Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Procedia CIRP 120 (2023) 189–194

56th CIRP Conference on Manufacturing Systems, CIRP CMS ‘23, South Africa

Resilience Balanced Scorecard: Measuring Resilience of Manufacturing

Companies at Multiple Levels
Paul Molendaa*, Hajo Gronebergb,c, Sebastian Schötzd, Frank Döpperb,c
a
Hof University of Applied Sciences, Alfons-Goppel-Platz 1, 95028 Hof, Germany
b
University of Bayreuth, Chair Manufacturing and Remanufacturing Technology, Universitaetsstrasse 30, 95447 Bayreuth, Germany
c
Fraunhofer Institute for Manufacturing Engineering and Automation IPA, Universitätsstraße 9, 95447 Bayreuth, Germany
d
Nuremberg Institute of Technology Georg Simon Ohm, 90489 Nuremberg, Germany

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +49-9281-409-4406; fax: +49-9281-409-554402. E-mail address: paul.molenda@hof-university.de

Abstract

Manufacturing companies have to deal with an increasingly turbulent environment, characterized by shorter product life and innovation cycles
with a growing number of variants, high volatility in demand and increasing globalization. Extremely short-term and significant changes such as
the COVID-19 pandemic (2019), global economic recession (2018) or the global financial crisis (2008), represent a new perspective of
circumstances. To be able to react quickly to unforeseen external influences, manufacturing companies are looking for ways to deal with sudden
changes. Resilience is the ability of a company to withstand external social, economic or political changes and to adjust quickly to new conditions.
The central element for companies to maintain productivity in their value creation is the ability to act – not to react. This can be done, for example,
by fundamentally redesigning structures and processes. In this context, resilience encompasses all the tasks required to manage the essential
adjustments in the company or supply chain. This includes early identification, planning, implementation and control of appropriate measures as
well as the time for recovery after internal and external disruptions. The paper focuses on the identification and characterization of objectives for
resilience to enable a process to implement bouncing forward abilities in contrast of the common bouncing back abilities. A value-focused
thinking approach is used to create a multi-level system of objectives for resilience and enabling bouncing forward. For measuring and evaluating
resilience this system of objectives integrates key performance indicators. On this basis, a Resilience Balanced Scorecard is developed. On the
one hand, this enables a balanced view of financial and non-financial aspects. On the other hand, the Resilience Balanced Scorecard serves as a
strategic management tool for the objective-driven rethinking and redesign of manufacturing companies.
© 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0)
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 56th CIRP International Conference on Manufacturing Systems 2023

Keywords: Resilience; Balanced Scorecard; Value-focused thinking

1. Introduction creation of manufacturing companies is strongly influenced by

Especially in the recent past, disruptive events such as
pandemics, recessions and natural disasters, e.g. COVID-19
pandemic (2019), global economic recession (2018) or the
global financial crisis (2008), have forced companies to
optimize their value creation in strategic and operational
perspectives. This constraint arises from the fact that the value
external disruptive factors [1]. Originating from the traditional
one-dimensional financial perspective, established
management methods now include multiple perspectives in
performance measurement [2]. The increased requirement for
flexibility in manufacturing companies, due to the rise of
product and processes individualization, makes production
planning more complex. [3] In practice, individualized products

2212-8271 © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.

This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0)
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 56th CIRP International Conference on Manufacturing Systems 2023
10.1016/j.procir.2023.08.034
190 Paul Molenda et al. / Procedia CIRP 120 (2023) 189–194
are often accompanied by reduced safety stocks. These
correlations are significantly more vulnerable to disruptions
and can cause major consequences downstream in the process,
which leads to the increasing importance of resilient
manufacturing processes.
To achieve resilient manufacturing processes, the value
creation should be aligned with objectives and its quantitative
measurability. To identify appropriate objectives and indicators
creatively, value-focused thinking offers a systematic approach
to derive operational decisions [4,5].
Those decisions should be made frequently based on high-
quality advice [6]. A performance measurement and
management system aiming at balancing financial and
non-financial as well as short and long-term measures is the
Balanced Scorecard [7]. Balanced Scorecard assists
manufacturing companies in effective organizational
performance measurement, the rise of intangible assets, and the
challenge of implementing strategy [8]. This low-threshold
support is particularly important for small and medium-sized
enterprises [9,10]. However, there is still a lack of knowledge
in terms of applying Balanced Scorecards when it comes to
identify measures for addressing resilience.
Therefore, in this paper, an approach, which enables a
reflection of resilience in manufacturing companies through the
identification and characterization of resilience indicators and
objectives is described. Value-focused thinking is used to
identify objectives and create a multi-level system of objectives
for resilience. The resulting key performance indicators serve
as a basis for extending the Balanced Scorecard to include a
further perspective on resilience.
2. State of the Art
2.1. Resilience of Manufacturing Companies
MCASLAN describes the concept of resilience as the ability
to recover and return to normality, after confronting an
abnormal, alarming and often unexpected threat [11]. The
concept of resilience has been investigated in various fields of
research, as a result of which it has adopted different
perspectives: technical, organizational, social and economic
[11–13].
The increasing complexity in manufacturing companies is
induced, among other things, by an increased number of
product variants [14]. Similar to the cross-company situation in
an increasingly tightly coupled and interactive complex world,
this also impacts their manufacturing processes. The resulting
vulnerability carries the risk of having negative effects on the
entire existence of the company [15–18]. In these increasingly
challenging environments, the consideration of resilience in
strategic and operational production planning processes is an
essential factor for long-term manufacturing stability and
competitiveness.
2.2. Balanced Scorecard
The Balanced Scorecard belongs to the group of
performance measurement systems. The basic idea of the
Balanced Scorecard originally arose in the early 1990s from a
research project by KAPLAN and NORTON in collaboration with
twelve companies, including General Electrics, Apple and
Hewlett Packard. [2] The authors compare managing a
company to piloting an airplane and the ability of a pilot to
successfully keep a plane on course with a combination of
appropriate display devices, such as an altimeter and speed
indicator. In the case of a company, the management is
practically the pilot that is responsible for long-term success.
However, this can only be achieved by objectives and
monitoring. [2,8] Nowadays, companies use the Balanced
Scorecard as a strategic management cockpit to track their
objectives over a long-term period [2,19]. The Balanced
Scorecard allows managers to look at the company from four
different perspectives and it provides answers to the four basic
questions [2]:
 “How do we look to shareholders?” (Financial perspective)
 “How do customers see us?” (Customer perspective)
 “What do we need to excel at?” (Internal process
perspective)
 “Can we continue to improve and create value?”
(Innovation and learning perspective)
Fig. 1 shows the basic structure of the Balanced Scorecard.
The core of the Balanced Scorecard defines the vision and
strategy of the company. The four perspectives contain
individual and company-specific objectives and key
performance indicators, target values and actions. The links
between the perspectives show the cause-effect relationships
within the Balanced Scorecard. For example, the qualification
of employees (Innovation and learning perspective) can
positively influence the quality and costs of processes (Internal
process perspective). Better processes can have an impact on
customer satisfaction (Customer perspective) and finally on
profit (Financial perspective). [2] The Balanced Scorecard is
not a static model, but rather a framework for the individual
development of company-specific objectives and performance
indicators. Also additional perspectives, such as an
environmental or social perspective, can be integrated.
Financial
Customer Internal processes
Vision &
Strategy
Innovation & learning
Fig. 1. Structure of the Balanced Scorecard. [2]
 Paul Molenda et al. / Procedia CIRP 120 (2023) 189–194
2.3. Value-Focused Thinking
Values represent the fundamental driving force behind our
decisions and should therefore be the basis for the time and
effort we invest in our decisions. In practice, this credo rarely
applies. Often, decision-making focuses on the selection
between alternatives. Decisions become apparent to us through
the actions of others, such as competitors, customers or interest
groups. In particular, unexpected circumstances, such as
pandemics, recessions and natural disasters, may also have an
impact. Confronted with a need for decision, the solving
begins. Typically, the decision-maker focuses primarily on the
alternatives and secondarily on the objectives (or criteria) for
evaluating alternatives. This problem-solving approach is
called alternative-focused thinking. [20–22]
Focusing on alternatives is a limited way of thinking
through decisions. It is reactive rather than proactive. If
decision-making is to be taken into one’s own hands, it is
helpful to have more control over the decision-making process.
With alternative-focused thinking, there is no or limited control
of decision-making. This standard way of thinking runs
backward because it prefers the identification of alternatives
over the creation of values. Values are fundamental in any
decision. Alternatives are only relevant because they are
means-ends. They can be used to achieve the values. [20]
Decision makers should focus initially on the values and
then on the alternatives that can achieve those values. This type
of thinking was introduced by KEENEY and is called value-
focused thinking. Value-focused thinking is a way of
channeling the resource of “thinking”. Improved decisions
result from the insights that thinking provides and from specific
processes that view decisions through a “value-based lens”.
[20,21] Shifting to this way of thinking can greatly improve
decision-making. Values not only lead to the identification of
better alternatives but also improve the decision-making
process in general. [20,23]
The complete identification of all objectives is challenging.
Individuals or organizations often affirm the completeness of
objectives for decision-making. However, BOND ET AL. proved
the opposite in empirical studies. [24]
As a starting point for the complete identification of
objectives, the above-mentioned value-focused thinking
approach according to KEENEY can be used. In this approach,
the values of decision-makers and objectives are placed in the
foreground. The level of achievement is addressed. Based on
this, suitable alternatives for achieving the identified objectives
are determined. The value-focused thinking approach focuses
on the decision-making problem through the identified
objectives of the decision-maker. Not only the available
alternatives for solving the problem are considered. [5,20]
With value-focused thinking, it is recommended to begin by
creating a wish list with all objectives. The starting point is the
question of what the decision-maker wants to achieve and what
related objectives are being targeted. Efforts should be made to
increase the number of objectives by thinking widely, deeply
and several times. The objectives identified in this way form a
solid basis for the subsequent in-depth search for additional
objectives. Discussions with stakeholders can also broaden
one's own perspective. [20,21] When identifying objectives, it
191
is important to formulate them precisely. It is advisable to
describe objectives with an object, a verb and a preference
direction, for example, “reduce error rate”, “reduce waiting
time” or “increase quality”. [5,25] To maximize the number of
objectives the approaches shown in Table 1 can be used.
Furthermore, conflicts of objectives or a clash of values
often arises. Here, the improvement of one objective leads to
the deterioration of other objectives. In a decision-making
processes, for example, the objectives of "reducing transport
time" and "reducing transport costs" may conflict with each
other, since e.g. express delivery may leads to higher transport
costs. Here, a decision must be made, which of the objectives
should be prioritized in the decision-making process. [5,20,21]
Table 1. Approaches for the identification of objectives based on value-
focused thinking. [5,20]
No. Approach
1 Creation of a wish list without consideration of possible
restrictions and priorities.
2 Comparison of alternatives (e.g. actual feasible and
hypothetical) and their characteristics.
3 Analysis of the causes of existing problems and existing
deficiencies.
4 Investigation of desirable and undesirable consequences of
possible alternatives.
5 Analysis of possible specifications, restrictions and guidelines.
6 Taking other points of view on the decision-making process
through a change of perspective.
7 Inclusion of the strategic orientation of the company.
8 Use of generic objectives, e.g. objectives that are used in
similar decision-making processes.
9 Structuring of already identified objectives to derive further
objectives.
10 Quantification of already identified or structured objectives for
further objectives.
3. Approach and Methodology for Measuring Resilience of
Manufacturing Companies
To be able to make valuable decisions to increase resilience
in manufacturing companies and to be able to track these within
the framework of strategic management, the approaches of
value-focus thinking and Balanced Scorecard are suitable. For
the coordinated use of these two approaches to integrating the
resilience perspective into the management of a manufacturing
company, an approach was developed to enable the most
efficient and low-threshold application possible. The general
scheme of the approach is shown in Fig. 2 and is explained in
more detail in the following chapters.
Starting from the strategic alignment and the vision of the
manufacturing company, the three superordinate steps of
value-focus thinking (identification, structuring and
operationalization of objectives) are worked through
successively. After the objectives have been identified, they are
structured on multiple levels and then operationalized using
key performance indicators. Finally, these key performance
indicators are integrated into the Balanced Scorecard via a fifth
perspective.
192 Paul Molenda et al. / Procedia CIRP 120 (2023) 189–194

value-focused thinking approach can be used to achieve a

Vision & Strategy
Result: Basis for the identification of objectives
Identification of Objectives
 Specification of individual values
 Thinking widely, deeply and several times
Result: Master list with all identified objectives
Value-Focused Thinking
complete list of objectives for resilience. Here, the list of
approaches for the identification of objectives can be applied
(cf. Table 1).
For example, based on the resilience indicator “flexibility”
(cf. Table 1), the structuring approach (number 9 in Table 1)
can be used to identify the objectives “increase adaptation
flexibility”, “increase expansion flexibility”, “increase quantity

flexibility”, “reduce response time”, “reduce lot sizes” and

Structuring of Objectives “increase vertical integration” (cf. [5]).
 Hierarchical structure of the objectives Furthermore, for the indicator “adaptability”, the exemplary
 Determination of instrumental and objectives “increase universality”, “increase scalability”,
fundamental objectives
“increase modularity” and “increase interface compatibility”
Result: System of objectives with multiple levels
can be identified with a further wish list (number 1in Table 1).
Operationalization of Objectives Using the “consequence analysis” approach (number 4 in
 Measurement of the objectives Table 1), possible consequences of the indicator of increasing
 Specification of key performance indicators complexity can be discussed. The following objectives could
2022 2023 2024 2025 Result: Operationalized system of objectives result from this: “reduce set-up times”, “reduce production
Resilience Balanced Scorecard planning and control effort”, “reduce variant diversity”,
Financial Internal
processes
 Integration of the system of objectives into the “reduce hierarchy levels” and “reduce reaction times”.
Resilience Balanced Scorecard All objectives identified this way are to be included in a
Objective KPI Target value Action Objective KPI Target value Action

 Development of the status quo, benchmarking

comprehensive master list. This reflects a complete collection
Vision &
Strategy Innovation &
Customer
learning

& continuous tracking of optimization actions

Objective KPI Target value Action Objective KPI Target value Action

of possible resilience objectives. By focusing on the identified

Result: Strategic management tool for resilient
Resilience

objectives, further problem-solving approaches can be found.

Objective KPI Target value Action

manufacturing companies
In this way, all relevant objectives can be identified.
Fig. 2. Approach and Methodology for Measuring Resilience of Manufacturing
Companies. (Based on [20,21])
4.2. Structuring of Objectives at Multiple Levels
4. Value-Focused Thinking Approach for Measuring
Resilience in a Balanced Scorecard After the identification of all objectives, it is helpful to
structure them systematically. A suitable way of structuring
objectives is to present them in a system of objectives at
4.1. Identification of Objectives multiple levels. The value-focused thinking approach
distinguishes between instrumental and fundamental objectives
As a starting point, the initial identification of objectives for as well as objective-means networks.
resilience should be based on the vision and strategy as well as Instrumental objectives serve as an instrument to achieve
on a wish list derived from existing practical and scientific other objectives and are pursued to achieve higher-level
indicators. In a bibliometric analysis, BIEDERMANN ET AL. objectives. Fundamental objectives are pursued for their
identified resilience indicators that are particularly suitable for reasons (cf. [20]). For example, the objective “reduce operating
application in value creation systems, such as manufacturing time” is not an end in itself, it helps to achieve the objective
systems [26]. A subsequent description by GRONEBERG ET AL. “reduce overall throughput time”. This serves to achieve the
with a categorization into proactive and reactive action and objective “increasing performance”. This can be a fundamental
process design is visualized in Table 2 [1]. objective in a system of objectives. The relationship between
fundamental and instrumental objectives is often referred to as
Table 2. Resilience indicators. [1] the means-ends relationship and represents their specific cause-
Proactive action Reactive action Process design
effect relationship.
It can be stated that an alternative-focused approach leads to
Flexibility Responsiveness Visibility
the use of instrumental objectives without intensive thinking
Agility Adaptability Redundancy about the fundamental objectives. Decision-makers often tend
Innovativeness Robustness to think in terms of alternatives, e.g. alternative-focused, when
Learning ability Complexity they have concrete ideas. If a decision-maker has an idea about
concrete alternatives suitable for problem solving, the
decision-maker tends to attach possible objectives to their
The application of superordinate indicators is also beneficial
characteristics [20]. Thus, the objectives determined in this
for the performance measurement of a manufacturing
way often have only a intermediate status, without the
company, as it provides a link to suppliers and customers
decision-maker being aware. Consequently, when structuring
within a value creation system. For manufacturing companies,
objectives, it is important to find out whether they are
these initially qualitative indicators are decomposed into
fundamental or instrumental objectives.
objectives at a shop floor level. This serves to create a
comprehensive base of possible objectives. Subsequently, the
 Paul Molenda et al. / Procedia CIRP 120 (2023) 189–194
Structuring the objectives serves to determine the
fundamental and instrumental objectives by using a
“top-down” or “bottom-up” approach. In the “top-down”
approach, the appropriate subordinate objectives (e.g.
instrumental objectives) are assigned based on a higher-level
objective (e.g. a fundamental objective) [5,20,21]. This
procedure is carry out until sufficiently quantifiable objectives
are available and these can no longer be further subdivided. The
instrumental objectives at the lowest level can then be
operationalized, for example, by utilizing key performance
indicators.
Alternatively, objectives can be assigned to the higher-level
objectives of the hierarchy structure, using the “bottom-up
approach”. In the structuring process, the question “Why is this
important?” (WITI-Test) can be used to determine whether the
objective is superordinate or subordinate. [5,20]
Instead of choosing one of these two approaches, a
combined “top-down” and “bottom-up” approach could be
applied, depending on the objectives under consideration. In
the combined approach, all identified objectives are to be
classified in a system of objectives. During the hierarchy of the
objectives, additional overall and sub-objectives are generated
to group the corresponding objectives.
In general, the distinction between fundamental and
instrumental objectives is not absolute. It always depends on
the company and the individual. The system of objectives is
completed, if the criteria in Table 3 can be predominantly
affirmed.
Table 3. Requirements for the system of objectives. [5,25]
Requirement Description
Completeness The developed system of objectives must contain all
crucial aspects and items.
Measurability All identified objectives should be measurable using
a key performance indicator.
Non- A system of objectives should not use multiple
redundancy instrumental objectives that relate to the same issue.
Simplicity The system of objectives should be as simple and
and Structure clear as possible.
Consistency Objectives that completely contradict each other
should not be included in a system of objectives.
Actual Obsolete objectives should not be included in the
system of objectives.
4.3. Operationalization of Objectives
The operationalization of objectives is primarily used for
measurement, e.g. the evaluation of the achievement of the
objective, and describes the characteristics of the objective.
This is done with the help of key performance indicators. When
operationalizing objectives, a distinction can be made between
“natural key performance indicators”, “proxy key performance
indicators” and “artificial key performance indicators”. In
principle, natural key performance indicators are derived
directly from the formulation of the objective and can be
measured on a “natural” scale. This is especially the case for
quantitative objectives, such as “reduce set-up times”. If it is
not possible to measure the success of the objectives directly,
193
proxy key performance indicators can be used to approximate
the objective. They represent an indicator of target
achievement. In a developed system of objectives, for example,
the objective “Improve ergonomics at the workplace” can be
measured by the key performance indicator “Number of sick
days per year due to medical complaints”. If there is no direct
measurability, artificial key performance indicators can be
used. In this case, an artificial scale is used, to simplify the
information by summarizing it. A practical example is the
taxation of motor vehicles, which is based on an allocation of
motor vehicles to certain pollutant classes. Concerning a
manufacturing company, the objective “increase degree of
automation” for example can be measured on an ordinal scale
(very high, high, medium, low, very low).
The operationalized system of objectives serves as a basis
for the development of the company-specific Resilience
Balanced Scorecard.
5. Resilience Balanced Scorecard of Manufacturing
Companies
After identifying, structuring and operationalizing the
objectives using the value-focused thinking approach, the
results are transferred to the Resilience Balanced Scorecard.
For this purpose, the Balanced Scorecard is extended to include
a fifth perspective, the “Resilience perspective”, see Fig. 3. The
fifth perspective allows an increased focus on resilience as a
core characteristic of the manufacturing company.
Consequently, resilient companies are prepared to compensate
for and respond to disruptions. They have the flexibility to adapt
their organizational structure as well as processes to new
circumstances. Thus, resilience contributes holistically as a key
to the success of a manufacturing company in present but also
in the future.
The identified and structured objectives covering multiple
levels can be adopted into the resilience perspective, listed in
tabular form. Afterward, the previously defined key
performance indicators are also added. The next step is to
determine the status quo of the key performance indicators. For
this purpose, the key performance indicator should relate as
directly as possible to the corresponding objective.
Subsequently, the target values for every objective have to be
defined and benchmarked for the identification of target values.
To achieve these, optimization actions are defined for the
instrumental objectives. The optimization actions act through
the developed hierarchy at multiple levels to achieve the overall
objectives. This is due to the means-end relationship between
instrumental and fundamental objectives. The optimization
actions are designed to strengthen a company's resilience in a
continuous improvement process. At the same time, the
systematic measurement of key performance indicators enables
benchmarks within and outside the company. In addition to
internal data and information, external sources such as
evaluations and surveys should be exploited.
194
Financial
Objective KPI Target value
Customer
Objective KPI Target value Action
Fig. 3. Resilience Balanced Scorecard. (Based on [2])
The Resilient Balanced Scorecard represents the complex
cause-effect relationships of the objectives, key performance
indicators and optimization actions as a whole. Due to the
prevailing transparency, objective-oriented and proactive
actions could be implemented. This provides the basis for
implementing bouncing forward abilities instead of the usual
bouncing back abilities.
In conclusion, the approach enables a continuous adjustment
process. The Resilient Balanced Scorecard must be
continuously scrutinized as well as optimized. Possible changes
may result from changing market or business requirements. The
continuous adjustment process leads to an improved and more
comprehensive performance measurement system for every
manufacturing company.
6. Conclusion and Outlook
As the state of the art shows, the approaches of value-
focused thinking and the Balanced Scorecard are suitable for
integrating resilience into strategic management in a structured
way. Especially in times of increasing complexity, in which
production processes are becoming more and more vulnerable
to disruptions, the alignment of production processes to
objective-oriented measurements is essential. The approach
developed and described in this paper can be used to
incorporate the perspective of resilience in aligning
manufacturing companies to remain competitive in the long
term.
Future research should address an elaboration and validation of
industry-specific or even company-specific and quantitatively
measurable objectives. This allows the value-focused thinking
approach to be fed and a suitable design of the Resilience
Balanced Scorecard to be ensured. The developed approach
should be tested on an industrial scale and further developed on
this basis.
Paul Molenda et al. / Procedia CIRP 120 (2023) 189–194
References
[1] Groneberg H, Bock T, Doepper F. Resilience in value creation systems
through additive manufacturing: a decision model. Procedia Computer
Science 2023;217:296–305.
Internal [2] Kaplan RS, Norton DP. The Balanced Scorecard—Measures that Drive
processes Performance. Harvard Business Review 1992(92105):70–9.
Action Objective KPI Target value Action
[3] Molenda P, Drews T, Oechsle O. Multi-objective operating point
optimization of manufacturing systems. Procedia CIRP 2021;104:1662–7.
[4] Selart M, Johansen ST. Understanding the Role of Value-Focused Thinking
Vision & in Idea Management. Creativity and Innovation Management
Strategy Innovation & 2011;20(3):196–206.
learning [5] Steinhilper R, Drews T, Molenda P, Oechsle O, Siebert J, Beneken G.
Entwicklung methodenbasierter produktionslogistischer
Objective KPI Target value Action
Wertschöpfungsprozesse. Universität Bayreuth; 2017.
[6] Nedosekin A, Abdoulaeva Z, Konnikov E, Zhuk A. Fuzzy Set Models for
Resilience Economic Resilience Estimation. Mathematics 2020;8(9):1516.
Objective KPI Target value Action [7] Hansen EG, Schaltegger S. The Sustainability Balanced Scorecard: A
Systematic Review of Architectures. J Bus Ethics 2016;133(2):193–221.
[8] Niven PR. Balanced Scorecard Step-By-Step. Hoboken, NJ, USA: John
Wiley & Sons, Inc; 2012.
[9] Groneberg H, Schuh C, Steinhilper R, Döpper F. Implementation of
Methods for the Optimization of Processes and Production Systems. In:
Schmitt R, Schuh G, editors. Advances in Production Research. Cham:
Springer International Publishing; 2019, p. 237–246.
[10] Bhamra R, Dani S, Burnard K. Resilience: the concept, a literature review
and future directions. International Journal of Production Research
2011;49(18):5375–93.
[11] McAslan A. The Concept of Resilience: Understanding its Origins,
Meaning and Utility. Torrens Resilience Institute 2010.
[12] Bruneau M, Chang SE, Eguchi RT, Lee GC, O’Rourke TD, Reinhorn AM
et al. A Framework to Quantitatively Assess and Enhance the Seismic
Resilience of Communities. Earthquake Spectra 2003;19(4):733–52.
[13] Tierney KJ. Conceptualizing and Measuring Organizational and
Community Resilience: Lessons From The Emergency Response
Following The September 11, 2001 Attack on The World Trade Center.
DRC preliminary paper 2003(329).
[14] Schuh G, Rudolf S, Riesener M, Dölle C, Schloesser S. Product
Production Complexity Research: Developments and Opportunities.
Procedia CIRP 2017;60:344–9.
[15] Vogus TJ, Sutcliffe KM. Organizational resilience: Towards a theory and
research agenda.” 2007;2007:3418–22.
[16] Sahu AK, Datta S, Mahapatra SS. Evaluation and selection of resilient
suppliers in fuzzy environment. Benchmarking: An International Journal
2016;23(3):651–73.
[17] Zhang D, Dadkhah P, Ekwall D. How robustness and resilience support
security business against antagonistic threats in transport network. J Transp
Secur 2011;4(3):201–19.
[18] Hoffmann GP. Organisationale Resilienz. 1st ed. Berlin, Heidelberg:
Springer Berlin Heidelberg; 2017.
[19] Malagueño R, Lopez-Valeiras E, Gomez-Conde J. Balanced scorecard in
SMEs. Small Bus Econ 2018;51(1):221–44.
[20] Keeney RL. Value-focused thinking: A path to creative decisionmaking.
Cambridge, Mass. [u.a.]: Harvard Univ. Press; 1992.
[21] Siebert J, Keeney RL. Creating More and Better Alternatives for
Decisions Using Objectives. Operations Research 2015;63(5):1144–58.
[22] Zopounidis C, Doumpos M (eds.). Multiple criteria decision making:
Applications in management and engineering. Cham: Springer; 2017.
[23] Weston RH. Model Driven Integrated Decision-Making in Manufacturing
Enterprises. Advances in Decision Sciences 2012;2012(5):1–29.
[24] Bond SD, Carlson KA, Keeney RL. Improving the Generation of Decision
Objectives. Decision Analysis 2010;7(3):238–55.
[25] Klein R, Scholl A. Planung und Entscheidung: Konzepte, Modelle und
Methoden einer modernen betriebswirtschaftlichen Entscheidungsanalyse.
2nd ed. München: Vahlen, Franz; 2004.
[26] Hubert Biedermann SV (ed.). Industrial Life Cycle Management:
Sustainability Management for Industries. 1st ed. Mering: Rainer Hampp
Verlag; 2019.