcing
E-procurement Blockchain provides trusted visibility, ease of traceability,
Agile Supply Chain Third-party logistics (3PL) Real-time information and trackability to the agile supply chain because supply
(Increase flexibility and Subcontracting sharing; data security; chain operations are highly dynamic and uncertain
responsiveness in Many suppliers privacy; transparency; related to supply, demand, and distributors. To improve
a competitive Close partnership with reliability; traceability; the information and communication between suppliers
environment) customers trackability; visibility and customers, blockchain provides state-of-the-art
[15–17] Close partnership with [42–44] technology to fulfill this need, and integration is highly
suppliers reliant on the blockchain.

Lean Supply Chain Just in time (JIT) There is no doubt that every lean organization suffers
(Minimize waste, Strategic planning Data-driven management; from immense waste emanating from a poor information
processes, and Supply chain benchmarking trust; smart contracts; flow and lack of trust. Blockchain has effective properties
resources that have no Holding safety stock auditable; immutable and for lean SC such as immutable and irrevocable
value addition for Few suppliers irrevocable information information, data-driven management, trust, smart
consumers) [61–63] contracts, and information sharing which increase the
[21,22,51,52] firm’s lean SC.

2.3. Proposed Framework and Hypotheses

This study derived SC practices based on agile and lean approaches: seven practices
are linked to agile SCs (close partnership with customers, close partnership with customers,
outsourcing, e-procurement, 3PL, subcontracting, and many suppliers), and five practices
belong to lean SCs (JIT, strategic planning, benchmarking, holding safety stock, and few
 [21,22,51,52] [61–63]
which increase the firm’s lean SC.

2.3. Proposed Framework and Hypotheses

This study derived SC practices based on agile and lean approaches: seven
practices are linked to agile SCs (close partnership with customers, close partner-
Processes 2022, 10, 2687 6 of 18
ship with customers, outsourcing, e-procurement, 3PL, subcontracting, and many
suppliers), and five practices belong to lean SCs (JIT, strategic planning, bench-
marking, holding safety stock, and few suppliers). Agile and lean SCs improve a
suppliers). Agile andperformance
firm’s SC-related lean SCs improve a firm’s SC-related
by providing performance
more accurate by providing
costing, increasing more
sales,
accurate costing,coordination
and increasing increasing among
sales, and increasing
vendors, coordination
departments, amongBelow,
and customers. vendors,wedepart-
an-
ments,
alyze and customers.
the impacts Below,
of agile andwe analyze
lean SCs onthe impacts
firm of agile and
SC performance lean on
based SCshypothe-
on firm SC
performance
ses H1 and H based on hypotheses
2, respectively. H1 and H2framework
The proposed , respectively. Thestudy
of this proposed framework
is presented in of
Figure
this study2. is
This study identifies
presented in Figurethe
2. relationships between the
This study identifies the relationships
agile and leanbetween
SCs and the
firmand
agile SC lean
performance
SCs and and firm examines the relevancy
SC performance of blockchain
and examines properties
the relevancy to agile
of blockchain
and lean SCs (refer to Table 1).
properties to agile and lean SCs (refer to Table 1).

Figure 2. Proposed framework.

Figure 2. Proposed framework.

To understand the impacts of SC practices (agile and lean) on SCM-related firm

performance in the O&G industry, this study examined the following hypotheses.

H1. Agile SC practices have a positive and significant impact on SCM-related performance in the
oil and gas industry.

H2. Lean SC practices have a positive and significant impact on SCM-related performance in the oil
and gas industry.

3. Methodology
The methodology of this study is as follows:
i. Classify the SCM into two dimensions i.e., agile and lean.
ii. Determine the SCM practices according to SC type (agile and lean).
iii. Examine the impacts of these SC practices (based on agile and lean) on firms’ SCM-
related performance.
iv. Identify the relevancy of blockchain to agile and lean SCs.
v. Recommend the implementation of blockchain according to the needs of each SC type.
Processes 2022, 10, 2687 7 of 18

Sampling and Measures

According to the literature, SC practices were identified in the context of these SC
types (agile and lean). The agile SC was based on seven SCM practices: close partnerships
with suppliers, close partnerships with customers, outsourcing, e-procurement, 3PL, sub-
contracting, and having many suppliers. The lean SC was based on five SCM practices: JIT,
strategic planning, benchmarking, holding safety stock, and having a few suppliers. SC
managers in the oil and manufacturing sectors were asked to what extent the identified
SCM practices were implemented in their firms based on a five-point Likert scale ranging
from 1 = not at all implemented to 5 = fully implemented [16]. The objectives of the SC
management and practices were divided into two types. First, the short term was based on
uplifting productivity, minimizing lead time, and reducing on-hand inventory. Second, the
long term included the integration of the SC among all SC partners (vendors, stakeholders,
distributors, logistics providers, and customers) and increasing the market share. In light
of these objectives and the effective implementation of SCM, the firm performance was
improved and measured according to five dimensions (increase in sales, more accurate
costing, increase in coordination with vendors, increase in coordination between depart-
ments, and increase in coordination with the customers). The questions also asked how
the firm performed in the past three years relative to their competitors under implemented
SCM practices on a five-point scale ranging from 1 = definitely worse to 5 = definitely
better. Seventeen questions were used to examine the impacts of the SC approaches (ag-
ile and lean) on SCM-related firm performance [15,16]. The Appendix A presented the
survey questionnaires. The O&G industries of Pakistan were selected for analysis, and a
non-probability convenient and judgmental (professional experience) sampling technique
was used. The O&G industry has a complex SC environment owing to its flexibility and
responsiveness, as numerous activities are involved in procurement, logistics, and schedul-
ing [64,65]. In this context, focusing on agile SC approaches to fulfil customers’ needs
requires a limited lead time. The data were collected from November 2021 to January 2022
from SC managers working in the O&G sectors (each manager represented one firm). A
total of 200 SC managers were selected, 185 managers participated, and after data cleaning,
152 SC managers were considered suitable for this study. The overall response rate of this
survey was 76%.

4. Results and Discussion

4.1. Demographic Analysis
In this study, 185 supply chain managers from oil and gas companies participated in
the survey. For analyzing the profiles of respondents, they were asked four questions on
their gender, age, qualifications, and experience with oil and gas SCM. Regarding gender,
85.4% were male and 14.6% were female, which shows that Pakistan’s oil and gas sector is
predominantly male. Regarding age, 51% of respondents were 36–45, which indicates that
the SC managers are experienced. In the context of qualifications, 54% of SC managers had
a master’s degree and 19% had a post-graduate degree, which shows that SC managers are
generally well educated. Lastly, in terms of respondent experience with oil and gas SCM,
29.72% of SC managers had more than 20 years of experience, and 21.6%, 24.3%, and 16.2%
had 6–11, 11–15, and 16–20 years of experience, respectively, which demonstrates that the
SC managers are overall experienced and professional. Table 2 presents the respondent
profile in detail.

4.2. Factor Loading and Reliability Analysis

This study examines the relationship between SC practices (agile and lean) and SCM-
related firm performance in the O&G sectors. To evaluate the measures, factor loading
and reliability (α) were carried out using SPSS software (IBM, Armonk, NY, USA). The
reliability values range from 0.756 to 0.768, i.e., greater than the acceptable value of 0.7. The
factor loading ranges from 0.644 to 0.816, i.e., higher than 0.4. The results in Table 3 indicate
that the measurement reliability and internal consistency are sufficient.
Processes 2022, 10, 2687 8 of 18

Table 2. Respondent profile.

Variable Frequency Percentage (%)

Male 158 85.4
Gender
Female 27 14.6
<25 15 8.1
26–35 25 13.5
Age (in years) 36–45 95 51.3
46–55 35 19
Above 55 15 8.1
Diploma 20 10.8
Under-graduation 30 16.2
Qualification
Master 100 54
Post-graduation 35 19
<5 15 8.1
6–10 40 21.6
Experience in oil and gas supply chain management (in years) 11–15 45 24.3
16–20 30 16.2
>20 55 29.72

Table 3. Factor loading and reliability analysis.

Oil and Gas Industry

Construct Items
Factor Loading Cronbach’s α
SCMAgile1 0.816
SCMAgile2 0.705
SCMAgile3 0.807
Agile SC practices SCMAgile4 0.715 0.768
SCMAgile5 0.774
SCMAgile6 0.720
SCMAgile7 0.760
SCMLean1 0.644
SCMLean2 0.674
Lean SC practices SCMLean3 0.680 0.765
SCMLean4 0.700
SCMLean5 0.712
SCMPerf1 0.807
SCMPerf2 0.777
SCM-related firm performance SCMPerf3 0.679 0.756
SCMPerf4 0.751
SCMPerf5 0.748

4.3. Descriptive and Correlation Analysis

To validate the relationships among SC practices (i.e., the agile and lean practices and
improved SCM-related firm performance) in the context of the O&G sectors, a descriptive
and correlation analysis is presented in Table 4. The correlation values of the agile and lean
practices with the SCM-related firm performance are 0.236 (p < 0.01) and 0.179 * (p < 0.05),
respectively, indicating that agile SCs have a higher impact on firm SCM performance
(23.6%). Consequently, lean SC practices are relatively less important (17.9%) for O&G SCs.

4.4. Regression Analysis

A regression analysis was conducted to investigate the proposed hypotheses (H1
and H2 ) and present the impacts of both agile and lean SC practices on SCM-related firm
performance. The results (Table 5) indicate that the effects of agile and lean SC practices are
positive and significant for SCM-related O&G performance. The agile SC practice has a
relatively higher impact (with a beta (β) value of 0.331 and p < 0.05), suggesting that H1 is
Processes 2022, 10, 2687 9 of 18

supported by empirical evidence, i.e., that the Pakistan O&G industry is more focused on
agile SC activities.

Table 4. Descriptive and correlation analysis.

Variables Mean SD 1 2 3
1 Agile SC practices 4.29 0.478 1
2 Lean SC practices 4.17 0.401 0.332 ** 1
3 SCM-related firm performance 3.76 0.572 0.236 ** 0.179 * 1
SD = standard deviation. * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level. ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level.

Table 5. Hypotheses testing.

Path Hypothesis β S.E T-Value p-Value Result

Agile SC practices → SCM-related
H1 0.331 0.112 2.971 0.003 Supported
performance
Lean SC practices → SCM-related
H2 0.214 0.096 2.227 0.027 Supported
performance
S.E = standard error.

The results reveal that in the O&G sector, agile SC practices are highly implemented,
and the impact of these agile SC practices is significant for SCM-related firm performance.
Lean SC practices have a positive and significant impact on SCM-related firm performance,
but a comparatively lower impact than agile SCs. Accordingly, this study concludes that
the implementation of agile SCs is common in the O&G sector. The next question is how
to improve the agile SC performance. The literature suggests that agile SCs are highly
reliant on integration [66–69] and that integration can be achieved using blockchain technol-
ogy [44,70]. Additionally, agile SC practices provide flexibility and responsiveness through
strong integration among SCM functions, real-time information sharing, cybersecurity,
visibility, traceability, reliability, and transparency [71–74]. Blockchain has the capabilities
to provide a technologically oriented platform for supporting the agile SC, uplifting agile
integration, and boosting firm performance. However, the literature indicates that the
primary function of the lean SC is to increase the firm productivity while minimizing waste.
In this context, lean SC practices are recommended for handling the continuous elimination
of waste from the production processes, resulting in shorter lead times, lower production
costs, and increased output [75–77]. Waste is something that customers are not willing
to pay for and must be eliminated. To eliminate waste, firms already use effective tools
such as total quality control, Kanban (JIY), and Kaizen (continuous improvement) [78–80].
Regarding information system support, ERP, industrial IoT, and management informa-
tion systems (MIS) already provide effective platforms for managing information-sharing
systems, transparency, coordination, and the facilitation of information flows among all
departments [81–83]. To obtain greater benefits from technology, blockchain provides state-
of-the-art technology for providing effective information flows, traceability, cyber-security,
data management, privacy, and transparency [84]. However, the need for blockchain for
lean SCs remains unclear because previously adopted technologies such as ERP, IoT, and
MIS are still sufficient to fulfill the information and coordination needs [85,86].
This study observed that an agile SC based on flexibility and responsiveness can be
achieved through integration to develop close relationships between suppliers and cus-
tomers, third-party logistics, and e-procurement practices for managing financial transac-
tions and information sharing. Therefore, secure and transparent information is important
for this type of SC network. The blockchain can provide the best solution and enhance
integration through real-time information sharing with security and transparency, resulting
in increased efficiency by reducing the uncertainty and variation in the information [87–89].
The implementation of blockchain technology for confidential information sharing and
financial transactions becomes more necessary with an agile supply chain in which many
Processes 2022, 10, 2687 10 of 18

supply chain activities and members are participating, and trust is low. In contrast, the
primary objective of lean SC practices is to eliminate waste and improve productivity by
using SC practices such as JIT, strategic planning, SC benchmarking, holding safety stock,
and having a few suppliers. However, the concepts of reducing waste and timely produc-
tion also require a strong information-sharing system among all departments [78–83]. This
can be achieved without blockchain using IoT and ERP [78–80,90]. Alternatively, the flow
of quality information is also one of the success factors for boosting the internal function of
an organization; therefore, implementing blockchain may reduce wasted time and safety
threats for information sharing and financial transactions, respectively.
The respective needs for blockchain for agile and lean SCs are illustrated in Figure 3.
The literature shows that blockchain has numerous and highly significant properties for SC
management. The relevance of blockchain to agile and lean SCs is shown in Table 1. The
key requirements of an agile SC are strong integration, real-time information sharing, data
privacy, security, visibility, traceability, transparency, and reliability. These requirements
are closely related to the blockchain properties for SC management [71–74]. The key
requirements for lean SCs are performance metrics, benchmarking practices, and effective
coordination among SC partners, stakeholders, and departments [91–94]. Blockchain
technology is the best solution for fulfilling these requirements, but the literature suggests
that these requirements can be fulfilled using less expensive technology-based solutions,
such as IoT, ERP, and TQM practices [78–80,90]. Therefore, this study concludes that a lean
SC is less integrated and has low trust issues because the adoption of blockchain requires a
Processes 2022, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 18
significant amount of capital. The adoption of blockchain according to its properties under
the agile and lean SC key requirements described in Table 1 is shown in Figure 3.

Figure 3. Implication of blockchain for agile and lean supply chains.

Figure 3. Implication of blockchain for agile and lean supply chains.

Blockchain is
Blockchain is considered
considered aa game-changing
game-changing technological innovation for
technological innovation for supply
supply chain
chain
management because SC professionals and managers believe that the adoption
management because SC professionals and managers believe that the adoption of blockchain of block-
chain boosts
boosts SC operation
SC operation and increases
and increases firm capability
firm capability and capacity
and capacity [95,96].
[95,96]. DespiteDespite the
the inter-
interesting
esting benefits
benefits of blockchain
of blockchain described
described in serval
in serval studies,
studies, it itisisalso
alsoimportant
importanttoto discuss
the adoption barriers and challenges. This This will help the firm to understand the possible
barriers to the adoption of novel technology such as blockchain. The possible challenges
for adoption are categorized into four types: (i) intra-organizational, (ii) inter-organiza-
tional, (iii) system-related, and (iv) external [73,97–100]. Intra-organizational challenges
are related to the problems which arise from internal departments or within the organiza-
Processes 2022, 10, 2687 11 of 18

barriers to the adoption of novel technology such as blockchain. The possible challenges for
adoption are categorized into four types: (i) intra-organizational, (ii) inter-organizational,
(iii) system-related, and (iv) external [73,97–100]. Intra-organizational challenges are re-
lated to the problems which arise from internal departments or within the organization.
Blockchain technology is a novel technology for supply chain management and requires
high investment, and firms face some financial constraints in spending huge amounts of
capital on adoption. Thus, financial problems are fundamental challenges for the imple-
mentation of blockchain [101,102]. Furthermore, for the adoption of new technology, top
managers should provide resources to their employees such as training, new personal
computers, and software support and also acquire finance. The oil and gas sector focuses
on the procurement, storage, and distribution of oil- and gas-related products. The top
management is highly interested in investing the maximum resources to buy the prod-
ucts rather than spending to implement new technologies such as blockchain because
it is capital-intensive technology [103]. Inter-organizational challenges refer to external
stakeholders such as SC members (customers, suppliers, investors, third-party logistics
contractors). Oil and gas SCs deal with different geographic locations, and the SCM cul-
ture can also be affected, e.g., because a partner did not understand the importance of
blockchain and they were not willing to use it. If the customer is not aware of blockchain’s
benefits for shipment and delivery tracking, then the firm should not invest in implement-
ing blockchain. System-related barriers are related to new information technology (IT) tools
because blockchain is IT-based software, and it requires new IT tools. Thus, firms need
to replace previous technology structures with the latest ones. For example, blockchain
provides real-time information and records high-volume data as well as gives access to
all SC participants. Therefore, high data storage and advanced cloud computing systems
will be demanded [104,105]. The external barriers refer to external institutions such as
governments and industries which are not directly related to firm SC functions. The lack
of involvement from the government to support the firms in adopting the new technol-
ogy [106,107]. On the other hand, the lack of pressure from competitors is another barrier
to adopting blockchain because still, few oil and gas companies are using blockchain.

5. Conclusions
This paper provides an understanding of the adoption of blockchain in supply
chains in the context of the agile and lean SC types that have been described in the
literature [16,36–39]. For this purpose, we chose O&G industries to validate the impli-
cations of agile and lean SCs and the impact on firm SCM-related performance. With
reference to the literature, SC practices were identified and divided into two SC types: agile
and lean. The results revealed that both SC types positively and significantly impact a
firm’s performance in the O&G industries. Additionally, agile SC is more important for
O&G industries in comparison to lean SC. With the help of an extensive literature review,
this study contributes to developing the need for blockchain technology for supply chain
management in the context of agile and lean SCs [108–110]. Agile supply chains deal with
complex supply chain networks and focus on increasing flexibility and responsiveness in
the competitive environment and can be boosted with the adoption of blockchain. However,
lean supply chains focus on eliminating waste and increasing the firm’s productivity and
can be achieved using less expensive technology such as ERP and IoT. Therefore, agile
SC is better suited for the adoption of blockchain because this technology has state-of-
the-art properties such as data-driven management, information sharing, data privacy,
cyber-security, transparency, smart contracts, visibility, traceability, and reliability, which
are highly aligned with the key requirements of agile SC, such as strong integration and
real-time information sharing.

5.1. Implications
This study has managerial and practical implications. From a managerial point of
view, this study provides a distinction between lean and agile SC along with blockchain
Processes 2022, 10, 2687 12 of 18

properties. This study highlights the implementation of blockchain according to supply

chain types. Furthermore, this study develops the relevancy of blockchain technology for
SCM, as well as how blockchain is suitable for an agile supply chain. From a practical point
of view, this study gives examples of the adaptation of blockchain for the supply chain and
suggests that supply chain managers or decision makers evaluate their supply chain types
according to agile and lean, and then focus on the implementation of blockchain technology
because the adoption of blockchain is costly and requires significant capital. Finally, we
conclude that blockchain technology is recommended for agile-based supply chain firms.

5.2. Limitations and Future Work

The main limitation of this study is that developing the relevancy of blockchain
properties with agile and lean supply chains is based on the literature and could not be
expressed empirically. This study considered only the oil and gas sectors for analysis; other
sectors such as manufacturing and services were not included. Due to the high capital
investments required for blockchain adoption, we propose future work on a new concept
of “blockchain as services”. This technique will provide customized blockchain services
for supply chains according to their requirements, but it needs to be explored in further
studies. Moreover, the adoption of blockchain is not easy, and we suggest that future
studies consider the potential barriers and challenges to the adoption and implication
of blockchain.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, J.A. and Y.B.K.; methodology, N.T.K. and A.S.; software,
J.A.; validation, J.A., A.S. and Y.B.K.; formal analysis, N.T.K.; investigation, J.A.; resources, Y.B.K.;
data curation, J.A.; writing—original draft preparation, J.A. and A.S.; writing—review and editing,
N.T.K. and Y.B.K.; visualization, J.A.; supervision, Y.B.K.; project administration, Y.B.K.; funding
acquisition, Y.B.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF), a grant
funded by the Korea Government (MSIT) (NRF-2022R1A2C1013147).
Data Availability Statement: Data will be provided upon request to the corresponding author.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A. Survey Questions

Appendix A.1. Respondent Profile
Sr. No. Variable Options
Male
1 Gender
Female
20–25
26–30
2 Age (in years) 31–45
46–50
Above 50
Diploma
Under-graduation
3 Qualification
Master
Post-graduation
Processes 2022, 10, 2687 13 of 18

Sr. No. Variable Options

<5
6–10
4 Total experience in oil and gas supply chain management (in years) 11–15
16–20
>20

Appendix A.2. Model-Related Questions

Table A1. Agile supply chain practices. Q1. To what extent were the following agile SC practices
implemented in your organization? [1 = not at all implemented; 2 = not implemented; 3 = partially
implemented; 4 = implemented; 5 = fully implemented].

(Five-Point Likert Scale Ranging from

Sr Questions 1 = “Not at all Implemented” to 5 = ”Fully Implemented”)
1 2 3 4 5
1 Close relationship with customers
2 Close relationship with suppliers
3 Outsourcing
4 E-procurement
5 Third-party logistics (3PL)
6 Subcontracting
7 Many suppliers

Table A2. Lean supply chain practices. Q2. To what extent were the following lean SC practices
implemented in your organizations? [1 = not at all implemented; 2 = not implemented; 3 = partially
implemented; 4 = implemented; 5 = fully implemented].

(Five-Point Likert Scale Ranging from

Sr Questions 1 = “Not at all Implemented” to 5 = ” Fully Implemented”)
1 2 3 4 5
1 Just in time (JIT)
2 Strategic planning
3 Supply chain benchmarking
4 Holding safety stock
5 Few suppliers

Table A3. Supply chain-related firm performance. Q3. How did your business perform over the past
five years relative to major competitors on each of the firm’s performance criteria using SCM practices?
[1 = definitely worse; 2 = worse; 3 = somewhat worse/better; 4 = better; 5 = definitely better].

(Five-Point Likert Scale Ranging from

Sr Questions 1 = “Definitely Worse” to 5 = ”Definitely Better”)
1 2 3 4 5
1 More accurate costing
2 Increase in sales
3 Increase the coordination among suppliers
Processes 2022, 10, 2687 14 of 18

Table A3. Cont.

(Five-Point Likert Scale Ranging from

Sr Questions 1 = “Definitely Worse” to 5 = ”Definitely Better”)
1 2 3 4 5
4 Increase the coordination among customers
5 Increase the coordination among departments

References
1. Ahmad, W.N.K.W.; Rezaei, J.; de Brito, M.P.; Tavasszy, L.A. The influence of external factors on supply chain sustainability goals
of the oil and gas industry. Resour. Policy 2016, 49, 302–314. [CrossRef]
2. Bastas, A.; Liyanage, K. Integrated quality and supply chain management business diagnostics for organizational sustainability
improvement. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2019, 17, 11–30. [CrossRef]
3. Zhu, Z.; Zhao, J.; Bush, A.A. The effects of e-business processes in supply chain operations: Process component and value creation
mechanisms. Int. J. Inf. Manage. 2020, 50, 273–285. [CrossRef]
4. Kumar, V.; Bak, O.; Guo, R.; Shaw, S.L.; Colicchia, C.; Garza-Reyes, J.A.; Kumari, A. An empirical analysis of supply and
manufacturing risk and business performance: A Chinese manufacturing supply chain perspective. Supply Chain Manag. Int. J.
2018, 23, 461–479. [CrossRef]
5. Muheidat, F.; Patel, D.; Tammisetty, S.; Tawalbeh, L.A.; Tawalbeh, M. Emerging Concepts Using Blockchain and Big Data. Procedia
Comput. Sci. 2022, 198, 15–22. [CrossRef]
6. Haroon, A.; Basharat, M.; Khattak, A.M.; Ejaz, W. Internet of Things Platform for Transparency and Traceability of Food Supply
Chain. In Proceedings of the 2019 IEEE 10th Annual Information Technology, Electronics and Mobile Communication Conference
(IEMCON), Columbia, VA, Canada, 17–19 October 2019; pp. 13–19.
7. Özdağoğlu, A.; Bahar, S. Logistics 4.0 and Smart Supply Chain Management. In Industry 4.0 and Global Businesses; Yakut, E., Ed.;
Emerald Publishing Limited: Bingley, UK, 2022; pp. 163–183. ISBN1 978-1-80117-326-1. ISBN2 978-1-80117-327-8.
8. Yousefi, S.; Tosarkani, B.M. An analytical approach for evaluating the impact of blockchain technology on sustainable supply
chain performance. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2022, 246, 108429. [CrossRef]
9. Caiado, R.G.; Scavarda, L.F.; Azevedo, B.D.; de Mattos Nascimento, D.L.; Quelhas, O.L. Challenges and Benefits of Sustainable
Industry 4.0 for Operations and Supply Chain Management&mdash;A Framework Headed toward the 2030 Agenda. Sustainability
2022, 14, 830.
10. Raji, I.O.; Shevtshenko, E.; Rossi, T.; Strozzi, F. Industry 4.0 technologies as enablers of lean and agile supply chain strategies: An
exploratory investigation. Int. J. Logist. Manag. 2021, 32, 1150–1189. [CrossRef]
11. Santhi, A.R.; Muthuswamy, P. Influence of Blockchain Technology in Manufacturing Supply Chain and Logistics. Logist 2022,
6, 15. [CrossRef]
12. Hussein, M.; Zayed, T. Critical factors for successful implementation of just-in-time concept in modular integrated construction:
A systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 284, 124716. [CrossRef]
13. Raut, R.D.; Mangla, S.K.; Narwane, V.S.; Dora, M.; Liu, M. Big Data Analytics as a mediator in Lean, Agile, Resilient, and Green
(LARG) practices effects on sustainable supply chains. Transp. Res. Part E Logist. Transp. Rev. 2021, 145, 102170. [CrossRef]
14. Garcia-Buendia, N.; Moyano-Fuentes, J.; Maqueira-Marín, J.M. Lean supply chain management and performance relationships:
What has been done and what is left to do. CIRP J. Manuf. Sci. Technol. 2021, 32, 405–423. [CrossRef]
15. Gunasekaran, A.; Patel, C.; McGaughey, R.E. A framework for supply chain performance measurement. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2004,
87, 333–347. [CrossRef]
16. Koh, S.C.L.; Demirbag, M.; Bayraktar, E.; Tatoglu, E.; Zaim, S. The impact of supply chain management practices on performance
of SMEs. Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 2007, 107, 103–124. [CrossRef]
17. Gandhi, A.V.; Shaikh, A.; Sheorey, P.A. Impact of supply chain management practices on firm performance: Empirical evidence
from a developing country. Int. J. Retail Distrib. Manag. 2017, 45, 366–384. [CrossRef]
18. Verhoef, P.C.; Broekhuizen, T.; Bart, Y.; Bhattacharya, A.; Dong, J.Q.; Fabian, N.; Haenlein, M. Digital transformation: A
multidisciplinary reflection and research agenda. J. Bus. Res. 2019, 122, 890–901. [CrossRef]
19. Zhu, X.N.; Peko, G.; Sundaram, D.; Piramuthu, S. Blockchain-Based Agile Supply Chain Framework with IoT. Inf. Syst. Front.
2021, 24, 563–578. [CrossRef]
20. Oliveira-Dias, D.; Maqueira-Marín, J.M.; Moyano-Fuentes, J. The link between information and digital technologies of industry
4.0 and agile supply chain: Mapping current research and establishing new research avenues. Comput. Ind. Eng. 2022, 167, 108000.
[CrossRef]
21. Takeda-Berger, S.L.; Tortorella, G.L.; Rodriguez, C.M.T.; Frazzon, E.M.; Yokoyama, T.T.; Oliveira, M.A. de Analysis of the
relationship between barriers and practices in the lean supply chain management. Int. J. Lean Six Sigma 2021, 12, 607–626.
[CrossRef]
Processes 2022, 10, 2687 15 of 18

22. Tortorella, G.L.; Miorando, R.; Marodin, G. Lean supply chain management: Empirical research on practices, contexts and
performance. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2017, 193, 98–112. [CrossRef]
23. Koroteev, D.; Tekic, Z. Artificial intelligence in oil and gas upstream: Trends, challenges, and scenarios for the future. Energy AI
2021, 3, 100041. [CrossRef]
24. Petroleum Sector of Pakistan and its Trade Dynamics. Available online: https://tdap.gov.pk/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/13
-Petroleum-Sector-of-Pakistan-and-its-Trade-Dynamics-1.pdf (accessed on 28 November 2022).
25. Ghode, D.; Yadav, V.; Jain, R.; Soni, G. Adoption of blockchain in supply chain: An analysis of influencing factors. J. Enterp. Inf.
Manag. 2020, 33, 437–456. [CrossRef]
26. Gohil, D.; Thakker, S.V. Blockchain-integrated technologies for solving supply chain challenges. Mod. Supply Chain Res. Appl.
2021, 3, 78–97. [CrossRef]
27. Francisco, K.; Swanson, D. The Supply Chain Has No Clothes: Technology Adoption of Blockchain for Supply Chain Transparency.
Logistics 2018, 2, 2. [CrossRef]
28. Madhwal, Y.; Panfilov, P.B. Blockchain and supply chain management: Aircrafts’ parts’ business case. Ann. DAAAM Proc. Int.
DAAAM Symp. 2017, 28, 1051–1056. [CrossRef]
29. Helo, P.; Hao, Y. Blockchains in operations and supply chains: A model and reference implementation. Comput. Ind. Eng. 2019,
136, 242–251. [CrossRef]
30. Treiblmaier, H. The impact of the blockchain on the supply chain: A theory-based research framework and a call for action.
Supply Chain. Manag. 2018, 23, 545–559. [CrossRef]
31. Halldórsson, Á.; Hsuan, J.; Kotzab, H. Complementary theories to supply chain management revisited—from borrowing theories
to theorizing. Supply Chain. Manag. 2015, 20, 574–586. [CrossRef]
32. Somjai, S.; Jermsittiparsert, K. Mediating impact of information sharing in the relationship of supply chain capabilities and
business performance among the firms of Thailand. Int. J. Supply Chain Manag. 2019, 8, 357–368.
33. Lummus, R.R.; Vokurka, R.J. Defining supply chain management: A historical perspective and practical guidelines Introduction
to supply chain concepts Definition of supply chain. Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 1997, 99, 11–17. [CrossRef]
34. Min, S.; Zacharia, Z.G.; Smith, C.D. Defining Supply Chain Management: In the Past, Present, and Future. J. Bus. Logist. 2019, 40,
44–55. [CrossRef]
35. Pettit, T.J.; Croxton, K.L.; Fiksel, J. The Evolution of Resilience in Supply Chain Management: A Retrospective on Ensuring Supply
Chain Resilience. J. Bus. Logist. 2019, 40, 56–65. [CrossRef]
36. Towill, D.; Christopher, M. The Supply Chain Strategy Conundrum: To be Lean Or Agile or To be Lean And Agile? Int. J. Logist.
Res. Appl. 2002, 5, 299–309. [CrossRef]
37. Qrunfleh, S.; Tarafdar, M. Lean and agile supply chain strategies and supply chain responsiveness: The role of strategic supplier
partnership and postponement. Supply Chain Manag. Int. J. 2013, 18, 571–582. [CrossRef]
38. Piotrowicz, W.D.; Ryciuk, U.; Szymczak, M. Lean and agile metrics. Literature review and framework for measuring leagile
supply chain. Int. J. Product. Perform. Manag. 2021. ahead-of-print. [CrossRef]
39. Ali, S.; Shin, W.S.; Song, H. Blockchain-Enabled Open Quality System for Smart Manufacturing: Applications and Challenges.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 11677. [CrossRef]
40. Christopher, M.; Lowson, R.; Peck, H. Creating agile supply chains in the fashion industry. Int. J. Retail Distrib. Manag. 2004, 32,
367–376. [CrossRef]
41. Swafford, P.M.; Ghosh, S.; Murthy, N. Achieving supply chain agility through IT integration and flexibility. Int. J. Prod. Econ.
2008, 116, 288–297. [CrossRef]
42. Kshetri, N. Blockchain and Supply Chain Management; Elsevier Science: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2021; ISBN 9780323899352.
43. Queiroz, M.M.; Telles, R.; Bonilla, S.H. Blockchain and supply chain management integration: A systematic review of the
literature. Supply Chain Manag. Int. J. 2020, 25, 241–254. [CrossRef]
44. Aslam, J.; Saleem, A.; Khan, N.T.; Kim, Y.B. Factors influencing blockchain adoption in supply chain management practices: A
study based on the oil industry. J. Innov. Knowl. 2021, 6, 124–134. [CrossRef]
45. Sheel, A.; Nath, V. Effect of blockchain technology adoption on supply chain adaptability, agility, alignment and performance.
Manag. Res. Rev. 2019, 42, 1353–1374. [CrossRef]
46. Kurpjuweit, S.; Schmidt, C.G.; Klöckner, M.; Wagner, S.M. Blockchain in Additive Manufacturing and its Impact on Supply
Chains. J. Bus. Logist. 2021, 42, 46–70. [CrossRef]
47. Ahram, T.; Sargolzaei, A.; Sargolzaei, S.; Daniels, J.; Amaba, B. Blockchain technology innovations. In Proceedings of the 2017
IEEE Technology Engineering Management Conference (TEMSCON), Santa Clara, CA, USA, 8–10 June 2017; pp. 137–141.
48. Cole, R.; Stevenson, M.; Aitken, J. Blockchain technology: Implications for operations and supply chain management. Supply
Chain Manag. Int. J. 2019, 24, 469–483. [CrossRef]
49. Myerson, P. Lean Supply Chain and Logistics Management, 1st ed.; McGraw-Hill Education: New York, NY, USA, 2012;
ISBN 9780071766265.
50. Arif-Uz-Zaman, K.; Nazmul Ahsan, A.M.M. Lean supply chain performance measurement. Int. J. Product. Perform. Manag. 2014,
63, 588–612. [CrossRef]
51. Hearnshaw, E.J.S.; Wilson, M.M.J. A complex network approach to supply chain network theory. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 2013,
33, 442–469. [CrossRef]
Processes 2022, 10, 2687 16 of 18

52. Li, S.; Rao, S.S.; Ragu-Nathan, T.S.; Ragu-Nathan, B. Development and validation of a measurement instrument for studying
supply chain management practices. J. Oper. Manag. 2005, 23, 618–641. [CrossRef]
53. Agus, A.; Hajinoor, M.S. Lean production supply chain management as driver towards enhancing product quality and business
performance: Case study of manufacturing companies in Malaysia. Int. J. Qual. Reliab. Manag. 2012, 29, 92–121. [CrossRef]
54. Juan Ding, M.; Jie, F.; Parton, K.A.; Matanda, M.J. Relationships between quality of information sharing and supply chain food
quality in the Australian beef processing industry. Int. J. Logist. Manag. 2014, 25, 85–108. [CrossRef]
55. Nimeh, H.A.; Abdallah, A.B.; Sweis, R. Lean supply chain management practices and performance: Empirical evidence from
manufacturing companies. Int. J. Supply Chain Manag. 2018, 7, 1–15.
56. Kwon, I.G.; Suh, T. Trust, commitment and relationships in supply chain management: A path analysis. Supply Chain Manag. Int.
J. 2005, 10, 26–33. [CrossRef]
57. Ibrahim, S.E.; Ogunyemi, O. The effect of linkages and information sharing on supply chain and export performance. J. Manuf.
Technol. Manag. 2012, 23, 441–463. [CrossRef]
58. Powell, D. ERP systems in lean production: New insights from a review of lean and ERP literature. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 2013,
33, 1490–1510. [CrossRef]
59. Powell, D.; Alfnes, E.; Strandhagen, J.O.; Dreyer, H. ERP Support for Lean Production BT—Advances in Production Management
Systems. Value Networks: Innovation, Technologies, and Management; Frick, J., Laugen, B.T., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg,
Germany, 2012; pp. 115–122.
60. Ghode, D.J.; Yadav, V.; Jain, R.; Soni, G. Blockchain adoption in the supply chain: An appraisal on challenges. J. Manuf. Technol.
Manag. 2021, 32, 42–62. [CrossRef]
61. Suhail, S.; Hussain, R.; Jurdak, R.; Oracevic, A.; Salah, K.; Hong, C.S.; Matulevičius, R. Blockchain-Based Digital Twins: Research
Trends, Issues, and Future Challenges. ACM Comput. Surv. 2022, 54, 1–34. [CrossRef]
62. Centobelli, P.; Cerchione, R.; Vecchio, P.D.; Oropallo, E.; Secundo, G. Blockchain technology for bridging trust, traceability and
transparency in circular supply chain. Inf. Manag. 2021, 59, 103508. [CrossRef]
63. Yang, W.; Garg, S.; Huang, Z.; Kang, B. A decision model for blockchain applicability into knowledge-based conversation system.
Knowl.-Based Syst. 2021, 220, 106791. [CrossRef]
64. Ahmad, N.K.W.; de Brito, M.P.; Rezaei, J.; Tavasszy, L.A. An integrative framework for sustainable supply chain management
practices in the oil and gas industry. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2017, 60, 577–601. [CrossRef]
65. Saad, S.M.; Elsaghier, E.H.; Ezaga, D. Planning and optimising petroleum supply chain. Procedia Manuf. 2018, 17, 803–810.
[CrossRef]
66. Ariadi, G.; Surachman; Sumiati; Rohman, F. The effect of lean and agile supply chain strategy on financial performance with
mediating of strategic supplier integration & strategic customer integration: Evidence from bottled drinking-water industry in
Indonesia. Cogent Bus. Manag. 2021, 8, 1930500. [CrossRef]
67. Oliveira-Dias, D.; Moyano-Fuentes, J.; Maqueira-Marín, J.M. Understanding the relationships between information technology
and lean and agile supply chain strategies: A systematic literature review. Ann. Oper. Res. 2022, 312, 973–1005. [CrossRef]
68. Christopher, M.; Towill, D. An integrated model for the design of agile supply chains. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 2001, 31,
235–246. [CrossRef]
69. Alzoubi, H.M.; Elrehail, H.; Hanaysha, J.R.; Al-Gasaymeh, A.; Al-Adaileh, R. The Role of Supply Chain Integration and Agile
Practices in Improving Lead Time During the COVID-19 Crisis. Int. J. Serv. Sci. Manag. Eng. Technol. 2021, 13, 1–11. [CrossRef]
70. Kamble, S.S.; Gunasekaran, A.; Subramanian, N.; Ghadge, A.; Belhadi, A.; Venkatesh, M. Blockchain technology’s impact on
supply chain integration and sustainable supply chain performance: Evidence from the automotive industry. Ann. Oper. Res.
2021, 1–26. [CrossRef]
71. Jafari, H.; Ghaderi, H.; Malik, M.; Bernardes, E. The effects of supply chain flexibility on customer responsiveness: The moderating
role of innovation orientation. Prod. Plan. Control 2022, 1–19. [CrossRef]
72. Nandi, S.; Sarkis, J.; Hervani, A.A.; Helms, M.M. Redesigning Supply Chains using Blockchain-Enabled Circular Economy and
COVID-19 Experiences. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2021, 27, 10–22. [CrossRef]
73. Saleem, A.; Aslam, J.; Kim, Y.B.; Nauman, S.; Khan, N.T. Motives towards e-Shopping Adoption among Pakistani Consumers: An
Application of the Technology Acceptance Model and Theory of Reasoned Action. Sustainability 2022, 14, 4180. [CrossRef]
74. Wang, Y.; Han, J.H.; Beynon-Davies, P. Understanding blockchain technology for future supply chains: A systematic literature
review and research agenda. Supply Chain Manag. Int. J. 2019, 24, 62–84. [CrossRef]
75. Iranmanesh, M.; Zailani, S.; Hyun, S.S.; Ali, M.H.; Kim, K. Impact of lean manufacturing practices on firms’ sustainable
performance: Lean culture as a moderator. Sustain 2019, 11, 1112. [CrossRef]
76. Afonso, H.; Cabrita, M.D.R. Developing a Lean Supply Chain Performance Framework in a SME: A Perspective Based on the
Balanced Scorecard. Procedia Eng. 2015, 131, 270–279. [CrossRef]
77. Hajmohammad, S.; Vachon, S.; Klassen, R.D.; Gavronski, I. Lean management and supply management: Their role in green
practices and performance. J. Clean. Prod. 2013, 39, 312–320. [CrossRef]
78. Rahman, N.A.A.; Sharif, S.M.; Esa, M.M. Lean Manufacturing Case Study with Kanban System Implementation. Procedia Econ.
Financ. 2013, 7, 174–180. [CrossRef]
Processes 2022, 10, 2687 17 of 18

79. Anvari, A.; Ismail, Y. A Study on Total Quality Management and Lean Manufacturing: Through Lean Thinking Approach
Personnel Selection View project A method for calculating average run length by the use of markov chain View project. World
Appl. Sci. J. 2011, 12, 1585–1596.
80. Chiarini, A.; Baccarani, C.; Mascherpa, V. Lean production, Toyota Production System and Kaizen philosophy. TQM J. 2018, 30,
425–438. [CrossRef]
81. Beheshti, H.M.; Beheshti, C.M. Improving productivity and firm performance with enterprise resource planning. Enterp. Inf. Syst.
2010, 4, 445–472. [CrossRef]
82. Jasperneite, J.; Sauter, T.; Wollschlaeger, M. Why We Need Automation Models: Handling Complexity in Industry 4.0 and the
Internet of Things. IEEE Ind. Electron. Mag. 2020, 14, 29–40. [CrossRef]
83. Valentinetti, D.; Muñoz, F.F. Internet of things: Emerging impacts on digital reporting. J. Bus. Res. 2021, 131, 549–562. [CrossRef]
84. Agi, M.A.N.; Jha, A.K. Blockchain technology in the supply chain: An integrated theoretical perspective of organizational
adoption. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2022, 247, 108458. [CrossRef]
85. Kumar, R.L.; Khan, F.; Kadry, S.; Rho, S. A Survey on blockchain for industrial Internet of Things. Alexandria Eng. J. 2022, 61,
6001–6022. [CrossRef]
86. Pérez, A.T.E.; Rossit, D.A.; Tohmé, F.; Vásquez, Ó.C. Mass customized/personalized manufacturing in Industry 4.0 and blockchain:
Research challenges, main problems, and the design of an information architecture. Inf. Fusion 2022, 79, 44–57. [CrossRef]
87. Kim, J.S.; Shin, N. The impact of blockchain technology application on supply chain partnership and performance. Sustainability
2019, 11, 6181. [CrossRef]
88. Koçoǧlu, I.; Imamoǧlu, S.Z.; Ince, H.; Keskin, H. The effect of supply chain integration on information sharing: Enhancing the
supply chain performance. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2011, 24, 1630–1649. [CrossRef]
89. Jayaram, J.; Tan, K.C.; Nachiappan, S.P. Examining the interrelationships between supply chain integration scope and supply
chain management efforts. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2010, 48, 6837–6857. [CrossRef]
90. Tavana, M.; Hajipour, V.; Oveisi, S. IoT-based enterprise resource planning: Challenges, open issues, applications, architecture,
and future research directions. Internet Things 2020, 11, 100262. [CrossRef]
91. Fu, Q.; Rahman, A.A.A.; Jiang, H.; Abbas, J.; Comite, U. Sustainable Supply Chain and Business Performance: The Impact of
Strategy, Network Design, Information Systems, and Organizational Structure. Sustainability 2022, 14, 1080. [CrossRef]
92. Van Der Vorst, J. Supply Chain Management: Theory and practices. Emerg. Sci. Chain. Networks Bridg. Theory Pract. 2004, 1–19.
93. Singh, H.; Garg, R.K.; Sachdeva, A. Supply chain collaboration: A state-of-the-art literature review. Uncertain Supply Chain. Manag.
2018, 6, 149–180. [CrossRef]
94. Centobelli, P.; Cerchione, R.; Oropallo, E.; El-Garaihy, W.H.; Farag, T.; Al Shehri, K.H. Towards a sustainable development
assessment framework to bridge supply chain practices and technologies. Sustain. Dev. 2021, 30, 647–663. [CrossRef]
95. Nandi, S.; Sarkis, J.; Hervani, A.; Helms, M. Do blockchain and circular economy practices improve post COVID-19 supply
chains? A resource-based and resource dependence perspective. Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 2021, 121, 333–363. [CrossRef]
96. Rejeb, A.; Keogh, J.G.; Simske, S.J.; Stafford, T.; Treiblmaier, H. Potentials of blockchain technologies for supply chain collaboration:
A conceptual framework. Int. J. Logist. Manag. 2021, 32, 973–994. [CrossRef]
97. Sadouskaya, K. Adoption of Blockchain Technology in Supply Chain and Logistics. South-Eastern Finl. Univ. Appl. Sci. Finl. 2017,
20–25.
98. Jardim, L.; Pranto, S.; Ruivo, P.; Oliveira, T. What are the main drivers of Blockchain Adoption within Supply Chain?—An
exploratory research. Procedia Comput. Sci. 2021, 181, 495–502. [CrossRef]
99. Chen, S.; Liu, X.; Yan, J.; Hu, G.; Shi, Y. Processes, benefits, and challenges for adoption of blockchain technologies in food supply
chains: A thematic analysis. Inf. Syst. E-bus. Manag. 2021, 19, 909–935. [CrossRef]
100. Katsikouli, P.; Wilde, A.S.; Dragoni, N.; Høgh-Jensen, H. On the benefits and challenges of blockchains for managing food supply
chains. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2021, 101, 2175–2181. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
101. Astarita, V.; Giofrè, V.P.; Mirabelli, G.; Solina, V. A Review of Blockchain-Based Systems in Transportation. Information 2020, 11, 21.
[CrossRef]
102. Choi, T.M. Supply chain financing using blockchain: Impacts on supply chains selling fashionable products. Ann. Oper. Res. 2020,
1–23. [CrossRef]
103. Kim, H.; Laskowski, M. A Perspective on Blockchain Smart Contracts: Reducing Uncertainty and Complexity in Value Exchange.
In Proceedings of the 2017 26th International Conference on Computer Communication and Networks (ICCCN), Vancouver, BC,
Canada, 31 July–3 August 2017; pp. 1–6.
104. Saberi, S.; Kouhizadeh, M.; Sarkis, J.; Shen, L. Blockchain technology and its relationships to sustainable supply chain management.
Int. J. Prod. Res. 2019, 57, 2117–2135. [CrossRef]
105. Vu, N.; Ghadge, A.; Bourlakis, M. Blockchain adoption in food supply chains: A review and implementation framework. Prod.
Plan. Control 2021, 1–18. [CrossRef]
106. Zhou, Y.; Soh, Y.S.; Loh, H.S.; Yuen, K.F. The key challenges and critical success factors of blockchain implementation: Policy
implications for Singapore’s maritime industry. Mar. Policy 2020, 122, 104265. [CrossRef]
107. Toufaily, E.; Zalan, T.; Dhaou, S. Ben A framework of blockchain technology adoption: An investigation of challenges and
expected value. Inf. Manag. 2021, 58, 103444. [CrossRef]
Processes 2022, 10, 2687 18 of 18

108. Zehir, C.; Zehir, M.; Borodin, A.; Mamedov, Z.F.; Qurbanov, S. Tailored Blockchain Applications for the Natural Gas Industry: The
Case Study of SOCAR. Energies 2022, 15, 6010. [CrossRef]
109. Ara, R.A.; Paardenkooper, K.; van Duin, R. A new blockchain system design to improve the supply chain of engineering,
procurement and construction (EPC) companies—a case study in the oil and gas sector. J. Eng. Des. Technol. 2022, 20, 887–913.
[CrossRef]
110. Ahmad, R.W.; Salah, K.; Jayaraman, R.; Yaqoob, I.; Omar, M. Blockchain in oil and gas industry: Applications, challenges, and
future trends. Technol. Soc. 2022, 68, 101941. [CrossRef]