Production Planning & Control

The Management of Operations

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/tppc20

Industry 4.0 digital transformation and

opportunities for supply chain resilience: a
comprehensive review and a strategic roadmap

Morteza Ghobakhloo, Mohammad Iranmanesh, Behzad Foroughi, Ming-Lang

Tseng, Davoud Nikbin & Ahmad A. A. Khanfar

To cite this article: Morteza Ghobakhloo, Mohammad Iranmanesh, Behzad Foroughi,

Ming-Lang Tseng, Davoud Nikbin & Ahmad A. A. Khanfar (11 Sep 2023): Industry 4.0 digital
transformation and opportunities for supply chain resilience: a comprehensive review and a
strategic roadmap, Production Planning & Control, DOI: 10.1080/09537287.2023.2252376

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2023.2252376

© 2023 The Author(s). Published by Informa

UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis
Group

Published online: 11 Sep 2023.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 3917

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 3 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tppc20
PRODUCTION PLANNING & CONTROL
https://doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2023.2252376

Industry 4.0 digital transformation and opportunities for supply chain resilience:
a comprehensive review and a strategic roadmap
Morteza Ghobakhlooa,b, Mohammad Iranmaneshc, Behzad Foroughid, Ming-Lang Tsenge,f,g, Davoud Nikbinh
and Ahmad A. A. Khanfari
a
School of Economics and Business, Kaunas University of Technology, Kaunas, Lithuania; bDivision of Industrial Engineering and
Management, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden; cLa Trobe Business School, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia; dDepartment of
International Business Administration, I-Shou University, Kaohsiung City, Taiwan; eInstitute of Innovation and Circular Economy, Asia
University, Taichung, Taiwan; fDepartment of Medical Research, China Medical University Hospital, China Medical University, Taichung,
Taiwan; gUKM-Graduate School of Business, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Selangor, Malaysia; hSchool of Business & Law, University of
Brighton, Brighton, United Kingdom; iSchool of Business and Law, Edith Cowan University, Joondalup, Australia

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Despite interest in opportunities that Industry 4.0 offers for Supply Chain Resilience (SCR), little is Received 24 October 2021
known about the underlying mechanisms for such contributions. The study develops a roadmap that Accepted 22 August 2023
explains how supply chains can capitalize on Industry 4.0 SCR functions. The study conducted a con-
KEYWORDS
tent-centric literature review and identified 16 functions through which Industry 4.0 enhances SCR.
Industry 4.0; resilience;
Results reveal that the Industry 4.0 SCR functions identified are highly interrelated, and supply chain supply chain; digitalization;
members should align their digitalization strategies with the sequence in which Industry 4.0 delivers blockchain; artificial
these functions. Industry 4.0 contribution to SCR first involves delivering data-centric functions such as intelligence
supply chain automation, information and communication quality, process monitoring, and visibility.
Industry 4.0 further allows supply chain partners to collaborate better on improving supply chain map-
ping, complexity management, and innovation capabilities. Through these functions and by increasing
transparency, flexibility, and agility of supply chain operations, Industry 4.0 delivers more dependent
but consequential resilience functions such as supply chain responsiveness, adaptive capability, and
continuity management. The roadmap further explains how each pair of Industry 4.0 SCR functions
mutually interact while contributing to the overall resilience of the supply chain. The study discusses
possible implications and outlines important avenues for future research.

1. Introduction the digitalization of SC processes, appears to be one of the

Supply Chain (SC) disruptions that businesses have recently
encountered have no parallel in the recent history of the
world economy (Bloomberg 2021). The Covid-19 pandemic,
radical changes in the global consumer market, and geopolit-
ical shifts are among the primary external causes of SC disrup-
tions (Bahrami and Shokouhyar 2022; Spieske and Birkel
2021). Recent disruptions in national and global SCs have hit
numerous nerve centres of the global economy, such as
advanced semiconductor chips, medical goods, and energy
supply and distribution (Bloomberg 2021). Experts believe
most contemporary SCs have overfocused on pushing prod-
uctivity and efficiency and left resilience by the wayside
(Tortorella et al. 2022; Zouari, Ruel, and Viale 2021). Although
the concept of Supply Chain Resilience (SCR) is a few decades
old, current SC disruption risks have motivated academia to
rethink the strategies for rebalancing SC efficiency and resili-
ence (Mubarik, Naghavi, et al. 2021; Naz et al. 2022). The use
of modern technological innovation, commonly labelled as
most effective strategies for SCR capability building (Tsolakis,
Harrington, and Singh Srai 2023; Zouari, Ruel, and Viale 2021).
The salient role of digitalization comes as no surprise, given
that the business world is witnessing the digital industrial
revolution known as Industry 4.0 (Marcucci et al. 2022).
Industry 4.0 is revolutionary because it restructures the
organizations and management of industrial value networks
(Kayikci et al. 2022). The digital transformation under
Industry 4.0 involves the collective implementation of disrup-
tive digital technologies, such as augmented reality, Artificial
Intelligence (AI), big data analytics, cloud computing, block-
chain, Internet of Things (IoT), robotic systems, and simula-
tion tools, across the value networks (Pozzi, Rossi, and Secchi
2023). In addition to its technological advancements,
Industry 4.0 requires SC partners to embrace essential design
principles, such as interoperability, real-time capability,
modularity, decentralization, and integrability, that enable
the concept of a hyperconnected value creation system

CONTACT Morteza Ghobakhloo morteza_ghobakhloo@yahoo.com Division of Industrial Engineering and Management, Uppsala University, PO Box 534,
Uppsala, Sweden
ß 2023 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use,
distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. The terms on which this article has been published allow the posting of the Accepted
Manuscript in a repository by the author(s) or with their consent.
2 M. GHOBAKHLOO ET AL.
(Hofmann et al. 2019; Shao et al. 2021). Overall, Industry 4.0
represents a fundamental shift in how value is created,
requiring the synergistic utilization of various technologies
and the implementation of specific design principles across
the value network (Ghobakhloo 2020).
Scholars argue that Industry 4.0 holds immense potential
for mitigating SC disruptions and enhancing SCR (Spieske and
Birkel 2021). The literature provides some preliminary insights
into how technological constituents of Industry 4.0 may con-
tribute to SCR. For example, Dennehy et al. (2021) described
how big data analytics promotes SCR by allowing SCs to col-
lect discriminatory information about emerging SC threats
effectively. Recent studies have also shown much interest in
explaining the enabling functions of AI for SCR (Belhadi,
Kamble, Fosso Wamba, et al. 2021; Modgil, Gupta, et al. 2021).
The contribution of AI to SCR capability development involves
contingency management, SC shock mitigation, prediction
accuracy, and demand volatility management, to name a few
(Ivanov and Dolgui 2021; Modgil, Singh, and Hannibal 2021;
Naz et al. 2022). Alternatively, blockchain enables SCR by
increasing SC trust, operational transparency, cybersecurity,
and order fulfilment security (Dubey, Gunasekaran, Bryde,
et al. 2020; Min 2019). Despite early attempts to explain the
SCR opportunities of individual Industry 4.0 technologies, the
holistic understanding of the processes through which
Industry 4.0, as a collective digital transformation paradigm,
would enable SCR is still somewhat lacking. Spieske and Birkel
(2021), in their recent systemic literature review, reaffirm this
knowledge gap and argue that the literature lacks the empir-
ical assessment of the holistic enabling role of Industry 4.0 in
SCR. Similarly, Tortorella et al. (2022, p. 547) argued that while
Industry 4.0 technologies have the potential to enable disrup-
tion responsiveness through altering SC management, ‘the
digital transformation of SCs is still incipient, and literature is
particularly sparse when considering the contribution of I4.0
to the resilience of SCs.’
While theory-driven studies explain SCR capabilities and
determinants, they are methodologically limited to narrowing
the topic area and the resulting conclusions. For example,
Bag, Dhamija, et al. (2021) drew on the resource-based view
theory and found that big data analytics contributes to SCA
by enabling SC partners to develop internal and external risk
management capabilities. Bahrami and Shokouhyar (2022)
drew on the dynamic capabilities view and empirically
revealed that big data analytics contributes to SCA by
enhancing innovation capability and information quality
across the SC. Belhadi, Mani, et al. (2021) built on the organ-
izational information processing theory and revealed that AI
implications for SCR involve better supply chain collaboration
and the development of SC adaptive capability. Indeed, we
acknowledge that individual technological constituents of
Industry 4.0 would offer unique implications for promot-
ing SCR.
Nonetheless, Industry 4.0 does not merely manifest in a
single technology as it represents a paradigm shift in value
creation, entailing the application of various technologies and
the development of specific design principles such as real-
time capability or virtualization. Since SCR capability
development is challenging and complex (Munoz and Dunbar
2015), the complementarities and synergies among various
Industry 4.0 technologies and design principles would expect-
edly support the inclusive development of SCR capabilities.
Despite the logicality of this assumption, scientific research is
yet to scrutinize and confirm such a mechanism.
Addressing this knowledge gap entails systemizing the
process through which Industry 4.0 holistically introduces
resiliency into SC operations. The present study contributes
to filling this knowledge gap by identifying the Industry 4.0
SCR functions and modelling how these functions interact to
optimally increase SCs’ ability to resist, adapt, or transform in
the face of disruptions. To this purpose, the study performs a
content-centric review of extant literature to identify Industry
4.0 SCR functions. As the main contribution, the study further
draws on Interpretive Structural Modelling (ISM) and experts’
knowledge-based to identify and model the causal relation-
ships among Industry 4.0 SCR functions. The present study
develops a resilience roadmap that describes how SC part-
ners can effectively leverage Industry 4.0 to enhance their
collective SCR capacity by structuring the resilience functions
into a meaningful graph-theoretic hierarchical model and
constructing the interpretive logic-knowledge base (ILB). Our
research and the resilience roadmap can offer notable impli-
cations in three ways. First, the study identifies and describes
16 functions through which Industry 4.0 can promote SCR.
Second, the roadmap identifies the optimal sequence for
developing these functions to maximize the synergistic SCR
gains from Industry 4.0. Third, the study describes the ena-
bling role of each function concerning other functions, offer-
ing more profound insight into the micro-mechanisms
through which Industry 4.0 can holistically enable SCR.
2. Background
This section provides a brief overview of the Industry 4.0
phenomenon and further reviews the concept and implica-
tions of SC resilience.
2.1. Industry 4.0
Industry 4.0, which is reminiscent of the fourth industrial
revolution, was first coined in 2011 in Germany. The ten
years of Industry 4.0 literature is filled with countless studies
exploring the scope, characteristics, and implications of
Industry 4.0. Nonetheless, this phenomenon has been proven
to be elusive and hard to define (Pozzi, Rossi, and Secchi
2023). Industry 4.0 was first introduced as the digitalization
of manufacturing processes at the firm level (Hughes et al.
2022). Later, scholars argued that Industry 4.0 involves the
digital transformation of manufacturing value chains
(Kazancoglu et al. 2023). Scientific and industrial reports fur-
ther reveal that the digital revolution under Industry 4.0 is
taking place across many industries, such as construction,
energy, and healthcare (e.g. Lekan et al. 2022). Industry 4.0
nowadays denotes the paradigm shift across the industrial
value chains, involving the digitalization of value creation
and delivery processes at the system, corporate, and value

Figure 1. Industry 4.0 archetype. Source: authors.
network levels. Given the elusive nature of Industry 4.0,
defining this phenomenon based on its core building blocks,
known as design principles and technology trends, has been
a standard procedure within the literature. Following the pre-
vious works of Ghobakhloo (2020) and Pozzi, Rossi, and
Secchi (2023), the study holds a value chain perspective
while defining the scope, design principles, and technology
trends of Industry 4.0, introducing the Industry 4.0 archetype
as Figure 1. Technology trends of Industry 4.0 include
advanced digital, information, and operations technologies,
such as AI, additive manufacturing, and Cyber-Physical
Systems (CPS), that drive the digital revolution (Marcucci
et al. 2022). These technologies have become commercially
PRODUCTION PLANNING & CONTROL 3
mature and economically accessible during the past two dec-
ades. Design principles of Industry 4.0 are necessary condi-
tions that allow businesses to unlock the Industry 4.0
transition potential (Hermann et al. 2016). Figure 1 lists the
most widely accepted design principles of Industry 4.0.
Viewed from this perspective, the advent of Industry 4.0
disruptive technologies creates the foundation for the
development of valuable design principles such as
vertical-horizontal integration, real-time capability, decentral-
ization, and virtualization that collectively transform the
classic linear SCs into modular, scalable, dynamic, hyper-con-
nected, and data-driven Digital Supply Networks (DSN). The
contribution of Industry 4.0 to the development of DSN
4 M. GHOBAKHLOO ET AL.
involves the collective digitalization of SC components, includ-
ing suppliers, focal manufacturers, logistics channels, distribu-
tors, and even customers (Kazancoglu et al. 2023). As an
example, the smart factory section of Figure 1 explains how
Industry 4.0 technologies such as additive manufacturing,
Internet of People (IoP), Internet of Services (IoS), and robotics
contribute to the digitalization of manufacturers. Overall, the
digitalization of SCs under Industry 4.0 involves implementing
idiosyncratic combinations of digital technologies based on
each SC component’s strategic needs and priorities. The DSN
concept under Industry 4.0 offers essential opportunities for
maximizing stakeholder value, examples of which include cus-
tomer satisfaction, regulatory compliance, improved revenue,
or brand responsiveness (Fatorachian and Kazemi 2021).
2.2. Supply chain resilience
Originating from the social psychology theory, SCR denotes
the SC’s capability to recover after a disruption and to resist
future interruptions (Tortorella et al. 2022). The recovery
aspect concerns the SC’s ability to quickly retain the optimal
operational performance after experiencing the disruption
(Modgil, Gupta, et al. 2021). The resistance aspect concerns
the SC’s ability to minimize the impact of disruptions pro-
actively, either through constantly monitoring the environ-
ment to avoid the potential disruptions entirely (Modgil,
Singh, and Hannibal 2021) or optimally reconfiguring itself to
promptly recover from the negative impacts of eminent dis-
ruptions (Lohmer, Bugert, and Lasch 2020). SC disruptions
are caused by various reasons, from socio-political shifts to
natural disasters or economic crises. The Covid-19 crisis and
worldwide disruption of SCs across various business sectors
perfectly showcased the importance of SC resilience capabil-
ity building (Peng et al. 2021; Spieske and Birkel 2021). As a
result, understanding the mechanism through which SCs can
enhance their resilience has recently gained significant atten-
tion within the operations and supply chain management
disciplines.
Previous studies have introduced a variety of resilience
strategies that SCs can implement to enhance their resilience
capability. Tortorella et al. (2022) state that SCR strategies
can be reactive, proactive, or a combination of both. The
widely accepted SCR strategies (also labelled principles, ena-
blers, or drivers) include SC visibility, flexibility, postpone-
ment, collaboration, information security, and automation, to
name a few (Bag, Dhamija, et al. 2021; Bag, Gupta, et al.
2021; Belhadi, Kamble, Fosso Wamba, et al. 2021; Belhadi,
Kamble, Jabbour, et al. 2021; Ivanov and Dolgui 2021; Senna
et al. 2023). An emerging stream of research within the SCR
discipline examines how SC digitalization can act as a resili-
ence strategy (Zouari, Ruel, and Viale 2021) or facilitate the
development of other resilience strategies such as SC collab-
oration, innovation, information security, or mindfulness
(Belhadi, Mani, et al. 2021; Dennehy et al. 2021; Lohmer,
Bugert, and Lasch 2020). Scholars have recently begun to
study the implications of Industry 4.0 for SCR. Ralston and
Blackhurst (2020) explored the interaction between Industry
4.0 and SC resilience. Further, they concluded that although
the underlying mechanism through which Industry 4.0 inter-
act with resilience capability is understudied, the productivity
outcome of this phenomenon, such as improved product
quality, process agility, and lower operational costs, offer
essential opportunities for SCR. Under their digital twin-
driven SC disruption management framework, Ivanov and
Dolgui (2021) theoretically explained how Industry 4.0 tech-
nologies and principles such as big data analytics, machine
learning, or real-time communication capability can promote
SC disruption risk management practices. Spieske and Birkel
(2021) conducted a systemic review of Industry 4.0-SC resili-
ence literature and developed a theoretical framework that
explained the implications of Individual Industry 4.0 technol-
ogies for SCR antecedents (e.g. design, sourcing, velocity)
and phases (e.g. response, recovery, and growth). The litera-
ture also provides some empirical evidence explaining how
SCR can be enabled by individual technological constituents
of Industry 4.0, such as AI (Belhadi, Mani, et al. 2021; Modgil,
Gupta, et al. 2021; Modgil, Singh, and Hannibal 2021; Naz
et al. 2022), blockchain (Dubey, Gunasekaran, Bryde, et al.
2020; Lohmer, Bugert, and Lasch 2020), and big data ana-
lytics (Dennehy et al. 2021). Nonetheless, the literature falls
short in explaining how Industry 4.0 resilience functions
interact to promote SCR.
3. Industry 4.0 SCR functions
The study followed Webster and Watson’s (2002) and Watson
and Webster’s (2020) guide and performed a content-centric
literature review to identify Industry 4.0 SCR functions. In this
study, the term SCR functions refer to the strategic or tech-
nical capabilities, opportunities, and outcomes that can be
delivered to supply partners due to the collective integration
and utilization of advanced technologies and design princi-
ples of Industry 4.0, allowing supply chains to adapt and
recover from disruptions quickly.
Figure 2 explains the procedure undertaken for identifying
the eligible articles and conducting the content-centric
review. Step A1 of the review involved the initial identifica-
tion of related documents. In this step, the initial search of
Scopus and Web of Science databases using the search
string (explained under step A1 in Figure 2) identified 296
documents. For step A2, we developed three exclusion crite-
ria. Exclusion criterion 1 ensured that only peer-reviewed
journal articles were eligible. Exclusion criterion 2 ensured
that the main body of text for the shortlisted article should
be in English. The exclusion criterion 3 assured that the
articles shortlisted in the literature review were relevant to
the research question and objectives of the study, offering
meaningful insights into the opportunities that Industry 4.0
may offer for SCR. Across step A2, the 296 documents were
subjected to exclusion criteria (listed in Figure 2), which
removed 279 ineligible documents and shortlisted 17 docu-
ments under the primary pool of eligible articles.
Under step B1, the backward review of eligible articles
was conducted. This step involved analyzing the reference
sections of eligible articles shortlisted under step A2 for
discovering additional related documents, which led to

Figure 2. The process of conducting the content-centric review of the literature.
identifying 68 documents. The 68 newly identified docu-
ments were subjected to the exclusion criteria under step
B2, which led to the secondary pool of 5 eligible journal
articles. Step C1 involved using Google Scholar and Web of
Science to discover SCR-related documents that have cited
the eligible articles shortlisted throughout steps A2 and B2.
In step C2, the 29 newly identified documents in step C1
were subjected to the exclusion criteria, leading to the ter-
tiary pool of 3 eligible journal articles. Steps A1 to C2 collect-
ively led to the final collection of 25 eligible articles for
further use in content analysis.
The study followed the existing guides (e.g. Higgins
et al. 2019) and developed a detailed assessment protocol
to organize the content analysis procedures and ensure the
validity and reliability of outcomes. The protocol detailed
the coding scheme, data retrieval/archiving, text denoising
procedure, and disagreement tracking procedure, enabling
two independent content assessors to standardize the con-
tent analysis processes and minimize the threat of bias. The
qualitative content analysis of eligible articles identified 16
functions through which Industry 4.0 enables SCR. Table 1
explains the distribution of the 16 Industry 4.0 SCR func-
tions across the eligible articles. Table 2 outlines the role of
Industry 4.0 technologies and design principles in delivering
the SCR functions. Each of the SCR functions is briefly
described in the following.
3.1. Business Continuity Management (BCM)
BCM refers to the firm’s ability to manage difficult situations
strategically to avoid potential disruptions or continue to
operate after a disaster (Niemimaa et al. 2019). BCM involves
PRODUCTION PLANNING & CONTROL 5
defining and identifying potential risks, diagnosing the roots
of poor operations, and creating a dynamic governance plan
that outlines how business processes should revitalize and
stabilize after a crisis (Margherita and Heikkil€a 2021). BCM is
extremely information-intensive, consisting of numerous
data-hungry sub-functions such as incident identification, risk-
threat assessment, disaster recovery planning, and business
strategy rethinking (Modgil, Singh, and Hannibal 2021;
Niemimaa et al. 2019). Industry 4.0 delivers the BCM function
through the vertical integration principle and introducing AI,
big data, CPS, and the Industrial Internet of Things (IIoT) to
business operations (Ivanov and Dolgui 2021; Naz et al. 2022).
This process involves integrating information and operations
technologies, processes, infrastructure, and human compo-
nents within and across the operational and functional layers
of a business unit (Ghobakhloo, Iranmanesh, et al. 2021;
Ghobakhloo, Fathi, et al. 2021b). The resulting digitalized busi-
ness ecosystem (also called a smart factory for manufacturing
firm) offers the utmost level of real-time business monitoring
and control, allowing instantaneous access and processing of
a large amount of data (Modgil, Singh, and Hannibal 2021;
Osterrieder, Budde, and Friedli 2020). Therefore, individual SC
partners can draw on Industry 4.0 to develop BCM and
improve the resilience of their SC, given that BMC will allow
them to increase their strategic recovery capability and reduce
the impact of imminent disruptions (Peng et al. 2021; Ralston
and Blackhurst 2020).
3.2. Information and Communication Quality (ICQ)
ICQ refers to the ability of an SC to communicate critical and
proprietary information across every node of the supply
 6

Table 1. Industry 4.0 SCR functions as Perceived by the eligible articles.

M. GHOBAKHLOO ET AL.

Function
Author
Supply
Business Supply Chain Supply Chain Chain Supply Chain Supply Chain
Continuity Information and Information Adaptive Supply Chain Supply Chain Complexity Supply Chain Innovation Supply chain Process Supply Chain Risk Supply Chain
Management Communication and Cyber Capability Supply Chain Automation Collaboration Management Flexibility Capability mapping Monitoring Responsiveness Management Transparency Supply Chain
(BCM) Quality (ICQ) Security (ICS) (SCAC) Agility (SCAG) (SCA) (SCC) (SCCM) (SCF) (SCIC) (SCMP) (SCPM) (SCRP) (SCRM) (SCT) Visibility (SCV)
Bag, Dhamija, et al. x
(2021)
Bag, Gupta, et al. (2021) x x x
Bahrami and Shokouhyar x x x
(2022)
Bechtsis et al. (2022) x x
Belhadi, Kamble, Fosso x X x x
Wamba, et al., (2021)
Belhadi, Kamble, x x X x
Jabbour, et al. (2021)
Belhadi, Mani, et al. x X
(2021)
Dennehy et al. (2021) x x
Dubey, Gunasekaran, X x
Bryde, et al., (2020)
Ivanov, Dolgui, and x x x x
Sokolov, 2019
Ivanov and Dolgui x x x
(2021)
Lohmer, Bugert, and x x x x x x x x
Lasch (2020)
Marcucci et al. (2022) x
Min (2019) x x
Modgil, Gupta, et al. x
(2021)
Modgil, Singh, and x x x x x x
Hannibal (2021)
Mubarik, Naghavi, et al. x x
(2021)
Mukherjee et al. (2022) x x
Naz et al. (2022) x x x
Peng et al. (2021) x x
Ralston and Blackhurst x x x
(2020)
Senna et al. (2023) x x
Spieske and Birkel (2021) x x x x x
Tortorella et al. (2022) x x
Zouari, Ruel, and Viale x x x x
(2021)
Table 2. Contributions of Industry 4.0 technologies and design principles to SCR functions.
Function
Technologies and design principles of Industry 4.0
Supply Supply Supply
Business Information and Information Supply Chain Supply Supply Supply Chain Supply Chain Supply Chain Supply Supply
Continuity Communication and Cyber Adaptive Chain Chain Chain Complexity Chain Innovation chain Process Chain Chain Supply Chain Supply
Management Quality Security Capability Agility Automation Collaboration Management Flexibility Capability mapping Monitoring Responsiveness Risk Management Transparency Chain Visibility
(BCM) (ICQ) (ICS) (SCAC) (SCAG) (SCA) (SCC) (SCCM) (SCF) (SCIC) (SCMP) (SCPM) (SCRP) (SCRM) (SCT) (SCV)
Technologies
Additive manufacturing



Artificial intelligence










Augmented and virtual reality



Automation and industrial robotics




Blockchain







Cloud and big data analytics













Cyber-physical systems





Cybersecurity solutions




Industrial internet of things








Internet of people










Internet of services







Simulation and Modelling (Digital twin)




Design principles
Customer and service orientation




Decentralisation




Horizontal integration





Interoperability




Modularity



Real-time capability











Technical assistance


Vertical integration








Virtualisation





PRODUCTION PLANNING & CONTROL
7
8 M. GHOBAKHLOO ET AL.
network while ensuring the adequacy, accuracy, credibility,
and timeliness of the information (Li and Lin 2006). ICQ has
long been acknowledged as a central part of SC productivity
and survival (Huo, Haq, and Gu 2021; Narasimhan and Nair
2005). The progressive contributions of technological innova-
tions to the ICQ capability development of SCs are well
documented within half a century of literature (Wijewickrama
et al. 2021). Industry 4.0 and the underlying digitalization of
value chains take ICQ to the next level, primarily via creating
a data-driven, connected, and round-the-clock digital com-
munity that allows all SC stakeholders to directly and mean-
ingfully communicate and share information in real-time
(Mu€ller, Veile, and Voigt 2020). Industry 4.0 enhances infor-
mation quality by building on smart sensors, IIoT, CPS, and
machine learning to automate data collection processes,
apply data quality profiling, prevent data synchronization
failure, and centralize metadata management (Belhadi,
Kamble, Jabbour, et al. 2021; Wollschlaeger, Sauter, and
Jasperneite 2017). By increasing the interoperability of SC
systems and the systematic application of edge computing
and cloud computing, Industry 4.0 can eliminate information
silos to remove any communication latencies (Sun et al.
2020). The resulting ICQ function of Industry 4.0 is crucial to
SCR as it enhances SC intelligent optimization, end-to-end
transparency, and holistic decision-making capabilities
(Bahrami and Shokouhyar 2022; Naz et al. 2022).
3.3. Information and Cyber Security (ICS)
Within the increasingly connected business environment, SC
partners are always at greater information and cybersecurity
risk (Ghadge et al. 2019). Cybersecurity and information
security are different concepts. Thus, the ICS function
requires every SC to have a collective obligation to (1)
defend and protect cyberspace against cyber-attacks and
(2) protect information and digital systems from cyber risks
to maintain the availability, integrity, confidentiality, and
ownership of data and information (Von Solms and Van
Niekerk 2013). According to the U.S. National Institute of
Standards and Technology (NIST), ICS is not merely con-
cerned with technological concerns, as it profoundly
involves knowledge, employees, and process problems
(NIST 2018). Viewed from the NIST perspective, Industry 4.0
offers essential implications for ICS, mainly in the form of
improved cybersecurity strategy development, mitigating
the risk of unauthorized human intervention, blockchain-
based end-to-end encryption, continuous support of end-
of-life platforms or products, real-time monitoring of IT-OT
functionality, and real-time assessment of systems vulner-
ability (Alotaibi 2019; Jahromi et al. 2021; Tran et al. 2021).
Consistently, the ICS function of Industry 4.0 contributes to
building SCR by protecting and maintaining production
capacity, inspiring confidence in customers, protecting
productivity against disruptions, and allowing IT-OT to
recover after cyber disruptions rapidly (Bechtsis et al. 2022;
Lohmer, Bugert, and Lasch 2020; Mukherjee et al. 2022).
3.4. Supply Chain Adaptive Capability (SCAC)
SCAC refers to the SC’s ability to readjust its design, proc-
esses, and operations to respond to new conditions (Zhao,
Zuo, and Blackhurst 2019). SCAC also involves supply part-
ners deploying necessary strategies that can adapt to dis-
ruptive forces such as market turbulence, disruption of the
labour market, socio-political changes, or structural shifts
(Dennehy et al. 2021). Experts believe that SC digitalization
has been a fundamental element of adaptive supply chains
(Tortorella et al. 2022). Consistently, Industry 4.0 and the
underlying digital transformation provide modern SCs with
immense opportunities for developing adaptive capabilities
(Belhadi, Mani, et al. 2021). Industry 4.0 technologies such
as AI, big data analytics, digital twin, and IoT address the
innovation and knowledge intensity of SCAC and deliver
this function by offering immersive insight into SC dynam-
ics, complexity, and uncertainty, thus allowing supply part-
ners to better learn from the external environment (Ivanov
and Dolgui 2021; Zouari, Ruel, and Viale 2021). More impor-
tantly, the autonomy and modularity design principles of
Industry 4.0, as critical enablers of the non-linear digital
supply network concept, allow SCs to have the much-
needed dynamism to reconfigure their value chain modules
(e.g. equipment, operations, processes, or products) to
adjust promptly to changes in internal and external condi-
tions (Ghobakhloo, Iranmanesh, et al. 2021; Ivanov and
Dolgui 2021). The SCAC function of Industry 4.0 further con-
tributes to SCR significantly, as it allows SC partners to
respond to unanticipated disruptions efficiently yet resili-
ently (Belhadi, Mani, et al. 2021; Dennehy et al. 2021).
3.5. Supply Chain Agility (SCAG)
SCAG refers to the ability of SC partners to adapt their
internal SC functions to respond to business environment
changes in a timely, effective, and efficient manner (Ayoub
and Abdallah 2019; Swafford, Ghosh, and Murthy 2008). To
achieve SCAG, supply partners must have the capability to
readjust their internal and collaborative operations to reduce
manufacturing and delivery lead time, lower the product
development cycle, increase order accuracy, and improve
customer communication and satisfaction (Dubey et al.
2021). Industry 4.0 delivers the SCA functions in three
different ways. First, Industry 4.0 increases the accessibility of
relevant information across the DSN, mainly through cloud-
based and AI-driven platforms that streamline the continu-
ous real-time exchange of relevant data across SC nodes
(Eslami et al. 2021). Second, Industry 4.0 enhances decisive-
ness, which denotes the supply partner’s capability to make
fast and resolute decisions based on the available informa-
tion (Cisneros-Cabrera et al. 2021). This roots in the decen-
tralization principle of Industry 4.0, which builds on CPS, IIoT,
cloud data, and edge computing to allow smart SC compo-
nents to make independent yet informed decisions closer to
the data sources (Ma et al. 2020). Third, Industry 4.0
improves SC planning, as it allows SC partners to abandon
sequential planning and benefit from AI, big data analytics,

smart enterprise systems, and dynamic simulation to incorp-
orate modern planning systems such as what-if scenario
planning or concurrent planning to rapidly assess impacts
and alternatives under turbulence or disruption scenarios
(Abdirad and Krishnan 2021). Through these features,
the SCA function of Industry 4.0 allows supply partners to
align their strategies better, respond to SC disruptions
cost-effectively, and progressively develop the necessary SCR
competencies (Bahrami and Shokouhyar 2022; Bechtsis et al.
2022).
3.6. Supply Chain Automation (SCA)
SCA refers to the ability of the supply partners to automate
financial, physical, activity, and information workflows across
the SC. It involves integrating disruptive digital and opera-
tions technologies that reduce the dependencies of SC oper-
ations on human interventions (Belhadi, Kamble, Jabbour,
et al. 2021). Industry 4.0 and the underlying digitalization
expand beyond the smart factory boundaries, comprising the
smartization and automation of warehousing, logistics, and
SCM processes (Fatorachian and Kazemi 2021). The contribu-
tion of Industry 4.0 to SCA is myriad, involving autonomous
warehousing via Autonomous Storage and Retrieval Systems
(ASRS), automated guided vehicles/drones, and smart ware-
house management systems that allow AI-driven real-time
monitoring of warehouse processes, safety, and security (Lee
et al. 2018). It further involves using additive manufacturing,
augmented reality, CPS, cognitive/autonomous robots, digital
twin, embedded IoT, edge computing, and smart sensors to
develop an autonomous, agile, and proactive hyper-con-
nected manufacturing ecosystem (Osterrieder, Budde, and
Friedli 2020; Wang et al. 2016). Industry 4.0 further automizes
customer communication and interactions by maturing and
commercializing AI chatbots, smart products, IoP (e.g. social
media platforms), or analytical modelling (Frank et al. 2019;
Ghobakhloo, Fathi, et al. 2021). Through the resulting auton-
omy of the SCA function, Industry 4.0 improves SCR in many
ways, such as predictive anomaly recognition, adaptability of
production-delivery changeovers, predictability of production
and delivery capacity, and decision synchronization (Modgil,
Singh, and Hannibal 2021; Ralston and Blackhurst 2020).
3.7. Supply Chain Collaboration (SCC)
SCC is a collective capability that allows supply partners to
work closely together to modify SC practices and achieve
joint performance improvement (Ralston, Richey, and Grawe
2017). SCC comprises many dimensions and activities,
including market information sharing, joint problem solving,
collaborative knowledge management, joint production
planning, collaborative marketing strategy development,
and operations resource sharing (Kumar and Nath Banerjee
2014; Pradabwong et al. 2017). Industry 4.0 delivers the SCC
function by allowing supply partners to create a cloud-
based collaborative SC platform that streamlines real-time
information and knowledge sharing across SC stakeholders
(Sundarakani et al. 2021). Through seamless communication
PRODUCTION PLANNING & CONTROL 9
and eliminating information silos, Industry 4.0 allows SC
partners to work closer to each other in a more integrative
manner (Ghobakhloo, Iranmanesh, et al. 2021). Industry 4.0
further allows SC partners to enter the realm of big data
analytics and use granular performance metrics to monitor
and measure the real-time productivity of various SC nodes
(Ivanov, Dolgui, and Sokolov 2019). In particular, Industry
4.0 draws on Distributed Ledger Technology (DLT) to
redefine the design and operations of SC collaboration,
allowing SC partners to vertically and horizontally collabor-
ate securely and transparently (Lohmer, Bugert, and Lasch
2020). The SCC function of Industry 4.0 is essential to SCR
capability building, given that it empowers supply partners
to collaboratively recognize threats, develop contingency
plans, identify logistical uncertainties, and devise disruption
recovery strategies and activities (Belhadi, Kamble, Fosso
Wamba, et al. 2021; Fatorachian and Kazemi 2021).
3.8. Supply Chain Complexity Management (SCCM)
SC complexity refers to the degree of interdependencies and
interconnectedness throughout an SC where any change in
one SC component can affect other components (Olivares
Aguila and ElMaraghy 2018). Modern SCs are increasingly
growing in complexity as a natural response to the ever-
shortening product life-cycle, globalization, growing interest
in individualized products, and the urge for faster lead times
(Birkie and Trucco 2020). Complexity is not necessarily an
undesirable condition as long as supply partners have the
capacity to effectively monitor and control the increasing
interactions of SC components (Turner, Aitken, and Bozarth
2018). Industry 4.0 delivers the SCCM function by allowing
SC partners to manage, evaluate, and optimise the horizontal
and vertical relationships that exist across the non-linear
modern supply networks (Hofmann et al. 2019). More impor-
tantly, Industry 4.0 addresses the SC complexity by orches-
trating the integration of various SC elements, including
internal and external resources, people, and processes (Hahn
2020). Through the SCCM function, Industry 4.0 allows supply
partners to act on end-to-end visibility, build new relation-
ships when necessary, and avoid missteps in SC processes
and operations, conditions that directly contribute to SCR
(Ivanov, Dolgui, and Sokolov 2019; Lohmer, Bugert, and
Lasch 2020).
3.9. Supply Chain Flexibility (SCF)
SFC refers to the collective ability of a focal firm and its sup-
pliers and downstream supply partners to respond to emerg-
ing uncertainties, threats, and opportunities cost-effectively
and without incurring excessive productivity losses (Huo, Gu,
and Wang 2018). Consistently, the SCF function consists of
three pillars: upstream supply flexibility, manufacturing flexi-
bility, and downstream supply (logistics and distribution)
flexibility (Sreedevi and Saranga 2017). Industry 4.0 offers
essential opportunities for upstream and downstream supply
flexibility by materializing smart warehousing and logistics
(Yavas and Ozkan-Ozen 2020). Industry 4.0 delivers these
10 M. GHOBAKHLOO ET AL.
opportunities in terms of ASRS, sensor-equipped smart goods
(material or assembly parts) tracking, visualization of purchas-
ing and delivery options, and autonomous data-driven inven-
tory control platforms (van Geest, Tekinerdogan, and Catal
2021). The contribution of Industry 4.0 to the manufacturing
flexibility of SCs involves using disruptive technologies and
applications such as intelligent robots, additive manufactur-
ing, high-performance computing computer-aided design
(HPC-CAD), digital twinning of new products, smart produc-
tion planning and control, machine learning-based real-time
yield optimisation, and proactive maintenance to improve
product modularity, manufacturing lead time, system reliabil-
ity, and production rate (Margherita and Braccini 2023; Peng
et al. 2021). The collective SFC function of Industry 4.0 leads
to SCR, as it allows the SC to reduce product lead time, pro-
vide product variety, and achieve the flexible capacity to alle-
viate the impacts of unpredicted disruptions with a minor
penalty in productivity and costs (Belhadi, Kamble, Fosso
Wamba, et al. 2021).
3.10. Supply Chain Innovation Capability (SCIC)
SCIC is a broad concept comprising a collection of SC-wide
competencies in research and development, new business
model development, cross-functional business partnerships,
ideation and concept development, knowledge acquisition,
or resource reconfiguration, to name a few. The contribution
of Industry 4.0 and its technological constituents to SCIC
building is well documented within the recent literature (e.g.
Hahn 2020). This process, for example, involves (1) improving
interpersonal communication and inter-functional collabor-
ation via cloud platforms, IoP, and smart wearables, (2)
increasing knowledge competencies via augmented/virtual/-
mixed reality, AI-driven talent management systems, or expe-
rienced-based learning tools, and (3) building product or
process innovation competencies via real-time information
sharing and digital twinning of new ideas and concepts
(Ghobakhloo, Iranmanesh, et al. 2021; Hopkins 2021). The
SCIC function of Industry 4.0 is crucial to SCR development
(Bag, Gupta, et al. 2021), given it empowers SCs to revive or
replace declining products rapidly and cost-effectively, better
engage with stakeholders, develop new monetization strat-
egies, improve the efficiency of manufacturing and logistics
operations, and maintain or even revenue at the time of dis-
ruptions (Bahrami and Shokouhyar 2022; Lohmer, Bugert,
and Lasch 2020).
3.11. Supply Chain Mapping (SCMP)
SCMP refers to the process through which a focal firm gath-
ers, documents, and dynamically visualizes information on
supply partners (individuals or companies) who are directly
or indirectly involved in its supply chain (Mubarik, Kusi-
Sarpong, et al. 2021). Therefore, SCMP entails creating a glo-
bal map of the entire supply network that may explain or
depict a wide variety of supplier information, such as the
geographical positioning of major suppliers, suppliers of sup-
pliers at various tiers, sources of materials, manufacturing
sites, transportation channels, or warehouses (Fabbe-Costes,
Lechaptois, and Spring 2020). SCMP is an exceptionally com-
plicated process, especially in the case of global SCs, where
this process involves tracking and monitoring thousands of
materials, parts, or components through hundreds of suppli-
ers across multiple countries (Norwood and Peel 2021).
Industry 4.0 delivers SCMP function in two ways: (1) offering
AI-driven visualization and virtualization platforms to better
identify SC entities (such as wholesalers, distributors, and
warehouses) and (2) establishing an efficient communication
channel among various SC processes, such as establishing
blockchain-driven finance channels or connecting with cus-
tomers through IoP, IoS, and smart products (Ivanov and
Dolgui 2021; Mubarik, Kusi-Sarpong, et al. 2021). This way,
the SCMP function of Industry 4.0 contributes to SCR via
streamlining SC processes, predicting risks associated with
each SC entity, detecting weak link(s) in the SC, and identify-
ing where value is lost across SC (Modgil, Singh, and
Hannibal 2021; Mubarik, Naghavi, et al. 2021).
3.12. Supply Chain Process Monitoring (SCPM)
SCPM refers to the overall process of tracking SC operations
and actions, from ordering and synthesizing raw materials to
delivering final products to the end consumers (Outhwaite
and Martin-Ortega 2019). SCPM involves a broad range of
activities, including but not limited to monitoring and track-
ing of production equipment condition, transportation infra-
structure condition, production and delivery capacity, human
resource personnel, inventory levels, asset maintenance,
product quality, transport infrastructure load, and order sta-
tus (Fatorachian and Kazemi 2021; Xie et al. 2020). SCPM has
become a more challenging process as the complexity of
modern SCs continuously increases (Birkie and Trucco 2020).
Nonetheless, and under Industry 4.0-driven DSN, machine
learning, IoT, cloud-based tools, CPS, big data analytics, and
edge computing allow SCM platforms to cost-effectively
expand the scope of SC monitoring, access real-time and
meaningful data about various aspects of SC, analyse mas-
sive data volumes to uncover information, and keep a con-
scious track of every relevant SC operation (Hofmann et al.
2019; Modgil, Singh, and Hannibal 2021). This function of
Industry 4.0, in turn, allows supply partners to effectively
apply various performance metrics to increase the accuracy
of their forecast and better sense upcoming disruptions, abil-
ities that are essential to SCR (Modgil, Gupta, et al. 2021;
Peng et al. 2021).
3.13. Supply Chain Responsiveness (SCRP)
SCRP refers to the SC-level capability to respond to market
dynamics in a time-effective manner (Ayoub and Abdallah
2019). SCRP is a collective capability, meaning responsiveness
comes from the collective efforts of focal firms and their sup-
ply partners. SCRP consists of many dimensions, such as cus-
tomer demand sensitivity or transparency (Giannakis,
Spanaki, and Dubey 2019). Therefore, it involves collaborative
efforts for better sensing and communicating the changes in

Figure 3. Steps applied for conducting the ISM.
the customers’ demand so that the SC can rapidly readjust
its product volume, diversity, or delivery strategies (Ayoub
and Abdallah 2019; Tortorella et al. 2022). The traditional
models of digitalization, such as customer and supplier rela-
tionship management applications, could offer some implica-
tions for SC collaboration and transparency. Nonetheless,
they lack the necessary integrability and alignment to offer
the end-to-end real-time visibility that is much needed for
the responsiveness of modern complex SCs (Giannakis,
Spanaki, and Dubey 2019). Industry 4.0 redefines how SC
partners and customers can integrate and reciprocally com-
municate (Shao et al. 2021). The advent of cloud data plat-
forms, IoS, IoP, and smart products under Industry 4.0 allow
SCs to perform the round-the-clock monitoring of customers’
demands. Even customers can effortlessly use IoS platforms
to reflect their feedback in real-time (Ghobakhloo 2020). SC
can further apply AI and big data analytics to build predict-
ive models of future customer demands and boost their
SCRP capability (Bag, Gupta, et al. 2021). Consistently, the
SCRP function of Industry 4.0 is vital to SCR building as it
enables supply partners to (1) better sense forthcoming dis-
ruptions and (2) better communicate and strategize collect-
ive responses to the impact of ongoing disruptions
(Dennehy et al. 2021).
3.14. Supply Chain Risk Management (SCRM)
Baryannis et al. (2019) define SCRM as the collective and
coordinated efforts of all supply partners to identify, monitor,
analyze, and alleviate SC risks to mitigate vulnerabilities and
ensure the robustness, profitability, and continuity of SC.
Supply chains are unprecedently growing in complexity,
PRODUCTION PLANNING & CONTROL 11
making them more susceptible to known/unknown internal
and external risks (Xu et al. 2020). Internal SC risks involve
manufacturing, business process, disruption, planning and
control, and contingency management disruption risks,
whereas external SC risks consist of supply, demand, environ-
mental, and collaboration disruption risks (Baryannis et al.
2019). As a result, SCs should employ detailed strategies and
practices to address the ever-increasing intricacy of SCRM
(Tsang et al. 2018). The underlying SCRM strategies and prac-
tices, such as the PPRR (prevention, preparedness, response,
and recovery) risk management model or logistics contin-
gency plan, are extremely information-intensive, relying on
supply-wide transparency, visibility, and monitoring
(Kazancoglu et al. 2023; Xu et al. 2020). Industry 4.0 contribu-
tions to facilitating these conditions involve leveraging (1) AI
and predictive analytics for identifying unknown SC risks, (2)
using DLT for smarter, safer, and traceable SC contracts, (3)
data visualization techniques for real-time mapping of known
SC risks, and (4) cloud data and smart enterprise systems for
real-time risk exposure analysis and collaborative develop-
ment of mitigation strategy (Belhadi, Kamble, Fosso Wamba,
et al. 2021; Kayikci et al. 2022; Rogerson and Parry 2020).
Industry 4.0 promotes SCR by delivering these SCRM sub-
functions, allowing SCs to identify their vulnerabilities and
exposures better and shift from risk-blindness to risk-resili-
ence (Peng et al. 2021; Ralston and Blackhurst 2020).
3.15. Supply Chain Transparency (SCT)
SCT centres around SC communication and accountability,
defining how internal and external stakeholders can access the
necessary information on labour productivity, environmental
12 M. GHOBAKHLOO ET AL.

Table 3. The SSIM for Industry 4.0 SCR functions.

SCR function SCV SCT SCRM SCRP SCPM SCMP SCIC SCF SCCM SCC SCA SCAG SCAC ICS ICQ BCM
BCM O O A O A O A O O O O O A A O –
ICQ V V V O V O V O O O A O O A –
ICS O O V O O O O O O O X O O –
SCAC O O O A O A O O A O O O –
SCAG A A O V O O V A A A O –
SCA V V O O V O O V V O –
SCC A X V V O A V O O –
SCCM A A V O A A O O –
SCF A O V O A O A –
SCIC O O O V O O –
SCMP O A V O A –
SCPM V O O O –
SCRP O O A –
SCRM A A –
SCT A –
SCV –

impacts of products, operational efficiency, or risk points (Zhu
et al. 2018). SCT requires key SC actors to enable transparency,
communication, and trackability across three different func-
tional levels: intra-organizational transparency, value chain
transparency (involving 1st tier customers and suppliers), and
end-to-end multitier SC transparency (Bai and Sarkis 2020).
Industry 4.0 delivers the SCT function by directly tackling the
challenges of achieving a transparent supply chain, such as
fragmented infrastructure, information silos, data complexity,
and information governance at the SC level (Fatorachian and
Kazemi 2021). To enable intra-organizational transparency,
Industry 4.0 vertically integrates different business functions,
especially by drawing on big data, control systems, IIoT,
embedded systems, or smart execution systems to break com-
munication barriers and eliminate information silos (Hofmann
and Ru €sch 2017). Industry 4.0 further delivers value chain and
multitier SC transparency via horizontal integration of share-
holders. It is mainly achieved via disruptive technologies such
as the IoS, cloud computing platforms, and blockchain, which
materialize the techno-functional principles of interoperability
and real-time analytics (Ghobakhloo, Iranmanesh, et al. 2021;
Kayikci et al. 2022). Through SCT function and offering factual
knowledge of the end-to-end SC, Industry 4.0 can promote
SCR by empowering supply partners to develop new business
models, alleviate reputational risk, reduce disruptions, and
adapt to market dynamics (Mukherjee et al. 2022; Spieske and
Birkel 2021).
3.16. Supply Chain Visibility (SCV)
SCV refers to the capability of the supply chain to perform
the forward and backward tracing of raw materials, subas-
semblies, or final goods, as they circulate across suppliers,
manufacturers, distributors, and consumers (Mubarik,
Naghavi, et al. 2021). SCV is mainly enabled by SCM technol-
ogies that offer near-real-time access to logistics and SC
operations data (Rogerson and Parry 2020). SCV is vital to
SCR as it provides the ability to respond quickly to changes
and disruptions, better understand supply chain relation-
ships, and reduce the complexity of SC relationships, espe-
cially at the global scale (Dubey, Gunasekaran, Childe, et al.
2020). Industry 4.0 and the underlying technologies and prin-
ciples take SCV to the next level. Big data, blockchain, cloud
computing, and IoT, complemented by the horizontal-vertical
integration and interoperability principles of Industry 4.0,
allow supply partners to have real-time access to a massive
volume of understandable data across every node in the SC
(Ivanov, Dolgui, and Sokolov 2019; Rogerson and Parry 2020).
Thus, the SCV function of Industry 4.0 promotes SCR by pro-
viding SC managers with the ultimate visibility across the
entire SC, improving SC decision processes, better compli-
ance with regulatory requirements, and enhancing customer
acquisition, satisfaction, or retention (Modgil, Singh, and
Hannibal 2021; Tortorella et al. 2022).
4. Research methodology
The present study aims to identify the hierarchical relation-
ships among the Industry 4.0 SCR functions and develop the
visual model of Industry 4.0-driven SC resilience, which
requires the application of a suitable decisions analytics tech-
nique to construct and visualize such a model. Indeed, there
are several robust decision analytics techniques for address-
ing complex decision problems, such as AHP, ANN,
DEMATEL, and ISM. We benefitted from ISM to fulfil our
research goals. As with any decision analytics technique, ISM
is associated with advantages and disadvantages. ISM is a
reliable tool for exploratory studies that seek theory develop-
ment (Mathivathanan et al. 2021). ISM involves the iterative
application of graph theory to identify the contextual rela-
tionships between elements of a complex system or phe-
nomenon (Rajesh 2017). This method is interpretive in the
sense that groups (experts in most scenarios) collectively
decide whether, why, and how elements of a complex system
are interrelated (Ali et al. 2020). The decision to implement
and use ISM in the study roots in various advantages of this
method, such as the ability of ISM to transmute vaguely
articulated and uncertain mental models of a particular phe-
nomenon or system into coherent, meaningful, and visual-
ized models (Bianco et al. 2023). Previous studies have
extensively used ISM for the causal modelling of the firm SC
resilience capabilities (Rajesh 2017), SC implementation of Six
Sigma (Ali et al. 2020), SC adoption of big data (Bag, Gupta,
and Wood 2022), and barriers to SC adoption of the block-
chain (Mathivathanan et al. 2021).
 PRODUCTION PLANNING & CONTROL 13

Table 4. The IRM for Industry 4.0 SCR functions.

SCR function BCM ICQ ICS SCAC SCAG SCA SCC SCCM SCF SCIC SCMP SCPM SCRP SCRM SCT SCV
BCM 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
ICQ 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1
ICS 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
SCAC 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
SCAG 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0
SCA 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1
SCC 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0
SCCM 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
SCF 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
SCIC 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0
SCMP 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0
SCPM 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1
SCRP 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
SCRM 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0
SCT 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0
SCV 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1

Table 5. The FRM for Industry 4.0 SCR functions.

SCR function BCM ICQ ICS SCAC SCAG SCA SCC SCCM SCF SCIC SCMP SCPM SCRP SCRM SCT SCV Driving power Rank
BCM 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 11
ICQ 1
1 0 0 1
0 1
1
1
1 1
1 1
1 1 1 13 2
ICS 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1
1
1
0 1
1
1 1
1
12 3
SCAC 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 10
SCAG 1
0 0 1
1 0 0 0 1
1 0 0 1 0 0 0 6 7
SCA 1
1 1 1
1
1 1
1 1 1
1
1 0 1
1 1 15 1
SCC 1
0 0 1
1 0 1 1
1
1 1
0 1 1 1 0 11 4
SCCM 1
0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1
0 0 1
1 0 0 7 6
SCF 1
0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1
0 0 1
1 0 0 6 7
SCIC 1 0 0 1
1
0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1
0 0 7 6
SCMP 1
0 0 1 1
0 1 1 0 1
1 0 1
1 1
0 10 5
SCPM 1 0 0 1
1
0 1
1 1 0 1 1 0 1
1
1 11 4
SCRP 1
0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 3 9
SCRM 1 0 0 1
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 4 8
SCT 1
0 0 1
1 0 1 1 0 1
1 0 1
1 1 0 10 5
SCV 1
0 0 1
1 0 1 1 1 1
1
0 1
1 1 1 12 3
Dependence power 16 3 2 12 11 2 7 9 9 11 7 4 12 12 8 5
Rank 1 9 10 2 3 10 6 4 4 3 6 8 2 2 5 7

In addition, this study involves drawing on the experts’
opinions to establish a strategy roadmap that explains the
micro-mechanisms by which Industry 4.0 might promote
SCR. Developing a strategy roadmap with such goals entails
fulfilling two requirements. The first requirement concerns
establishing the precedence relationships among the func-
tions. The second requirement involves experts collabora-
tively deciding on the causal direction of contextual
relationships. Compared to the alternate approaches such as
ANN, AHP, TISM, and their fuzzy versions, ISM has the best
compatibility with these strategy roadmapping requirements
(Ghobakhloo et al. 2022). This fact has been supported by
comparable works such as Ng et al.’s (2022) strategy road-
map to Industry 4.0-driven sustainable manufacturing. While
ISM serves strategy roadmapping best, it is limited in two
ways within this context. First, it is over-reliant on expert
opinion, which might increase the threat of bias, especially
in inequitable expert contributions to collective decision-
making. We addressed this possible limitation by carefully
organizing and moderating the expert panel meetings. The
second limitation concerns the inefficacy of ISM in explaining
the implications of contextual relationships among functions
(Sushil 2012). We borrowed from the TISM background
(Nasim 2011) and drew on the experts’ opinions to construct
the ILB, representing the collective experts’ interpretation of
each contextual relationship.
Following the ISM literature (e.g. Bag, Gupta, and Wood
2022; Bianco et al. 2023), the study applies the widely
accepted steps shown in Figure 3 to develop the structural
interpretive model of Industry 4.0-driven SC resilience.
4.1. Collecting expert opinion
ISM seeks the opinions and views of experts or working pro-
fessionals with hands-on experience in the system domain of
interest (Mathivathanan et al. 2021). To fulfil this requirement,
the study followed existing guides (Bogner, Littig, and Menz
2009; Hertzum 2014) and executed a rigorous expert selection
and idea collection protocol. The protocol allowed the
research team to minimize the thread of method and cogni-
tive bias and further warrant the validity and reliability of ISM
results. Following this protocol, the study focused on
European SC experts for two reasons. Firstly, the study was
funded by the Horizon 2020 program with a priority on
understanding the implications of Industry 4.0 for SCR from a
European perspective. Secondly, the research project’s
European academic and industry partners made it practical to
approach leading European experts to contribute to our
expert panel meetings. Accordingly, the research team defined
eligibility requirements for academic and industry experts and
followed a specific protocol in approaching them. Notable
contributions to Industry 4.0 and SC literature and
14 M. GHOBAKHLOO ET AL.
involvement in European projects related to the Industry 4.0-
SCR phenomenon were the eligibility criteria for academic
experts. Alternatively, a minimum of 10 years of experience as
an SC manager, expertise in the digital supply network con-
text, and direct involvement in the digital transformation of
SC under the Industry 4.0 framework were among the eligibil-
ity requirements for industry experts. After collaborating with
academic and industry partners, we shortlisted 17 eligible
experts. We used a questionnaire to measure experts’ familiar-
ity with Industry 4.0 and SCR concepts to determine their suit-
ability for the expert panel meetings. This procedure led to
shortlisting ten experts to participate in online group brain-
storming meetings. The ten experts consisted of 4 academi-
cians, two senior SC consultants, two senior SC managers, an
SC operations manager, and a senior SC planning specialist.
The study used the Nominal Group Technique (NGT) as the
central small-group discussion and brainstorming method.
NGT is a structured method for collaborative small-group
brainstorming, which unequivocally collects information from
individual experts and renders them into a collective decision
concerning an idea (Harvey and Holmes 2012). NGT involves
preventing domination of the discussion by individual experts.
To do so, NGT requires the moderator(s) to ensure that
experts impartially contribute to a specific discussion
(MacPhail 2001). NGT output represents the collective experts’
opinions as this technique systematically encourages partici-
pants to reach a shared consensus on a given matter (Ng
et al. 2022). Consistently, the ten shortlisted experts attended
a series of five NGT-based meetings and collectively identified
how Industry 4.0 may improve SC resilience. Across the first
and second NGT-based meetings, experts assessed the validity
and completeness of the 16 Industry 4.0 SCR functions.
Experts highlighted a few revisions to the titling and descrip-
tion of the functions, which led to the finalized version of
Industry 4.0 SCR functions (including the title and description)
presented in Section 3. Experts collaboratively identified and
further elucidated the causal relationships among each pair of
Industry 4.0 SCR functions across the remaining NGT-based
meetings, leading to the development of ILB. An ILB concerns
the interpretation of pairwise relationships among the ele-
ments of a system (Yadav 2014). Under ILB, when experts col-
lectively decide that a contextual relationship exists among a
pair of system elements, they are requested to interpret the
implications of such relationships (Rajesh 2017). The collection
of all interpretations concerning the identified contextual rela-
tionships constitutes the ILB (Mathivathanan et al. 2021).
Similarly, the ILB in the present study (listed in the appendix)
describes the functionality of each contextual relationship
among the Industry 4.0 SCR functions as collectively identified
by the experts.
4.2. Establishing contextual relationships
Drawing on the ISM methodology (e.g. Bianco et al. 2023),
the relationship between each pair of functions can be
defined based on the following coding system.
V: SCR function i determines SCR function j;
A: SCR function i is determined by SCR function j;
X: SCR functions i and j determine each other;
O: SCR functions i and j are independent.
By applying the abovementioned coding scheme to each
pair of relationships among resilience functions identified by
experts, the Structural Self-Interaction Matrix (SSIM) of the
study is constructed as Table 3. The SSIM, for example, repre-
sents the BCM-SCV entry by the symbol O, meaning these
two functions are independent of each other.
4.3. Establishing the initial reachability Matrix
The third step in applying ISM involves developing the Initial
Reachability Matrix (IRM). The IRM is a binary matrix devel-
oped by replacing the V, A, X, and O symbols of the SSIM
with 0 or 1 values based on the following replacement rules
(Ali et al. 2020; Rajesh 2017). By applying the following
replacement rules to the SSIM, the IRM of the study is devel-
oped in Table 4.
If (i, j) entry of SSIM is symbolised as V, then entries (i, j)
and (j, i) in the IRM are, respectively, set to 1 and 0.
If (i, j) entry of SSIM is symbolised as A, then entries (i, j)
and (j, i) in the IRM are, respectively, set to 0 and 1.
If (i, j) entry of SSIM is symbolised as X, then entries (i, j)
and (j, i) in the IRM are both set to 1.
If (i, j) entry of SSIM is symbolised as O, then entries (i, j)
and (j, i) in the IRM are both set to 0.
4.4. Establishing Final Reachability Matrix
The fourth step in ISM involves developing the Final
Reachability Matrix (FRM) by applying the transitivity rule to
the IRM (Bag, Gupta, and Wood 2022). The transitivity rule
accounts for the indirect causality, stating that if function X dir-
ectly determines function Y, and function Y directly deter-
mines function Z, then function X would be considered the
direct determinant of function Z. The FRM of the study is pre-
sented in Table 5, in which ‘1
’ entries represent the presence
of the transitivity rule. For example, the entry ICQ-BCM in
Table 5 is represented by value 1
. In interpreting this value, it
should be noted that the ICQ-BCM entry in the IRM (Table 4) is
0. However, ICQ causes SCIC (ICQ-SCIC entry in IRM is 1), and
SCIC causes BCM (SCIC-BCM entry in IRM is 1). Therefore, the
transitivity rule is applied to the ICQ-BCM relationship, render-
ing its value as 1
in the FRM. Table 5 also includes the driving
power and dependence power of each Industry 4.0 SCR func-
tion. The driving power value for a given function is calculated
as the number of functions it determines directly or indirectly
(via the transitivity rule). In contrast, the dependence power
equals the number of functions that directly or indirectly
determine the given function (Mathivathanan et al. 2021).
4.5. Developing the hierarchy levels
This step involves identifying the hierarchy level of each
Industry 4.0 SCR function by implementing the iterative extrac-
tion procedures. For the iterative extraction to happen, the
reachability, antecedent, and intersection sets of each Industry
4.0 SCR function should be established first. The reachability

and antecedent sets correspond to the driving power and
dependence power identified in FRM. Therefore, for a given
Industry 4.0 SCR function, the reachability set consists of the
functions that directly it determines, whereas the antecedent
set includes functions that determine it. The intersection set
for each function represents the intersection of the reachabil-
ity and antecedent sets, including all the functions of the
reachability set that also belong to the antecedent set and vis
versa. After establishing each function’s reachability, ante-
cedent, and intersection sets, the first extraction takes place,
which involves identifying functions with identical reachability
and intersection sets and extracting them. Table A1 represents
the hierarchal levels for SC resilience functions of Industry 4.0.
The table explains that BCM is the only function with identical
reachability and intersection sets for the first iteration. Thus, it
should be extracted in iteration I. After excluding (removing)
the function(s) extracted in the first iteration, the extraction
process repeats itself in the second iteration, and this proced-
ure continues to identify hierarchical levels of the remaining
functions iteratively. Table A1 explains how the hierarchy lev-
els of the 16 Industry 4.0 SCR functions are iteratively identi-
fied across 11 iterations.
4.6. Developing the interpretive structural model
The interpretive structural model of the study is developed
and presented in Figure 4. Firstly, developing the interpretive
Figure 4. The structural model of Industry 4.0 contributions to SCR.
PRODUCTION PLANNING & CONTROL 15
structural model involves structuring the functions based on
identified hierarchy levels. In constructing the structural
model, the number of placement levels equals the number of
hierarchy levels identified (Bianco et al. 2023). Thus, the model
presented in Figure 4 consists of 11 placement levels, given
that the hierarchy levels of Industry 4.0 SCR functions have
been identified across 11 iterations within Table A1. Overall,
the placement order within the interpretive structural model
is the inverse of the iterative extraction order, meaning the
most dependent function(s) identified in iteration one should
be positioned at the last placement level within the structural
model and vice versa (Ali et al. 2020). Accordingly, the BCM
function extracted in iteration 1 is positioned at placement
level 11 of Figure 4, whereas ICS and SCA functions extracted
in iteration 11 are positioned at placement level 1. The second
step in developing the structural model entails representing
the contextual relationships between each pair of functions
with a vector arrow positioned within the consecutive place-
ment levels. While the model in Figure 4 follows this role,
there are a few expectations. For example, SCMP in placement
level 5 of Figure 4 is not caused by SCV in placement level 4.
Thus, it is connected by a vector arrow to the closest enablers
in lower placement levels, which would be SCPM in place-
ment level 3. The third and final step involves removing tran-
sitivity effects among functions. Therefore, none of the vector
arrows in Figure 4 represent the transitivity effect.
16 M. GHOBAKHLOO ET AL.
4.7. MICMAC analysis
MICMAC (A French term commonly interpreted as cross-
impact matrix multiplication applied to classification) is the
final and complementary step in applying ISM, which
involves the visual comparative analysis of the relational
scope of each function (Mathivathanan et al. 2021). MICMAC
develops a cartesian coordinate system that categorizes the
system elements (Industry 4.0 SCR functions in this study)
into four quadrants based on their respective driving and
dependence powers. Figure 5 presents the results of the
MICMAC analysis. The cartesian system in this figure com-
prises the driving power axis and the dependence power
axis. Each axis in this system is divided by 16 equal points
since there are 16 functions in the study. While building the
MICMAC matrix, each function is positioned based on its
unique coordinate derived from its driving and dependence
powers (calculated in the FRM).
The autonomous quadrant consists of functions with weak
driving and dependence powers. Figure 5 explains that none
of the Industry 4.0 SCR functions are categorized under the
autonomous quadrant. The lack of autonomous functions
signals the complexity of precedence relationships that exist
within SCR functions. The driver quadrant comprises func-
tions with strong driving power and weak dependence
power. SCA, ICS, ICQ, SCPM, SCV, SCC, and SCMP are catego-
rized as driver functions, highlighting their driving role in
enabling other functions. The linkage quadrant comprises
functions with strong driving and dependence powers.
Referring to Figure 5, SCT is the only linkage function of the
study. The dependent quadrant includes functions with weak
driving power but strong dependence power. Consistently,
SCCM, SCIC, SCF, SCAG, SCRM, SCRP, SCAC, and BCM are
Figure 5. MICMAC analysis for assessment of driving and dependence powers of SC resilience functions.
categorized as dependent Industry 4.0 SCR functions, mean-
ing their existence relies on the favourable presence of driver
and linkage functions.
5. Discussion
The ISM results reveal that Industry 4.0 contributes to pro-
moting SCR via 16 functions. ISM identified complex prece-
dence relationships among the Industry 4.0 SCR functions,
indicating that Industry 4.0 contributions to SCR involve fol-
lowing a specific order in delivering resilience functions. The
ISM in Figure 4 and the MICMAC matrix in Figure 5 collect-
ively reveal that the enabling role of Industry 4.0 for SCR first
involves increasing the information and cyber security of SC
operations (ICS function) and automating a wide variety of
SC activities (SCA function). Industry 4.0 streamlines SC com-
munication through ICS and SCA functions and increases the
quality (e.g. reliability, timeliness, completeness, or objectiv-
ity) of information exchanged across the SC (ICQ function).
ICQ, in turn, enables SCPM function by allowing SC partners
to effectively track the SC micro-elements such as human
resource productivity, product quality, equipment condition,
or inventory levels, even under severe SC complexity. Under
the SCPM function, real-time product and process tracking
and on-demand SC performance monitoring offer unique
opportunities for forward and backward tracking of materials,
components, or subassemblies across the SC (SCV function).
Therefore, the more immediate contribution of Industry 4.0
to SCR involves creating a data-driven hyperconnected SC
ecosystem that promotes ICS, SCA, ICQ, SCPM, and SCV, the
driving functions that heavily rely on real-time and continu-
ous data collection and information exchange across the SC.

By doing so, Industry 4.0 allows SC partners to gain a shared
perspective to closely collaborate on maximizing SC cost-
effectiveness and performance (SCC function). It further ena-
bles SC partners to create a dynamic and detailed map of
the entire SC to address existing blind spots (SCMP function)
and identify and communicate factually backed detail of
their operations internally and externally to promote SC
transparency and trust (SCT function).
SCC, SCMP, and SCT functions, positioned at placement
level 5 of Figure 4, allow SC members to effectively deal
with the ever-increasing interdependencies, uncertainties,
variability, and volatility of SC operations (SCCM function). By
effectively managing SC administration, information, and
operational complexities, the SCCM function allows SC part-
ners to optimize and enhance their flexibility (SCF function)
and increase their competencies to develop new business
models or excel in product or process innovation (SCIC func-
tion), albeit indirectly. SCF function further allows SCs to
respond to market disruptions more effectively (SCAG func-
tion) and implement necessary strategies for managing SC
routine and unique risks (SCRM). SCF delivers these enabling
roles through various mechanisms, such as increasing SC
partners’ ability to change the product mix efficiently or
readjust manufacturing processes and capacity to reduce
process risk. SCAG and SCRM, in turn, grant the SC partners
a collective capability to proactively sense and communicate
imminent changes in consumer demand and promptly
respond to market dynamics (SCRP function). Through the
SCRP function, Industry 4.0 allows SC partners to implement
needed strategies to readjust their designs and processes
and adapt to disruptions caused by environmental turbu-
lence, such as socio-political shifts (SCAC function). In turn,
SCAC enables SC partners to develop proactive disruption
response strategies to avoid future disruption when possible
or continue to function effectively after experiencing a dis-
ruption (BCM function).
Figure 4 outlines the logical interdependencies between
SCR functions, indicating that a specific function cannot be
adequately developed until its preceding functions are deliv-
ered by Industry 4.0. As the most driving functions, ICS and
SCA are the most accessible and immediate functioning out-
comes of SC digitalization under Industry 4.0. By ascending
towards placement level 11 of Figure 4, the dependence
power of SCR functions significantly increases. Consistently,
highly dependent SCR functions such as SCRP, SCAS, and
BCM are the most remote and inaccessible resilience out-
comes of Industry 4.0, given their development relies on the
favourable presence of many preceding SCR functions.
Nonetheless, drawing on Industry 4.0 to develop these highly
dependent functions is indispensable to SCs seeking resili-
ence since SCAS and BCM are among the most critical ena-
blers of SCR in the absolute sense.
5.1. The roadmap to Industry 4.0-driven SCR
ISM is a valuable and rigorous method since it results in a
digraph of contextual relationships for a complex system
comprising many elements. While any interpretive structural
PRODUCTION PLANNING & CONTROL 17
model can be interpreted at the two levels of nodes and
links, ISM is methodically limited to interpreting the nodes
and merely defining the elements of the system. It means
ISM does not involve interpreting how a direct link operates
and should be interpreted. To address this limitation, the
study developed a strategy roadmap (Figure 6) that explains
the implications of each contextual relationship.
A strategic roadmap is an effective tool for developing
the framework of a transformation phenomenon and aiding
stakeholders in understanding the necessary actions and
activities required to achieve the transformation objectives.
The roadmap should explicitly identify and describe the spe-
cific actions and activities that need to be taken and the
relationships between them. Additionally, it must explore
and explain the implications of how these actions and activ-
ities interact with one another and contribute to achieving
the overall transformation goal. To effectively promote SCR
under Industry 4.0, it is essential to identify and describe the
underlying strategic or technical capabilities, opportunities,
and outcomes of Industry 4.0 (called functions in this study)
that support this transformation. To this end, our research
thoroughly synthesized the relevant Industry 4.0 literature
and identified 16 functions through which Industry 4.0
boosts SCR. Further, we applied the ISM technique to deter-
mine the relational organization of these functions, providing
a clear understanding of the relationships and dependencies
among them.
Additionally, we drew on an ILB to interpret the meaning
and implications of the interactions between each pair of
Industry 4.0 SCR functions, thus providing valuable insights
into the strategic roadmap for achieving SCR under the
Industry 4.0 framework. As explained previously, ILB is a type
of knowledge representation used in ISM, a methodology for
analyzing contextual relationships within a complex system.
ILB is developed through a process of expert consultation
and knowledge synthesis. Experts provide opinions on the
relationships between each pair of elements or components,
which are then analyzed and synthesized to create the ILB.
This knowledge base represents and describes the contextual
relationships between the system elements, outlining the
properties and characteristics of contextual relationships. To
identify the meaning and implications of each contextual
relationship and understand the enabling role of each func-
tion concerning other functions, we drew on the experts’
opinions collected across the NGT-based expert panel meet-
ings and constructed the ILB for the pair-wise comparison of
the Industry 4.0 SCR functions. This is a common practice
within the Total ISM technique, which helps address ISM lim-
itations in interpreting contextual links. The ILB of the study
is presented in Table A2, in which the direct relationships
among pairs of functions correspond to the relationships
identified within the SSIM (Table 3). Therefore, we drew on
the functions identified within the content-centric review,
hierarchical level and sequential relationships of functions
established via ISM, and implications of each contextual rela-
tionship from the ILB to develop the roadmap to Industry 4.0-
driven SCR, as shown in Figure 6.
18 M. GHOBAKHLOO ET AL.
Figure 6. Industry 4.0-driven SCR roadmap.
5.2. Interpreting the roadmap
The strategic roadmap in Figure 6 aims to provide a trans-
formation framework for SC stakeholders, bridging the gap
between the vision of Industry 4.0-driven SCR and the
actions required to achieve it. The roadmap offers a visual
representation that outlines the sequential execution of
Industry 4.0 SCR functions to achieve vital results that con-
tribute synergistically to SCR. The roadmap is complex
because it outlines the pairwise contextual relationships
among 16 functions. Each contextual relationship, visually
shown by a vector arrow, has an idiosyncratic meaning and
implications collectively inferred by the experts. Given the
limitations posed by visual and spatial constraints, the inter-
pretation of each contextual relationship could not be
accommodated within Figure 6. Therefore, a code has been
assigned to each relationship, and the corresponding details
are provided within the ILB presented in Table A2.
Consequently, Table A2 and Figure 6 collectively illustrate
each function’s driving role and dependency power and how
they interact to achieve the ultimate goal of SCR. For
example, Figure 6 shows that SCRM directly leads to the
development of the BCM function (coded as SCRM!BCM).
According to Table A2, this code implies that SCRM enables
BCM via (i) better identification and management of continu-
ity risks, (ii) prioritization of SC flow risks such as reputation,
price, quality, or delivery risks, and (iii) development of
effective risk prevention and risk mitigation strategies. By
using this roadmap, SC actors can better understand how
the different Industry 4.0 SCR functions work together to
boost resilience and can plan and execute the necessary
actions to achieve it. Overall, the roadmap provides a
valuable tool for stakeholders looking to enhance their SCR
in the context of Industry 4.0.
Overall, the structural model in Figure 4 and the Industry
4.0-driven SCR roadmap presented in Figure 6 and Table A2
describe the role of Industry 4.0 and the digitalization of sup-
ply networks in enabling SCR. Industry 4.0 enables SCR via a
significantly complex mechanism that involves the develop-
ment of 16 intertwined resilience functions. Referring to
Figure 5, one may argue that SCA is the most critical SCR
function of Industry 4.0, given that it has a very weak
dependence power while directly enabling seven SCR func-
tions of ICQ, ICS, SCCM, SCF, SCPM, SCT, and SCV. Such a
conclusion is accurate in terms of prioritization, meaning SC
digitalization under Industry 4.0 should first lead to the auto-
mation of SC operations to further contribute to developing
more dependent SCR functions. Nonetheless, dependent
functions such as SCAC and BCM are undoubtedly essential
pillars of SCR (e.g. Dennehy et al. 2021; Ralston and
Blackhurst 2020), and it is indispensable for SC partners to
leverage Industry 4.0 opportunities to develop all Industry
4.0 SCR functions identified, given they each play a unique
role in enabling SCR.
Following, we explain how the roadmap describes the
contributions of Industry 4.0 to SCR. While we merely explain
the contextual relationships between consecutive placement
levels for brevity, each contextual relationship in Figure 6
can be interpreted based on the information provided in
Table A2. Overall, the roadmap explains that Industry 4.0
contribution to SCR first involves automating supply chain
operations and improving the safety and security of autono-
mous systems across the SC via the SCA and ICS functions.
The roadmap highlights that these two functions are

mutually interlinked, meaning SCA and ICS facilitate each
other. The facilitating role of SCA for ICS involves the stream-
lined implementation of cybersecurity solutions (e.g. SOAR)
and better response time to cyber threats. Alternatively, the
enabling role of ICS for SCA entails functional and oper-
ational safety of cyber-physical systems against accidents or
deliberate intrusions. SCA and ICS, located at placement level
1 of the roadmap, further improve the quality of information
shared across the SC (ICQ function). SCA promotes ICQ using
automated technologies such as robotic process automation
to improve seamless connectivity or enhance data integra-
tion, acquisition, and standardization. ICS’s enabling role for
ICQ is myriad, involving the security of cloud platforms for
communication and information sharing, information infra-
structure operability, and data reliability.
ICQ, in turn, allows SC partners to monitor their opera-
tions more efficiently (SCPM function). ICQ promotes SCPM
by increasing data accessibility, data compatibility, and per-
formance metrics comparability. Improved process monitor-
ing further leads to SC-wide visibility by enabling the SCV
function. Indeed, SCPM contributions to SCV entail seamless
logistics monitoring, product tracking, continuous SC-wide
condition monitoring, and reduction of human errors. SCV, in
turn, plays a critical role in facilitating the functions posi-
tioned at placement level 5 of the roadmap, namely SCC and
SCT. SCV offers several implications for enabling SCC, from
data harmonization and process interconnectedness to SC-
wide data synchronization and seamless information sharing
capability. SCV is vital to promoting SCT as it facilitates the
acquisition and communication of relevant information
within the SC while ensuring the accuracy of data collection
and identification across SC nodes/links.
Within placement level 5, SCT directly leads to the devel-
opment of SCMP. This enabling role of SCT involves the visu-
alization of SC variability points, identification of information
gaps, and a deeper understanding of end-to-end SC. The
roadmap and underlying results further reveal that SCMP
offers valuable implications for managing the ever-increasing
complexity of contemporary SCs, mainly via promoting the
SCCM function. SCCM delivers these implications by increas-
ing the transparency of internal and external collaborations
as well as preventing SC complexity by offering a better
understanding of SC value propositions. Alternatively, the
collaboration capabilities of Industry 4.0, manifested in the
SCC function, increase the innovation capability of SC part-
ners (SCIC function). SCC delivers this enabling role in several
ways, such as streamlining innovation investments, collabora-
tive innovation training strategy development, and innov-
ation-friendly SC governance systems. SCIC, in turn, improves
the flexibility of SC (SCF function), as it empowers partners
to leverage disruptive technologies in support of SC proc-
esses and introduce resource efficiency and eco-friendlies
into the new product designs. The roadmap explains that
the enabling role of SCF for SCRM concerns lower process
risks via flexible manufacturing capacity as well as reduced
supply cost risks due to multisourcing-driven order flexibility.
SCF is indispensable to SC agility and risk management since
it promotes the SCAG and SCRM functions. SCF is essential
PRODUCTION PLANNING & CONTROL 19
to SCAG because it allows businesses to effectively imple-
ment changes to their product mix, procurement operations,
and production schedules. The resulting agility paves the
way for higher responsiveness of SC by enabling the SCRP
function. Indeed, SCAG promotes SCRP by empowering part-
ners to speed up implementing changes caused by disrup-
tions. It further allows for the adjustability of operational
tactics, expandability of products, and decisiveness in
responding to new opportunities, changes, or threats. SCRP,
in turn, improves SC adaptive capability (SCAC function) by
empowering proactive demand responsiveness, the respon-
siveness of logistics operations, and strategic intuition for
disruption management. Finally, yet importantly, SCAC allows
SC partners to ensure their business continuity (BCM func-
tion) in several ways, from building strategies that support
adaptability to unforeseen changes or higher modularity of
SC operations to supporting more proactive disruption
response strategies.
5.3. Comparative analysis of results
The study’s results agree with most prior research on the
relationship between Industry 4.0 and SCR. Nevertheless, our
results also provide fresh and, at times, contentious perspec-
tives on how Industry 4.0’s transformational effects may pro-
mote SCR. Overall, Industry 4.0-SCR literature is embryonic,
limited to a few initial studies that mainly provided the the-
oretical understanding of the opportunities that Industry 4.0
technologies may offer for SCR. The present study provides
empirical support for the works of Spieske and Birkel (2021)
and Tortorella et al. (2022) that each Industry 4.0 technology
uniquely contributes to SCR. However, the results extend the
previous studies by considering the SCR implications of vari-
ous Industry 4.0 technologies such as industrial automation
and robotics, cybersecurity solutions, IoP, and IoS. While we
support previous studies that acknowledge the critical role
of individual Industry 4.0 technologies for SCR (e.g. Dilyard et
al. 2021; Qader et al. 2022), our findings imply that Industry
4.0 represents a paradigm shift involving the collective
implementation of disruptive digital technologies and valu-
able design principles. Results show that technological con-
stituents and design principles of Industry 4.0 are
interrelated, overlapping, and complementary, and their col-
lective implementation can synergistically deliver SCR func-
tions. While scholars such as Qader et al. (2022) propose a
linear SC ecosystem in which Industry 4.0 technologies, such
as big data and IoT, directly lead to the SCR, our findings
intend to side with Ralston and Blackhurst (2020) arguing
that Industry 4.0 transformation acts a capability enhancer,
boosting firm’s technical and strategic capabilities to be
more resilient to SC disruptions. Indeed, the findings of the
study showed that Industry 4.0 enables 16 functions that are
critical to the firm’s SCR. These SCR functions represent stra-
tegic/technical capabilities, opportunities, and outcomes that
collectively emerge from integrating and utilising Industry
4.0 technologies and design principles. By leveraging these
functions, SC partners can swiftly adapt and recover from
disruptions, providing significant opportunities for SCR.
20 M. GHOBAKHLOO ET AL.
The results illustrated that the Industry 4.0 SCR functions
are highly interrelated, and precedence relationships exist
among them, which supports the recent study by Mubarik,
Naghavi, et al. (2021). Nonetheless, the roadmap proposes
that SC mapping does not directly affect SC visibility, which
contradicts the recent findings from Mubarik, Naghavi, et al.
(2021) on the causal direction of mapping ! visibility.
Instead, our findings showed that SCV indirectly promotes
SCMP via the intermediary role of SCT. Thus, contrary to
Mubarik, Naghavi, et al. (2021), our results showed that visi-
bility precedes mapping capability within the Industry 4.0-
driven SCR context. Overall, our results and the associations
identified within the roadmap offer support for comparable
studies within the literature. For example, the ISM results
confirm the causal directions of flexibility ! agility !
responsiveness proposed by Shekarian, Reza Nooraie, and
Parast (2020), flexibility ! agility proposed by (Irfan, Wang,
and Akhtar 2019), and innovation ! risk management capa-
bilities proposed by Kwak, Seo, and Mason (2018) within the
SC context.
6. Concluding remarks
The study aimed to explore and explain how SC digitaliza-
tion under Industry 4.0 can lead to SCR. To this purpose, the
study designed and executed a content-centric literature
review and identified 16 unique functions through which
Industry 4.0 enables SCR. To explain how the functions iden-
tified can lead to SCR, the research team captured the opin-
ion of SC experts and executed the ISM methodology. ISM
results revealed that the SCR functions identified are highly
interrelated, and the contribution of Industry 4.0 to SCR
involves the sequential development of these functions.
Through the structural model and Industry 4.0-driven SCR
roadmap, the study detailed the order in which Industry 4.0
should deliver each function while describing existing pair-
wise interaction among functions. The results and findings
are believed to offer valuable theoretical and practical
implications.
6.1. Theoretical implications
The theoretical contribution of the study is threefold. First,
the study identified 16 unique functions through which
Industry 4.0 increases the resilience of SCs. In doing so, the
study provides a detailed conceptualization of each function
and further explains the underlying mechanism through
which each function enables SCR.
Second, previous studies have been more inclined to view
the SCR contributions of Industry 4.0 and its technological
constituents through a specific theoretical lens. The present
study drew on the fact that Industry 4.0 expands beyond
implementing individual technologies. The Industry 4.0
archetype showed how Industry 4.0 capitalizes on various
emerging technological innovations to develop fundamental
design principles that materialize the concept of hypercon-
nected DSN. While acknowledging the synergistic and com-
plementary effects of Industry 4.0 technologies and
principles, the study explored the implications of this phe-
nomenon for SCR and provided a holistic but detailed over-
view of Industry 4.0 contribution to SCR via 16 unique
functions. While acknowledging and supporting the findings
of previous studies that attempted to explain how emerging
technologies allow SC partners to enhance SCR capability,
the present study opens a new perspective on how SCs
should approach SCR under ongoing digital industrial
transformation.
Third, the study identified the precedence relationships
among the functions and explained the sequence in which
they are delivered by Industry 4.0. By doing so, the study
addressed a few theoretical and knowledge gaps that exist
within the literature. For example, there is a lack of consen-
sus in the positioning of SC flexibility, agility, and responsive-
ness within the SCM literature. While some scholars argue
that these concepts are distinguishable (Ayoub and Abdallah
2019; Shekarian, Reza Nooraie, and Parast 2020), others
acknowledge that these concepts can be used interchange-
ably or collectively as a part of unified constructs (e.g. Yu
et al. 2019). Drawing on the ISM findings, the present study
sides with the former and acknowledges the SCF ! SCAG !
SCRP chain of relationships. Results explain that SCF refers to
SC partners’ ability to provide a cost-effective response to
emerging threats and opportunities, whereas SCAG denotes
SC partners’ ability to adapt internal functions and respond
promptly and efficiently to business environment changes.
SCF enables SCAG via reduced complexity of SC operations,
the flexibility of product mix, and dynamic production sched-
ules. While SCF and SCAG are mostly firm-level reactive abil-
ities, SCRP is primarily characterized as a collective SC
capability that is proactive, even amid disruptions. Findings
show that the enabling role of SCAG for SCRP involves the
ability to respond to new opportunities and threats
decisively, adjust operational tactics, and implement SC
changes promptly and efficiently.
6.2. Managerial and practical implications
Industry 4.0 epitomizes a paradigm shift involving the digital
transformation of industrial value chains. The scope of
Industry 4.0 expands beyond organizational digitization proj-
ects. Digitalization under this phenomenon involves the syn-
ergetic implementation of disruptive digital technologies
such as AI, augmented reality, blockchain, big data analytics,
cloud computing, industrial robots, IoT, and digital twin
throughout the value chain and achieving certain techno-
functional principles such as horizontal integration, interoper-
ability, decentralization, modularity, and virtualization.
Through constructing a data-driven and hyperconnected SC
ecosystem, Industry 4.0 offers 16 functions through which
modern SCs can significantly enhance their resilience.
Contrary to the legacy information technologies and last-gen
SCM systems, the integrative and inclusive nature of Industry
4.0 provides SC partners with unique opportunities to
achieve various SCR functions synchronously. Although each
technological constituent of Industry 4.0 is instrumental to
particular SCR functions, their complementarities allow SC

partners to develop all the necessary functions and maximize
their resilience.
Our findings show that businesses should understand and
account for the domino effect of Industry 4.0 digital trans-
formation for SCR, as highlighted through the hierarchy and
contextual relationships identified across the strategic road-
map. Industry 4.0 is a transformative framework that can
offer 16 interrelated functions that help SC partners become
resilient towards disruptions. Organizations should realize the
domino effect of Industry 4.0 for SCR as a cascading effect
triggered by adopting the Industry 4.0 framework. Under this
framework, the sequence in which the 16 functions of
Industry 4.0 are delivered and leveraged is critical to achiev-
ing SCR. For example, the roadmap implies that invaluable
strategic SCR functions such as SCAC and BCM are not dir-
ectly dependent on technical driver functions such as ICQ.
Nonetheless, firms cannot enjoy the dependent functions
(e.g. SCAC and BCM) without first leveraging the technical
SCR functions of Industry 4.0, given that likes of ICQ are ena-
blers of intermediary SCR functions like SCIC and SCRM that
directly enable SCAC and BCM. Therefore, the domino effect
of Industry 4.0 for SCR should be understood as a series of
interdependent functions that empower organizations to
achieve resilience in their SC operations. As such, SC partners
must ensure that their digitalization strategies align with the
sequence in which the 16 functions of Industry 4.0 are deliv-
ered to maximize benefits synergistically. By following this
sequence, organizations can effectively leverage Industry 4.0
to enhance their SCR capabilities and achieve greater oper-
ational efficiency.
In this regard, results revealed that Industry 4.0 contribu-
tions to SCR first involve using technologies such as cogni-
tive robots, IoT, edge computing, and CPS to automate
physical activities, information workflows, and decision proc-
esses across the SC to reduce human interventions. The
resulting automation and data centricity naturally put SC
partners at more significant cybersecurity risks. Industry 4.0
addresses this concern via the ICS function, which involves
many practices such as real-time assessment of vulnerabil-
ities or elimination of unauthorized human interventions.
Industry 4.0 synchronizes decision processes through these
practices, protects equipment and technological infrastruc-
ture against disruptions, enhances production and delivery
capacity reliability, and boosts IT and OT recovery, allowing
SC partners to strengthen their disruption resilience.
Industry 4.0 further enables the real-time and continuous
tracking of SC operations, from ordering raw materials to
delivering final products. Industry 4.0 delivers this function
via IoT, industrial controllers, cloud technologies, enterprise
systems, and machine learning to allow SC partners to verti-
cally and horizontally integrate their internal operations and
engage in real-time information exchange. These circumstan-
ces enable SC partners to seamlessly access a large volume
of meaningful data across SC nodes and efficiently perform
the forward and backward tracing of SC material flow.
Consistently and through SCPM and SCV functions, Industry
4.0 leads to utmost visibility across the SC and allows part-
ners to use numerous performance metrics to better sense
PRODUCTION PLANNING & CONTROL 21
disruptions and increase the efficiency of their decision
processes.
Industry 4.0 implications for SCR further involve facili-
tating SC collaboration and integration by eliminating
information silos and streamlining real-time information
and knowledge sharing. Improved SC collaboration under
Industry 4.0, complemented by AI-driven visualization of
SC map and SC-wide accessibility of vital information con-
cerning environmental impacts of products and processes,
risks points, or labour issues, enhances the transparency of
SC operations. This condition, in turn, boosts SCR via
empowering SC partners to recognize threats collabora-
tively, identify logistical uncertainties, address weak SC
links, and mitigate reputational risk. More importantly, the
resulting SC visibility, transparency, and mapping capabil-
ity enhance SC partners’ capacity to better capitalize on
the technological constituents of Industry 4.0 to orches-
trate the integration of SC resources such as people, know-
ledge base, and processes. These interactions provide the
necessary means for managing the ever-increasing com-
plexity of modern SC. By doing so, Industry 4.0 delivers
the SCCM function, enabling SC partners to gain resilience
by building transparent relationships and acting on the
resulting end-to-end visibility.
After developing data-driven Industry 4.0 SCR functions
such as SCMP, SCT, and SCCM, SC partners should capital-
ize on Industry 4.0 to materialize the concept of smart fac-
tory, warehousing, and logistics to increase the flexibility
of upstream/downstream supply and manufacturing opera-
tions. Furthermore, Industry 4.0 technologies such as IoP,
extended reality, smart wearables, or simulation tools can
enable SC members to improve inter-functional communi-
cation, collaboration, and knowledge competencies to
enhance their product and process innovation capability.
In turn, the resulting SCF and SCIC functions improve SCR
by enabling members to increase the cost-efficiency of
manufacturing and logistics operations, lower product lead
time, and revive or replace declining products swiftly.
Through the enabling role of these functions, SCs should
further draw on Industry 4.0 to decentralize decision proc-
esses, implement dynamic SC planning systems, identify
unknown SC risks, perform real-time mapping of SC risks,
and collaboratively develop SC risk mitigation strategies.
The resulting SC agility and risk management capabilities
boost SCR by allowing partners to recognize their vulner-
abilities, respond to SC disruptions cost-effectively, and
become risk-resilient.
By going through the complex procedures explained
above and developing SCAG and SCRM functions, SC
partners can capitalize on Industry 4.0 to perform the round-
the-clock monitoring of market dynamics and construct pre-
dictive models of future customer demands to respond to
environmental turbulence and future disruptions proactively.
The resulting responsiveness, complemented by the Industry
4.0-driven SC autonomy and modularity, allows SC partners
to promptly restructure their modules and adapt to internal
and external condition changes. In turn, the follow-on adap-
tive capability capitalizes on the digitalized business
22 M. GHOBAKHLOO ET AL.
ecosystem of Industry 4.0 and allows SC members to stra-
tegically manage and survive inevitable disruptions and con-
tinue operating properly after a disaster has occurred.
Consistently, the three complicated SCR functions of SCRP,
SCAC, and BCM enhance the resiliency of SC partners by
allowing them to sense imminent disruptions, forecast future
threats, collectively strategize the necessary responses, and
develop strategic recovery capabilities.
6.3. Limitations and future research directions
The present study provided a hypothetical description of the
process through which Industry 4.0 enhances the resilience
of SC. Delivering this goal involved identifying 16 Industry
4.0 SCR functions and drawing on the ISM to model the
interrelationships among them. While the study followed the
standard procedures to identify functions and perform ISM, it
is limited in some respects. First, the study held an optimistic
view of the SCR opportunities that Industry 4.0 offers and
illustrated a best-case scenario within which Industry 4.0
operates positively throughout the SCM operations.
Nevertheless, the literature widely acknowledges the com-
plexity of SC digitalization under Industry 4.0, arguing that
not all businesses have the capacity to capitalize on this dis-
ruptive phenomenon. Digitalization under Industry 4.0 is sig-
nificantly resource and knowledge-intensive, requiring SC
partners to have a certain degree of digital maturity, techno-
logical alignment, infrastructural readiness, and strategic
competencies, to name a few requirements. Indeed, most
ordinary SC partners rarely have the needed capacity to
embark on the all-inclusive Industry 4.0 digital transform-
ation. For most businesses, transitioning to Industry 4.0 is a
gradual process, starting with the selective implementation
of a few disruptive technologies that align with the strategic
priorities. While the study provides a holistic but detailed
explanation of the opportunities that Industry 4.0 offers for
SCR, it could not conceivably explain how the limited imple-
mentation of Industry 4.0 technologies, and various combina-
tions of technologies that might occur, can impact SCR.
Future research can address this gap by developing dynamic
decision models that idiosyncratically outline the best course
of digitalization for individual SCs while considering their
resilience goals and digitalization competencies.
Second, Industry 4.0 can negatively impact SCR if gov-
erned improperly. For example, under the ICS function, the
study explained how Industry 4.0 improves the cybersecurity
of SC operations via various practices such as real-time moni-
toring of IT-OT functionalities. Nonetheless, every connected
device within Industry 4.0 hyperconnected ecosystem repre-
sents a potential cyber risk. In addition, the breadth of
Industry 4.0 that involves vertical and horizontal integration
of SC operations increases the cyberattack surface signifi-
cantly. Capitalizing on Industry 4.0 to develop ISC function
hypothetically requires SC partners to have many competen-
cies, such as operational security knowledge, techniques for
secure integration with legacy infrastructure, and expertise in
applying security functionalities of Industry 4.0 technologies.
Although the study explained how Industry 4.0 enables each
of the SCR functions, it could not conceivably explain other
competencies required by them. Consistently, Industry 4.0
can be a double-edged sword, acting against many functions
such as ICS, SCC, SCCM, and SCAC when managed improp-
erly. Addressing this knowledge gap requires future studies
to thoroughly investigate the requirements (knowledge,
skills, competencies, or strategies) SC partners should have
to leverage Industry 4.0 to successfully develop each SCR
function.
Acknowledgements
This research has been a part of the IN4ACT project that received fund-
ing from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation
programme under grant agreement No 810318.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Funding
This research has been a part of the IN4ACT project that received fund-
ing from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation
programme under grant agreement No 810318.
Notes on contributors
Morteza Ghobakhloo is an Associate Professor at the
Division of Industrial Engineering and Management,
Uppsala University, Sweden, and a collaborator with the
IN4ACT project at the School of Economics and
Business, Kaunas University of Technology, Lithuania. He
holds a Ph.D. in Industrial Engineering. His research
interests include the strategic management of digital
industrial transformation in the Industry 4.0 era, hyper-
connected manufacturing ecosystems, and corporate sustainability perform-
ance. His research has been published in many leading journals, such as BSE,
IJPR, TFSC, and JCLP.
Mohammad Iranmanesh is an Associate Professor
attached to the La Trobe Business School, La Tobe
University. His research interests are at the interface of
sustainability and Information Systems (IS), focusing on
issues related to digital transformation, sustainable man-
ufacturing, and sustainable development. He has pub-
lished more than 100 articles in a range of leading
academic journals and conferences. Mohammad was
named in the Top 40 Australia’s early achievers (Rising Stars) of 2020 by
research cited in The Australian newspaper.
Behzad Foroughi is an Assistant Professor in the
Program in International Business Administration at
I-Shou University, Taiwan. His main areas of research
are International Marketing, Tourism & Hospitality,
and Information Technology. He is an active
researcher and has published widely in several peer-
reviewed journals. He has published his research in
various journals such as Journal of Travel Research,
Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, and Business Strategy &
the Environment. Currently, he serves as an Associate Editor at Asia-
Pacific Journal of Business Administration.

Ming-Lang Tseng (Scopus: h-index: 65; Google h-
index: 82) is Chair Professor and Director of Institute
of Innovation and Circular Economy in Asia
University. Prof. Tseng was a research fellow in the
Institute of Applied Ecology at Chinese Academy of
Sciences, China (2012–2013); visiting scholar at
University of Derby, United Kingdom (2015); Adjunct
Distinguished Prof, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia,
Malaysia (2019–2021); Honorary Professor, Graduate School of Business,
Universiti Sains Malaysia (2019–2021); and Visiting Prof., University of
Glasgrow, United Kingdom (2023). Prof Tseng is the Editor in Chief of
Journal of Production of Engineering (Taylor & Francis).
Davoud Nikbin is a Senior Lecturer in Marketing at
the School of Business & Law, University of Brighton,
UK. He holds a PhD in Services Marketing from
Universiti Sains Malaysia. He teaches a wide range of
courses in marketing. His research interests are serv-
ices marketing, consumer behavior, tourism and hos-
pitality marketing, digital marketing and innovation
management. He has published his research in vari-
ous journals such as Journal of Knowledge Management, Journal of
Consumer Behaviour, Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, Journal
of Air Transport Management, etc.
Ahmad A. A. Khanfar is a lecturer at Edith Cowan
University. Ahmad has received his Master Degree
by Research in Project Management from Edith
Cowan University, Bachelor degree in Computer
Science from the University of Jordan, and has many
years of experience in information technology sys-
tems and IT project Management. His research inter-
ests are mainly in the area of information systems
and its applications in various fields.
ORCID
Davoud Nikbin http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1218-2377
References
Abdirad, M., and K. Krishnan. 2021. “Industry 4.0 in Logistics and Supply
Chain Management: A Systematic Literature Review.” Engineering
Management Journal 33 (3): 187–201. https://doi.org/10.1080/
10429247.2020.1783935
Ali, S. M., M. A. Hossen, Z. Mahtab, G. Kabir, S. K. Paul, and Z. H. Adnan.
2020. “Barriers to Lean Six Sigma Implementation in the Supply
Chain: An ISM Model.” Computers & Industrial Engineering 149:
106843. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2020.106843
Alotaibi, B. 2019. “Utilizing Blockchain to Overcome Cyber Security
Concerns in the Internet of Things: A Review.” IEEE Sensors Journal 19
(23): 10953–10971. https://doi.org/10.1109/JSEN.2019.2935035
Ayoub, Haya Fawzi, and, Ayman Bahjat Abdallah. 2019. “The Effect of
Supply Chain Agility on Export Performance.” Journal of
Manufacturing Technology Management 30 (5): 821–839. https://doi.
org/10.1108/JMTM-08-2018-0229.
Bag, S., P. Dhamija, S. Luthra, and D. Huisingh. 2021. “How Big Data
Analytics Can Help Manufacturing Companies Strengthen Supply
Chain Resilience in the Context of the COVID-19 Pandemic.” The
International Journal of Logistics Management 34 (4): 1141–1164.
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJLM-02-2021-0095
Bag, S., S. Gupta, T. Choi, and A. Kumar. 2021. “Roles of Innovation
Leadership on Using Big Data Analytics to Establish Resilient
Healthcare Supply Chains to Combat the COVID-19 Pandemic: A
Multimethodological Study.” IEEE Transactions on Engineering
Management 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1109/TEM.2021.3101590
Bag, S., S. Gupta, and L. Wood. 2022. “Big Data Analytics in Sustainable
Humanitarian Supply Chain: Barriers and Their Interactions.” Annals of
PRODUCTION PLANNING & CONTROL 23
Operations Research 319 (1): 721–760. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-
020-03790-7
Bahrami, M., and S. Shokouhyar. 2022. “The Role of Big Data Analytics
Capabilities in Bolstering Supply Chain Resilience and Firm
Performance: A Dynamic Capability View.” Information Technology &
People 35 (5): 1621–1651. https://doi.org/10.1108/ITP-01-2021-0048
Bai, C., and J. Sarkis. 2020. “A Supply Chain Transparency and
Sustainability Technology Appraisal Model for Blockchain
Technology.” International Journal of Production Research 58 (7): 2142–
2162. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2019.1708989
Baryannis, G., S. Validi, S. Dani, and G. Antoniou. 2019. “Supply Chain Risk
Management and Artificial Intelligence: state of the Art and Future
Research Directions.” International Journal of Production Research 57 (7):
2179–2202. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2018.1530476
Bechtsis, D., N. Tsolakis, E. Iakovou, and D. Vlachos. 2022. “Data-Driven
Secure, Resilient and Sustainable Supply Chains: gaps, Opportunities,
and a New Generalised Data Sharing and Data Monetisation
Framework.” International Journal of Production Research 60 (14):
4397–4417. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2021.1957506
Belhadi, A., S. Kamble, S. Fosso Wamba, and M. M. Queiroz. 2021.
“Building Supply-Chain Resilience: An Artificial Intelligence-Based
Technique and Decision-Making Framework.” International Journal of
Production Research 60 (14): 4487–4507. https://doi.org/10.1080/
00207543.2021.1950935
Belhadi, A., S. Kamble, C. Jabbour, A. Gunasekaran, N. O. Ndubisi, and M.
Venkatesh. 2021. “Manufacturing and Service Supply Chain Resilience
to the COVID-19 Outbreak: Lessons Learned from the Automobile and
Airline Industries.” Technological Forecasting and Social Change 163:
120447. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120447
Belhadi, A., Mani, V., Kamble, S. S., Khan, S. A. R, and Verma, S. 2021.
“Artificial Intelligence-Driven Innovation for Enhancing Supply Chain
Resilience and Performance under the Effect of Supply Chain
Dynamism: An Empirical Investigation.” Annals of Operations Research
1–26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-021-03956-x
Bianco, D., M. Godinho Filho, L. Osiro, G. M. D. Ganga, and G. L.
Tortorella. 2023. “The Driving and Dependence Power between Lean
Leadership Competencies: An Integrated ISM/Fuzzy MICMAC
Approach.” Production Planning & Control 34 (11): 1037–1061. https://
doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2021.1969047
Birkie, S. E., and P. Trucco. 2020. “Do Not Expect Others Do What You
Should! Supply Chain Complexity and Mitigation of the Ripple Effect
of Disruptions.” International Journal of Logistics Management 31 (1):
123–144. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJLM-10-2018-0273
Bloomberg. 2021. There Is No Shortage of Reasons for the Broken
Supply Chain. https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-10-
11/supply-chain-disruptions-almost-too-many-reasons-to-count
Bogner, A., B. Littig, and W. Menz. 2009. Interviewing Experts. New York:
Springer.
Cisneros-Cabrera, S., G. Pishchulov, P. Sampaio, N. Mehandjiev, Z. Liu,
and S. Kununka. 2021. “An Approach and Decision Support Tool for
Forming Industry 4.0 Supply Chain Collaborations.” Computers in
Industry 125: 103391. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compind.2020.103391
Dennehy, D., J. Oredo, K. Spanaki, S. Despoudi, and M. Fitzgibbon. 2021.
“Supply Chain Resilience in Mindful Humanitarian Aid Organizations:
The Role of Big Data Analytics.” International Journal of Operations &
Production Management 41 (9): 1417–1441. https://doi.org/10.1108/
IJOPM-12-2020-0871
Dilyard, John, Shasha Zhao, and Jacqueline Jing You. 2021. “Digital
Innovation and Industry 4.0 FOR Global Value Chain Resilience:
Lessons Learned and Ways Forward.” Thunderbird International
Business Review 63 (5): 577–584. https://doi.org/10.1002/tie.22229.
Dubey, R., D. J. Bryde, C. Foropon, M. Tiwari, Y. Dwivedi, and S. Schiffling.
2021. “An Investigation of Information Alignment and Collaboration as
Complements to Supply Chain Agility in Humanitarian Supply Chain.”
International Journal of Production Research 59 (5): 1586–1605. https://doi.
org/10.1080/00207543.2020.1865583
Dubey, R., A. Gunasekaran, D. J. Bryde, Y. K. Dwivedi, and T.
Papadopoulos. 2020. “Blockchain Technology for Enhancing Swift-
Trust, Collaboration and Resilience within a Humanitarian Supply
24 M. GHOBAKHLOO ET AL.
Chain Setting.” International Journal of Production Research 58 (11):
3381–3398. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2020.1722860
Dubey, R., A. Gunasekaran, S. J. Childe, T. Papadopoulos, Z. Luo, and D.
Roubaud. 2020. “Upstream Supply Chain Visibility and Complexity
Effect on Focal Company’s Sustainable Performance: Indian
Manufacturers’ Perspective.” Annals of Operations Research 290 (1–2):
343–367. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-017-2544-x
Eslami, M. H., H. Jafari, L. Achtenhagen, J. Carlb€ack, and A. Wong. 2021.
“Financial Performance and Supply Chain Dynamic Capabilities: The
Moderating Role of Industry 4.0 Technologies.” International Journal of
Production Research 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2021.
1966850
Fabbe-Costes, N., L. Lechaptois, and M. Spring. 2020. “The Map is Not
the Territory”: a Boundary Objects Perspective on Supply Chain
Mapping.” International Journal of Operations & Production
Management 40 (9): 1475–1497. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOPM-12-
2019-0828
Fatorachian, H., and H. Kazemi. 2021. “Impact of Industry 4.0 on Supply
Chain Performance.” Production Planning & Control 32 (1): 63–81.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2020.1712487
Frank, A. G., G. H. Mendes, N. F. Ayala, and A. Ghezzi. 2019. “Servitization
and Industry 4.0 Convergence in the Digital Transformation of
Product Firms: A Business Model Innovation Perspective.”
Technological Forecasting and Social Change 141: 341–351. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.techfore.2019.01.014
Ghadge, A., M. Weiß, N. D. Caldwell, and R. Wilding. 2019. “Managing
Cyber Risk in Supply Chains: A Review and Research Agenda.” Supply
Chain Management: An International Journal 25 (2): 223–240. https://
doi.org/10.1108/SCM-10-2018-0357
Ghobakhloo, Morteza, Mohammad Iranmanesh, Muhammad Faraz
Mubarak, Mobashar Mubarik, Abderahman Rejeb, and Mehrbakhsh
Nilashi. 2022. “Identifying Industry 5.0 Contributions to Sustainable
Development: A Strategy Roadmap for Delivering Sustainability
Values.” Sustainable Production and Consumption 33: 716–737. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2022.08.003.
Ghobakhloo, M. 2020. “Determinants of Information and Digital
Technology Implementation for Smart Manufacturing.” International
Journal of Production Research 58 (8): 2384–2405. https://doi.org/10.
1080/00207543.2019.1630775
Ghobakhloo, M., M. Iranmanesh, A. Grybauskas, M. Vilkas, and M.
_
Petraite. 2021. “Industry 4.0, Innovation, and Sustainable
Development: A Systematic Review and a Roadmap to Sustainable
Innovation.” Business Strategy and the Environment 30 (8): 4237–4257.
https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2867
Ghobakhloo, M., M. Fathi, M. Iranmanesh, P. Maroufkhani, and M. E.
Morales. 2021. “Industry 4.0 Ten Years on: A Bibliometric and
Systematic Review of Concepts, Sustainability Value Drivers, and
Success Determinants.” Journal of Cleaner Production 302: 127052.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.127052
Giannakis, M., K. Spanaki, and R. Dubey. 2019. “A Cloud-Based Supply
Chain Management System: effects on Supply Chain Responsiveness.”
Journal of Enterprise Information Management 32 (4): 585–607. https://
doi.org/10.1108/JEIM-05-2018-0106
Hahn, G. J. 2020. “Industry 4.0: A Supply Chain Innovation Perspective.”
International Journal of Production Research 58 (5): 1425–1441. https://
doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2019.1641642
Harvey, N., and C. A. Holmes. 2012. “Nominal Group Technique: An
Effective Method for Obtaining Group Consensus.” International
Journal of Nursing Practice 18 (2): 188–194. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.
1440-172X.2012.02017.x
Hermann, M., T. Pentek, and B. Otto. 2016. “Design Principles for
Industrie 4.0 Scenarios.” In 2016 49th Hawaii International Conference
on System Sciences (HICSS) (pp. 3928–3937). IEEE.
Hertzum, M. 2014. “Expertise Seeking: A Review.” Information Processing &
Management 50 (5): 775–795. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ipm.2014.04.003
Higgins, J. P., J. Thomas, J. Chandler, M. Cumpston, T. Li, M. J. Page, and
V. A. Welch. 2019. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of
Interventions. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
Hofmann, E., and M. R€ usch. 2017. “Industry 4.0 and the Current Status as
Well as Future Prospects on Logistics.” Computers in Industry 89: 23–
34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compind.2017.04.002
Hofmann, E., H. Sternberg, H. Chen, A. Pflaum, and G. Prockl. 2019. “Supply
Chain Management and Industry 4.0: conducting Research in the Digital
Age.” International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management
49 (10): 945–955. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPDLM-11-2019-399
Hopkins, J. L. 2021. “An Investigation into Emerging Industry 4.0
Technologies as Drivers of Supply Chain Innovation in Australia.”
Computers in Industry 125: 103323. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compind.
2020.103323
Hughes, L., Y. K. Dwivedi, N. P. Rana, M. D. Williams, and V. Raghavan.
2022. “Perspectives on the Future of Manufacturing within the
Industry 4.0 Era.” Production Planning & Control 33 (2–3): 138–158.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2020.1810762
Huo, B., M. Gu, and Z. Wang. 2018. “Supply Chain Flexibility Concepts,
Dimensions and Outcomes: An Organisational Capability Perspective.”
International Journal of Production Research 56 (17): 5883–5903.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2018.1456694
Huo, B., M. Z. U. Haq, and M. Gu. 2021. “The Impact of Information
Sharing on Supply Chain Learning and Flexibility Performance.”
International Journal of Production Research 59 (5): 1411–1434. https://
doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2020.1824082
Irfan, M., M. Wang, and N. Akhtar. 2019. “Enabling Supply Chain Agility
through Process Integration and Supply Flexibility.” Asia Pacific
Journal of Marketing and Logistics 32 (2): 519–547. https://doi.org/10.
1108/APJML-03-2019-0122
Ivanov, D., and A. Dolgui. 2021. “A Digital Supply Chain Twin for
Managing the Disruption Risks and Resilience in the Era of Industry
4.0.” Production Planning & Control 32 (9): 775–788. https://doi.org/10.
1080/09537287.2020.1768450
Ivanov, D., A. Dolgui, and B. Sokolov. 2019. “The Impact of Digital
Technology and Industry 4.0 on the Ripple Effect and Supply Chain
Risk Analytics.” International Journal of Production Research 57 (3):
829–846. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2018.1488086
Jahromi, A. N., H. Karimipour, A. Dehghantanha, and K. K. R. Choo. 2021.
“Toward Detection and Attribution of Cyber-Attacks in IoT-Enabled
Cyber–Physical Systems.” IEEE Internet of Things Journal 8 (17): 13712–
13722. https://doi.org/10.1109/JIOT.2021.3067667
Kayikci, Y., N. Subramanian, M. Dora, and M. S. Bhatia. 2022. “Food
Supply Chain in the Era of Industry 4.0: blockchain Technology
Implementation Opportunities and Impediments from the Perspective
of People, Process, Performance, and Technology.” Production
Planning & Control 33 (2–3): 301–321. https://doi.org/10.1080/
09537287.2020.1810757
Kazancoglu, Y., Y. D. Ozkan-Ozen, M. Sagnak, I. Kazancoglu, and M. Dora.
2023. “Framework for a Sustainable Supply Chain to Overcome Risks
in Transition to a Circular Economy through Industry 4.0.” Production
Planning & Control 34 (10): 902–917. https://doi.org/10.1080/
09537287.2021.1980910
Kumar, G., and R. Nath Banerjee. 2014. “Supply Chain Collaboration
Index: An Instrument to Measure the Depth of Collaboration.”
Benchmarking: An International Journal 21 (2): 184–204. https://doi.
org/10.1108/BIJ-02-2012-0008
Kwak, D.-W., Y.-J. Seo, and R. Mason. 2018. “Investigating the
Relationship between Supply Chain Innovation, Risk Management
Capabilities and Competitive Advantage in Global Supply Chains.”
International Journal of Operations & Production Management 38 (1):
2–21. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOPM-06-2015-0390
Lee, C. K., Y. Lv, K. Ng, W. Ho, and K. L. Choy. 2018. “Design and
Application of Internet of Things-Based Warehouse Management
System for Smart Logistics.” International Journal of Production
Research 56 (8): 2753–2768. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2017.
1394592
Lekan, A., C. Aigbavboa, O. Babatunde, F. Olabosipo, and A. Christiana.
2022. “Disruptive Technological Innovations in Construction Field and
Fourth Industrial Revolution Intervention in the Achievement of the
Sustainable Development Goal 9.” International Journal of Construction
Management 22 (14): 2647–2658. https://doi.org/10.1080/15623599.
2020.1819522

Li, S., and B. Lin. 2006. “Accessing Information Sharing and Information
Quality in Supply Chain Management.” Decision Support Systems 42
(3): 1641–1656. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2006.02.011
Lohmer, J., N. Bugert, and R. Lasch. 2020. “Analysis of Resilience
Strategies and Ripple Effect in Blockchain-Coordinated Supply Chains:
An Agent-Based Simulation Study.” International Journal of Production
Economics 228: 107882. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2020.107882
Ma, X., J. Wang, Q. Bai, and S. Wang. 2020. “Optimization of a Three-
Echelon Cold Chain considering Freshness-Keeping Efforts under Cap-
and-Trade Regulation in Industry 4.0.” International Journal of
Production Economics 220: 107457. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2019.
07.030
MacPhail, A. 2001. “Nominal Group Technique: A Useful Method for
Working with Young People.” British Educational Research Journal 27
(2): 161–170. https://doi.org/10.1080/01411920120037117
Marcucci, G., S. Antomarioni, F. E. Ciarapica, and M. Bevilacqua. 2022.
“The Impact of Operations and IT-Related Industry 4.0 Key
Technologies on Organizational Resilience.” Production Planning &
Control 33 (15): 1417–1431. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2021.
1874702
Margherita, A., and M. Heikkil€a. 2021. “Business Continuity in the
COVID-19 Emergency: A Framework of Actions Undertaken by
World-Leading Companies.” Business Horizons 64 (5): 683–695.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2021.02.020
Margherita, E. G., and A. M. Braccini. 2023. “Industry 4.0 Technologies in
Flexible Manufacturing for Sustainable Organizational Value: reflec-
tions from a Multiple Case Study of Italian Manufacturers.”
Information Systems Frontiers 25 (3): 995–1016. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s10796-020-10047-y
Mathivathanan, D., K. Mathiyazhagan, N. P. Rana, S. Khorana, and Y. K.
Dwivedi. 2021. “Barriers to the Adoption of Blockchain Technology in
Business Supply Chains: A Total Interpretive Structural Modelling
(TISM) Approach.” International Journal of Production Research 59 (11):
3338–3359. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2020.1868597
Min, H. 2019. “Blockchain Technology for Enhancing Supply Chain
Resilience.” Business Horizons 62 (1): 35–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
bushor.2018.08.012
Modgil, S., S. Gupta, R. Stekelorum, and I. Laguir. 2021. “AI Technologies
and Their Impact on Supply Chain Resilience during -19.” International
Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 52 (2): 130–
149. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPDLM-12-2020-0434
Modgil, S., R. K. Singh, and C. Hannibal. 2021. “Artificial Intelligence for
Supply Chain Resilience: learning from Covid-19.” The International
Journal of Logistics Management 33 (4): 1246–1268. https://doi.org/10.
1108/IJLM-02-2021-0094
Mubarik, M. S., N. Naghavi, M. Mubarik, S. Kusi-Sarpong, S. A. Khan, S. I.
Zaman, and S. H. A. Kazmi. 2021. “Resilience and Cleaner Production
in Industry 4.0: Role of Supply Chain Mapping and Visibility.” Journal
of Cleaner Production 292: 126058. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.
2021.126058
Mubarik, M. S., S. Kusi-Sarpong, K. Govindan, S. A. Khan, and A. Oyedijo.
2021. “Supply Chain Mapping: A Proposed Construct.” International
Journal of Production Research 61 (8): 2653–2669. https://doi.org/10.
1080/00207543.2021.1944390
Mukherjee, A. A., R. K. Singh, R. Mishra, and S. Bag. 2022. “Application of
Blockchain Technology for Sustainability Development in Agricultural
Supply Chain: justification Framework.” Operations Management
Research 15 (1–2): 46–61. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12063-021-00180-5
M€uller, J. M., J. W. Veile, and K.-I. Voigt. 2020. “Prerequisites and
Incentives for Digital Information Sharing in Industry 4.0–an
International Comparison across Data Types.” Computers & Industrial
Engineering 148: 106733. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2020.106733
Munoz, A., and M. Dunbar. 2015. “On the Quantification of Operational
Supply Chain Resilience.” International Journal of Production Research
53 (22): 6736–6751. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2015.1057296
Narasimhan, R., and A. Nair. 2005. “The Antecedent Role of Quality,
Information Sharing and Supply Chain Proximity on Strategic Alliance
Formation and Performance.” International Journal of Production
Economics 96 (3): 301–313. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2003.06.004
PRODUCTION PLANNING & CONTROL 25
Nasim, Saboohi. 2011. “Total Interpretive Structural Modeling of
Continuity and Change Forces in e-Government.” Journal of Enterprise
Transformation 1 (2): 147–168. https://doi.org/10.1080/19488289.2011.
579229.
Naz, F., A. Kumar, A. Majumdar, and R. Agrawal. 2022. “Is Artificial
Intelligence an Enabler of Supply Chain Resiliency Post COVID-19? An
Exploratory State-of-the-Art Review for Future Research.” Operations
Management Research 15 (1–2): 378–398. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s12063-021-00208-w
Ng, Tan Ching Morteza Ghobakhloo, Mohammad Iranmanesh, Parisa
Maroufkhani, and Shahla Asadi. 2022. “Industry 4.0 Applications for
Sustainable Manufacturing: A Systematic Literature Review and a
Roadmap to Sustainable Development.” Journal of Cleaner Production
334: 130133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.130133.
Niemimaa, M., J. J€arvel€ainen, M. Heikkil€a, and J. Heikkil€a. 2019.
“Business Continuity of Business Models: Evaluating the Resilience
of Business Models for Contingencies.” International Journal of
Information Management 49: 208–216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijin-
fomgt.2019.04.010
NIST. 2018. Framework for improving critical infrastructure cybersecurity
version 1.1. https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/CSWP/NIST.CSWP.04162018.
pdf
Norwood, F. B., and D. Peel. 2021. “Supply Chain Mapping to Prepare for
Future Pandemics.” Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy 43 (1):
412–429. https://doi.org/10.1002/aepp.13125
Qader, G., M. Junaid, Q. Abbas, and M. S. Mubarik. 2022. “Industry 4.0
Enables Supply Chain Resilience and Supply Chain Performance.”
Technological Forecasting and Social Change 185: 122026. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.techfore.2022.122026
Olivares Aguila, J., and W. ElMaraghy. 2018. “Structural Complexity and
Robustness of Supply Chain Networks Based on Product
Architecture.” International Journal of Production Research 56 (20):
6701–6718. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2018.1489158
Osterrieder, P., L. Budde, and T. Friedli. 2020. “The Smart Factory as a
Key Construct of Industry 4.0: A Systematic Literature Review.”
International Journal of Production Economics 221: 107476. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2019.08.011
Outhwaite, O., and O. Martin-Ortega. 2019. “Worker-Driven Monitoring–
Redefining Supply Chain Monitoring to Improve Labour Rights in
Global Supply Chains.” Competition & Change 23 (4): 378–396. https://
doi.org/10.1177/1024529419865690
Peng, T., Q. He, Z. Zhang, B. Wang, and X. Xu. 2021. “Industrial Internet-
Enabled Resilient Manufacturing Strategy in the Wake of COVID-19
Pandemic: A Conceptual Framework and Implementations in China.”
Chinese Journal of Mechanical Engineering 34 (1): 48. https://doi.org/
10.1186/s10033-021-00573-4
Pozzi, R., T. Rossi, and R. Secchi. 2023. “Industry 4.0 Technologies: critical
Success Factors for Implementation and Improvements in
Manufacturing Companies.” Production Planning & Control 34 (2): 139–
158. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2021.1891481
Pradabwong, J., C. Braziotis, J. D. T. Tannock, and K. S. Pawar. 2017.
“Business Process Management and Supply Chain Collaboration:
effects on Performance and Competitiveness.” Supply Chain
Management 22 (2): 107–121. https://doi.org/10.1108/SCM-01-2017-
0008
Rajesh, R. 2017. “Technological Capabilities and Supply Chain Resilience
of Firms: A Relational Analysis Using Total Interpretive Structural
Modeling (TISM).” Technological Forecasting and Social Change 118:
161–169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.02.017
Ralston, P., and J. Blackhurst. 2020. “Industry 4.0 and Resilience in the
Supply Chain: A Driver of Capability Enhancement or Capability
Loss?” International Journal of Production Research 58 (16): 5006–5019.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2020.1736724
Ralston, P. M., R. G. Richey, and S. J. Grawe. 2017. “The past and Future
of Supply Chain Collaboration: A Literature Synthesis and Call for
Research.” The International Journal of Logistics Management 28 (2):
508–530. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJLM-09-2015-0175
Rogerson, M., and G. C. Parry. 2020. “Blockchain: case Studies in Food
Supply Chain Visibility.” Supply Chain Management: An International
Journal 25 (5): 601–614. https://doi.org/10.1108/SCM-08-2019-0300
26 M. GHOBAKHLOO ET AL.
Senna, P., A. Reis, A. Dias, O. Coelho, J. Guimar~aes, and S. Eliana. 2023.
“Healthcare Supply Chain Resilience Framework: antecedents,
Mediators, Consequents.” Production Planning & Control 34 (3): 295–
309. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2021.1913525
Shao, X.-F., W. Liu, Y. Li, H. R. Chaudhry, and X.-G. Yue. 2021. “Multistage
Implementation Framework for Smart Supply Chain Management
under Industry 4.0.” Technological Forecasting and Social Change 162:
120354. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120354
Shekarian, M., S. V. Reza Nooraie, and M. M. Parast. 2020. “An
Examination of the Impact of Flexibility and Agility on Mitigating
Supply Chain Disruptions.” International Journal of Production
Economics 220: 107438. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2019.07.011
Spieske, A., and H. Birkel. 2021. “Improving Supply Chain Resilience
through Industry 4.0: A Systematic Literature Review under the
Impressions of the COVID-19 Pandemic.” Computers & Industrial
Engineering 158: 107452. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2021.107452
Sreedevi, R., and H. Saranga. 2017. “Uncertainty and Supply Chain Risk:
The Moderating Role of Supply Chain Flexibility in Risk Mitigation.”
International Journal of Production Economics 193: 332–342. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2017.07.024
Sun, S., X. Zheng, J. Villalba-Dıez, and J. Ordieres-Mer e. 2020. “Data
Handling in Industry 4.0: Interoperability Based on Distributed Ledger
Technology.” Sensors 20 (11): 3046. https://doi.org/10.3390/s20113046
Sundarakani, B., R. Kamran, P. Maheshwari, and V. Jain. 2021. “Designing
a Hybrid Cloud for a Supply Chain Network of Industry 4.0: A
Theoretical Framework.” Benchmarking: An International Journal 28 (5):
1524–1542. https://doi.org/10.1108/BIJ-04-2018-0109
Sushil. 2012. “Interpreting the Interpretive Structural Model.” Global
Journal of Flexible Systems Management 13 (2): 87–106. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s40171-012-0008-3.
Swafford, P. M., S. Ghosh, and N. Murthy. 2008. “Achieving Supply Chain
Agility through IT Integration and Flexibility.” International Journal of
Production Economics 116 (2): 288–297. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.
2008.09.002
Tortorella, G., F. S. Fogliatto, S. Gao, and T. K. Chan. 2022. “Contributions
of Industry 4.0 to Supply Chain Resilience.” The International Journal
of Logistics Management 33 (2): 547–566. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJLM-
12-2020-0494
Tran, M.-Q., M. Elsisi, K. Mahmoud, M.-K. Liu, M. Lehtonen, and M. M.
Darwish. 2021. “Experimental Setup for Online Fault Diagnosis of
Induction Machines via Promising IoT and Machine Learning: Towards
Industry 4.0 Empowerment.” IEEE Access. 9: 115429–115441. https://
doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3105297
Tsang, Y. P., K. L. Choy, C.-H. Wu, G. T. Ho, C. H. Lam, and P. Koo. 2018.
“An Internet of Things (IoT)-Based Risk Monitoring System for
Managing Cold Supply Chain Risks.” Industrial Management & Data
Systems 118 (7): 1432–1462. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMDS-09-2017-
0384
Tsolakis, N., T. Harrington, and J. Singh Srai. 2023. “Digital Supply
Network Design: A Circular Economy 4.0 Decision-Making System for
Real-World Challenges.” Production Planning & Control 34 (10): 941–
966. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2021.1980907
Turner, N., J. Aitken, and C. Bozarth. 2018. “A Framework for
Understanding Managerial Responses to Supply Chain Complexity.”
International Journal of Operations & Production Management 38 (6):
1433–1466. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOPM-01-2017-0062
van Geest, M., B. Tekinerdogan, and C. Catal. 2021. “Design of a
Reference Architecture for Developing Smart Warehouses in Industry
4.0.” Computers in Industry 124: 103343. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.com-
pind.2020.103343
Von Solms, R., and J. Van Niekerk. 2013. “From Information Security to
Cyber Security.” Computers & Security 38: 97–102. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.cose.2013.04.004
Wang, S., J. Wan, D. Li, and C. Zhang. 2016. “Implementing Smart
Factory of Industrie 4.0: An Outlook.” International Journal of
Distributed Sensor Networks 12 (1): 3159805. https://doi.org/10.1155/
2016/3159805
Watson, R. T., and J. Webster. 2020. “Analysing the past to Prepare for
the Future: Writing a Literature Review a Roadmap for Release 2.0.”
Journal of Decision Systems 29 (3): 129–147. https://doi.org/10.1080/
12460125.2020.1798591
Webster, J., and R. T. Watson. 2002. “Analyzing the past to Prepare for
the Future: Writing a Literature Review.” MIS Quarterly 26: xiii–xxiii.
Wijewickrama, M., N. Chileshe, R. Rameezdeen, and J. J. Ochoa. 2021.
“Information Sharing in Reverse Logistics Supply Chain of Demolition
Waste: A Systematic Literature Review.” Journal of Cleaner Production
280: 124359. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.124359
Wollschlaeger, M., T. Sauter, and J. Jasperneite. 2017. “The Future of
Industrial Communication: Automation Networks in the Era of the
Internet of Things and Industry 4.0.” IEEE Industrial Electronics
Magazine 11 (1): 17–27. https://doi.org/10.1109/MIE.2017.2649104
Xie, Y., Y. Yin, W. Xue, H. Shi, and D. Chong. 2020. “Intelligent Supply
Chain Performance Measurement in Industry 4.0.” Systems Research
and Behavioral Science 37 (4): 711–718. https://doi.org/10.1002/sres.
2712
Xu, S., X. Zhang, L. Feng, and W. Yang. 2020. “Disruption Risks in Supply
Chain Management: A Literature Review Based on Bibliometric
Analysis.” International Journal of Production Research 58 (11): 3508–
3526. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2020.1717011
Yadav, Neetu. 2014. “Total Interpretive Structural Modelling (TISM) of
Strategic Performance Management for Indian Telecom Service
Providers.” International Journal of Productivity and Performance
Management 63 (4): 421–445.
Yavas, V., and Y. D. Ozkan-Ozen. 2020. “Logistics Centers in the New
Industrial Era: A Proposed Framework for Logistics Center 4.0.”
Transportation Research Part E 135: 101864. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
tre.2020.101864
Yu, W., R. Chavez, M. Jacobs, C. Y. Wong, and C. Yuan. 2019.
“Environmental Scanning, Supply Chain Integration, Responsiveness,
and Operational Performance.” International Journal of Operations &
Production Management 39 (5): 787–814. https://doi.org/10.1108/
IJOPM-07-2018-0395
Zhao, K., Z. Zuo, and J. V. Blackhurst. 2019. “Modelling Supply Chain
Adaptation for Disruptions: An Empirically Grounded Complex
Adaptive Systems Approach.” Journal of Operations Management 65
(2): 190–212. https://doi.org/10.1002/joom.1009
Zhu, S., J. Song, B. T. Hazen, K. Lee, and C. Cegielski. 2018. “How Supply
Chain Analytics Enables Operational Supply Chain Transparency: An
Organizational Information Processing Theory Perspective.”
International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management
48 (1): 47–68. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPDLM-11-2017-0341
Zouari, D., S. Ruel, and L. Viale. 2021. “Does Digitalising the Supply Chain
Contribute to Its Resilience?” International Journal of Physical
Distribution & Logistics Management 51 (2): 149–180. https://doi.org/
10.1108/IJPDLM-01-2020-0038
 PRODUCTION PLANNING & CONTROL 27

Appendices

Table A1. Hierarchy level for Industry 4.0 SCR functions.

Factors Reachability set Antecedent set Intersection set level
Iteration I
BCM BCM BCM, ICQ, ICS, SCAC, SCAG, SCA, SCC, BCM I
SCCM, SCF, SCIC, SCMP, SCPM,
SCRP, SCRM, SCT, SCV
ICQ BCM, ICQ, SCAG, SCC, SCCM, SCF, SCIC, ICQ, ICS, SCA ICQ
SCMP, SCPM, SCRP, SCRM, SCT, SCV
ICS BCM, ICQ, ICS, SCA, SCCM, SCF, SCIC, ICS, SCA ICS, SCA
SCPM, SCRP, SCRM, SCT, SCV
SCAC BCM, SCAC SCAC, SCAG, SCA, SCC, SCCM, SCIC, SCAC
SCMP, SCPM, SCRP, SCRM, SCT, SCV
SCAG BCM, SCAC, SCAG, SCF, SCIC, SCRP ICQ, SCAG, SCA, SCC, SCCM, SCF, SCIC, SCAG, SCF, SCIC
SCMP, SCPM, SCT, SCV
SCA BCM, ICQ, ICS, SCAC, SCAG, SCA, SCC, ICS, SCA ICS, SCA
SCCM, SCF, SCIC, SCMP, SCPM,
SCRM, SCT, SCV
SCC BCM, SCAC, SCAG, SCC, SCCM, SCF, ICQ, SCA, SCC, SCMP, SCPM, SCT, SCV SCC, SCMP, SCT
SCIC, SCMP, SCRP, SCRM, SCT
SCCM BCM, SCAC, SCAG, SCCM, SCIC, SCRP, ICQ, ICS, SCA, SCC, SCCM, SCMP, SCCM
SCRM SCPM, SCT, SCV
SCF BCM, SCAG, SCF, SCIC, SCRP, SCRM ICQ, ICS, SCAG, SCA, SCC, SCF, SCIC, SCAG, SCF, SCIC
SCPM, SCV
SCIC BCM, SCAC, SCAG, SCF, SCIC, SCRP, ICQ, ICS, SCAG, SCA, SCC, SCCM, SCF, SCAG, SCF, SCIC
SCRM SCIC, SCMP, SCT, SCV
SCMP BCM, SCAC, SCAG, SCC, SCCM, SCIC, ICQ, SCA, SCC, SCMP, SCPM, SCT, SCV SCC, SCMP, SCT
SCMP, SCRP, SCRM, SCT
SCPM BCM, SCAC, SCAG, SCC, SCCM, SCF, ICQ, ICS, SCA, SCPM SCPM
SCMP, SCPM, SCRM, SCT, SCV
SCRP BCM, SCAC, SCRP ICQ, ICS, SCAG, SCC, SCCM, SCF, SCIC, SCRP
SCMP, SCRP, SCRM, SCT, SCV
SCRM BCM, SCAC, SCRP, SCRM ICQ, ICS, SCA, SCC, SCCM, SCF, SCIC, SCRM
SCMP, SCPM, SCRM, SCT, SCV
SCT BCM, SCAC, SCAG, SCC, SCCM, SCIC, ICQ, ICS, SCA, SCC, SCMP, SCPM, SCC, SCMP, SCT
SCMP, SCRP, SCRM, SCT SCT, SCV
SCV BCM, SCAC, SCAG, SCC, SCCM, SCF, ICQ, ICS, SCA, SCPM, SCV SCV
SCIC, SCMP, SCRP, SCRM, SCT, SCV
Iteration 2
ICQ ICQ, SCAG, SCC, SCCM, SCF, SCIC, ICQ, ICS, SCA ICQ
SCMP, SCPM, SCRP, SCRM, SCT, SCV
ICS ICQ, ICS, SCA, SCCM, SCF, SCIC, SCPM, ICS, SCA ICS, SCA
SCRP, SCRM, SCT, SCV
SCAC SCAC SCAC, SCAG, SCA, SCC, SCCM, SCIC, SCAC II
SCMP, SCPM, SCRP, SCRM, SCT, SCV
SCAG SCAC, SCAG, SCF, SCIC, SCRP ICQ, SCAG, SCA, SCC, SCCM, SCF, SCIC, SCAG, SCF, SCIC
SCMP, SCPM, SCT, SCV
SCA ICQ, ICS, SCAC, SCAG, SCA, SCC, SCCM, ICS, SCA ICS, SCA
SCF, SCIC, SCMP, SCPM, SCRM,
SCT, SCV
SCC SCAC, SCAG, SCC, SCCM, SCF, SCIC, ICQ, SCA, SCC, SCMP, SCPM, SCT, SCV SCC, SCMP, SCT
SCMP, SCRP, SCRM, SCT
SCCM SCAC, SCAG, SCCM, SCIC, SCRP, SCRM ICQ, ICS, SCA, SCC, SCCM, SCMP, SCCM
SCPM, SCT, SCV
SCF SCAG, SCF, SCIC, SCRP, SCRM ICQ, ICS, SCAG, SCA, SCC, SCF, SCIC, SCAG, SCF, SCIC
SCPM, SCV
SCIC SCAC, SCAG, SCF, SCIC, SCRP, SCRM ICQ, ICS, SCAG, SCA, SCC, SCCM, SCF, SCAG, SCF, SCIC
SCIC, SCMP, SCT, SCV
SCMP SCAC, SCAG, SCC, SCCM, SCIC, SCMP, ICQ, SCA, SCC, SCMP, SCPM, SCT, SCV SCC, SCMP, SCT
SCRP, SCRM, SCT
SCPM SCAC, SCAG, SCC, SCCM, SCF, SCMP, ICQ, ICS, SCA, SCPM SCPM
SCPM, SCRM, SCT, SCV
SCRP SCAC, SCRP ICQ, ICS, SCAG, SCC, SCCM, SCF, SCIC, SCRP
SCMP, SCRP, SCRM, SCT, SCV
SCRM SCAC, SCRP, SCRM ICQ, ICS, SCA, SCC, SCCM, SCF, SCIC, SCRM
SCMP, SCPM, SCRM, SCT, SCV
SCT SCAC, SCAG, SCC, SCCM, SCIC, SCMP, ICQ, ICS, SCA, SCC, SCMP, SCPM, SCC, SCMP, SCT
SCRP, SCRM, SCT SCT, SCV
SCV SCAC, SCAG, SCC, SCCM, SCF, SCIC, ICQ, ICS, SCA, SCPM, SCV SCV
SCMP, SCRP, SCRM, SCT, SCV
Iteration 3
ICQ ICQ, SCAG, SCC, SCCM, SCF, SCIC, ICQ, ICS, SCA ICQ
SCMP, SCPM, SCRP, SCRM, SCT, SCV
(continued)
28 M. GHOBAKHLOO ET AL.

Table A1. Continued.

Factors Reachability set Antecedent set Intersection set level
ICS ICQ, ICS, SCA, SCCM, SCF, SCIC, SCPM, ICS, SCA ICS, SCA
SCRP, SCRM, SCT, SCV
SCAG SCAG, SCF, SCIC, SCRP ICQ, SCAG, SCA, SCC, SCCM, SCF, SCIC, SCAG, SCF, SCIC
SCMP, SCPM, SCT, SCV
SCA ICQ, ICS, SCAG, SCA, SCC, SCCM, SCF, ICS, SCA ICS, SCA
SCIC, SCMP, SCPM, SCRM, SCT, SCV
SCC SCAG, SCC, SCCM, SCF, SCIC, SCMP, ICQ, SCA, SCC, SCMP, SCPM, SCT, SCV SCC, SCMP, SCT
SCRP, SCRM, SCT
SCCM SCAG, SCCM, SCIC, SCRP, SCRM ICQ, ICS, SCA, SCC, SCCM, SCMP, SCCM
SCPM, SCT, SCV
SCF SCAG, SCF, SCIC, SCRP, SCRM ICQ, ICS, SCAG, SCA, SCC, SCF, SCIC, SCAG, SCF, SCIC
SCPM, SCV
SCIC SCAG, SCF, SCIC, SCRP, SCRM ICQ, ICS, SCAG, SCA, SCC, SCCM, SCF, SCAG, SCF, SCIC
SCIC, SCMP, SCT, SCV
SCMP SCAG, SCC, SCCM, SCIC, SCMP, SCRP, ICQ, SCA, SCC, SCMP, SCPM, SCT, SCV SCC, SCMP, SCT
SCRM, SCT
SCPM SCAG, SCC, SCCM, SCF, SCMP, SCPM, ICQ, ICS, SCA, SCPM SCPM
SCRM, SCT, SCV
SCRP SCRP ICQ, ICS, SCAG, SCC, SCCM, SCF, SCIC, SCRP III
SCMP, SCRP, SCRM, SCT, SCV
SCRM SCRP, SCRM ICQ, ICS, SCA, SCC, SCCM, SCF, SCIC, SCRM
SCMP, SCPM, SCRM, SCT, SCV
SCT SCAG, SCC, SCCM, SCIC, SCMP, SCRP, ICQ, ICS, SCA, SCC, SCMP, SCPM, SCC, SCMP, SCT
SCRM, SCT SCT, SCV
SCV SCAG, SCC, SCCM, SCF, SCIC, SCMP, ICQ, ICS, SCA, SCPM, SCV SCV
SCRP, SCRM, SCT, SCV
Iteration 4
ICQ ICQ, SCAG, SCC, SCCM, SCF, SCIC, ICQ, ICS, SCA ICQ
SCMP, SCPM, SCRM, SCT, SCV
ICS ICQ, ICS, SCA, SCCM, SCF, SCIC, SCPM, ICS, SCA ICS, SCA
SCRM, SCT, SCV
SCAG SCAG, SCF, SCIC ICQ, SCAG, SCA, SCC, SCCM, SCF, SCIC, SCAG, SCF, SCIC IV
SCMP, SCPM, SCT, SCV
SCA ICQ, ICS, SCAG, SCA, SCC, SCCM, SCF, ICS, SCA ICS, SCA
SCIC, SCMP, SCPM, SCRM, SCT, SCV
SCC SCAG, SCC, SCCM, SCF, SCIC, SCMP, ICQ, SCA, SCC, SCMP, SCPM, SCT, SCV SCC, SCMP, SCT
SCRM, SCT
SCCM SCAG, SCCM, SCIC, SCRM ICQ, ICS, SCA, SCC, SCCM, SCMP, SCCM
SCPM, SCT, SCV
SCF SCAG, SCF, SCIC, SCRM ICQ, ICS, SCAG, SCA, SCC, SCF, SCIC, SCAG, SCF, SCIC
SCPM, SCV
SCIC SCAG, SCF, SCIC, SCRM ICQ, ICS, SCAG, SCA, SCC, SCCM, SCF, SCAG, SCF, SCIC
SCIC, SCMP, SCT, SCV
SCMP SCAG, SCC, SCCM, SCIC, SCMP, ICQ, SCA, SCC, SCMP, SCPM, SCT, SCV SCC, SCMP, SCT
SCRM, SCT
SCPM SCAG, SCC, SCCM, SCF, SCMP, SCPM, ICQ, ICS, SCA, SCPM SCPM
SCRM, SCT, SCV
SCRM SCRM ICQ, ICS, SCA, SCC, SCCM, SCF, SCIC, SCRM IV
SCMP, SCPM, SCRM, SCT, SCV
SCT SCAG, SCC, SCCM, SCIC, SCMP, ICQ, ICS, SCA, SCC, SCMP, SCPM, SCC, SCMP, SCT
SCRM, SCT SCT, SCV
SCV SCAG, SCC, SCCM, SCF, SCIC, SCMP, ICQ, ICS, SCA, SCPM, SCV SCV
SCRM, SCT, SCV
Iteration 5
ICQ ICQ, SCC, SCCM, SCF, SCIC, SCMP, ICQ, ICS, SCA ICQ
SCPM, SCT, SCV
ICS ICQ, ICS, SCA, SCCM, SCF, SCIC, SCPM, ICS, SCA ICS, SCA
SCT, SCV
SCA ICQ, ICS, SCA, SCC, SCCM, SCF, SCIC, ICS, SCA ICS, SCA
SCMP, SCPM, SCT, SCV
SCC SCC, SCCM, SCF, SCIC, SCMP, SCT ICQ, SCA, SCC, SCMP, SCPM, SCT, SCV SCC, SCMP, SCT
SCCM SCCM, SCIC ICQ, ICS, SCA, SCC, SCCM, SCMP, SCCM
SCPM, SCT, SCV
SCF SCF, SCIC ICQ, ICS, SCA, SCC, SCF, SCIC, SCF, SCIC V
SCPM, SCV
SCIC SCF, SCIC ICQ, ICS, SCA, SCC, SCCM, SCF, SCIC, SCF, SCIC V
SCMP, SCT, SCV
SCMP SCC, SCCM, SCIC, SCMP, SCT ICQ, SCA, SCC, SCMP, SCPM, SCT, SCV SCC, SCMP, SCT
SCPM SCC, SCCM, SCF, SCMP, SCPM, ICQ, ICS, SCA, SCPM SCPM
SCT, SCV
SCT SCC, SCCM, SCIC, SCMP, SCT ICQ, ICS, SCA, SCC, SCMP, SCPM, SCC, SCMP, SCT
SCT, SCV
SCV SCC, SCCM, SCF, SCIC, SCMP, SCT, SCV ICQ, ICS, SCA, SCPM, SCV SCV
(continued)
 PRODUCTION PLANNING & CONTROL 29

Table A1. Continued.

Factors Reachability set Antecedent set Intersection set level
Iteration 6
ICQ ICQ, SCC, SCCM, SCMP, SCPM, SCT, SCV ICQ, ICS, SCA ICQ
ICS ICQ, ICS, SCA, SCCM, SCPM, SCT, SCV ICS, SCA ICS, SCA
SCA ICQ, ICS, SCA, SCC, SCCM, SCMP, ICS, SCA ICS, SCA
SCPM, SCT, SCV
SCC SCC, SCCM, SCMP, SCT ICQ, SCA, SCC, SCMP, SCPM, SCT, SCV SCC, SCMP, SCT
SCCM SCCM ICQ, ICS, SCA, SCC, SCCM, SCMP, SCCM VI
SCPM, SCT, SCV
SCMP SCC, SCCM, SCMP, SCT ICQ, SCA, SCC, SCMP, SCPM, SCT, SCV SCC, SCMP, SCT
SCPM SCC, SCCM, SCMP, SCPM, SCT, SCV ICQ, ICS, SCA, SCPM SCPM
SCT SCC, SCCM, SCMP, SCT ICQ, ICS, SCA, SCC, SCMP, SCPM, SCC, SCMP, SCT
SCT, SCV
SCV SCC, SCCM, SCMP, SCT, SCV ICQ, ICS, SCA, SCPM, SCV SCV
Iteration 7
ICQ ICQ, SCC, SCMP, SCPM, SCT, SCV ICQ, ICS, SCA ICQ
ICS ICQ, ICS, SCA, SCPM, SCT, SCV ICS, SCA ICS, SCA
SCA ICQ, ICS, SCA, SCC, SCMP, SCPM, ICS, SCA ICS, SCA
SCT, SCV
SCC SCC, SCMP, SCT ICQ, SCA, SCC, SCMP, SCPM, SCT, SCV SCC, SCMP, SCT VII
SCMP SCC, SCMP, SCT ICQ, SCA, SCC, SCMP, SCPM, SCT, SCV SCC, SCMP, SCT VII
SCPM SCC, SCMP, SCPM, SCT, SCV ICQ, ICS, SCA, SCPM SCPM
SCT SCC, SCMP, SCT ICQ, ICS, SCA, SCC, SCMP, SCPM, SCC, SCMP, SCT VII
SCT, SCV
SCV SCC, SCMP, SCT, SCV ICQ, ICS, SCA, SCPM, SCV SCV
Iteration 8
ICQ ICQ, SCPM, SCV ICQ, ICS, SCA ICQ
ICS ICQ, ICS, SCA, SCPM, SCV ICS, SCA ICS, SCA
SCA ICQ, ICS, SCA, SCPM, SCV ICS, SCA ICS, SCA
SCPM SCPM, SCV ICQ, ICS, SCA, SCPM SCPM
SCV SCV ICQ, ICS, SCA, SCPM, SCV SCV VIII
Iteration 9
ICQ ICQ, SCPM ICQ, ICS, SCA ICQ
ICS ICQ, ICS, SCA, SCPM ICS, SCA ICS, SCA
SCA ICQ, ICS, SCA, SCPM ICS, SCA ICS, SCA
SCPM SCPM ICQ, ICS, SCA, SCPM SCPM IX
Iteration 10
ICQ ICQ ICQ, ICS, SCA ICQ X
ICS ICQ, ICS, SCA ICS, SCA ICS, SCA
SCA ICQ, ICS, SCA ICS, SCA ICS, SCA
Iteration 11
ICS ICS, SCA ICS, SCA ICS, SCA XI
SCA ICS, SCA ICS, SCA ICS, SCA XI

Table A2. The ILB and the interpretation of contextual relationships among Industry 4.0 SCR functions.
Causal relationship Enabling role
Supply Chain Automation (SCA)
SCA ! ICQ Data acquisition standardisation and accuracy; Improved data integration; seamless connectivity.
SCA ! ICS Improved response time to cyber threats; Supporting security orchestration, automation, and response (SOAR) systems; Simplifying
the implementation of cyber protection solutions.
SCA ! SCCM Automation of SC routine operations; Automation of complex administrative tasks (e.g. employee lifecycle management or customer
engagement management); logistics (transportation, delivery, and distribution) automation; SC resource orchestration.
SCA ! SCF Reconfigurable SC system components; Autonomous business planning processes; Automation of repetitive tasks and reduction of
human interventions; Streamlined product development.
SCA ! SCPM Sensor-enabled measurement of influential components; Autonomous benchmarking of SC performance indices; Continuous, real-time,
and consistent data feeds.
SCA ! SCT Centralized and ubiquitous information access; Streamlining the intelligent workflows; End-to-end product traceability.
SCA ! SCV Real-time access to meaningful data/information; Autonomous on-site inspections; Integrability of SC elements; Decentralised and
autonomous decision-making.
Information and Cyber Security (ICS)
ICS ! BCM Safeguarding mission-critical digital services; Uninterrupted data access; Protection against data loss; IT-OT safety and recoverability.
ICS ! ICQ Secure cloud communications; Data reliability and protection across mobile, big, corporate, and cloud data environments; Security
and operability of information infrastructure.
ICS ! SCA Protection against deliberate automation control networks intrusions; Built-in high security of autonomous systems; Functional safety
of cyber-physical systems.
ICS ! SCRM Cyber threats mitigation across the lifecycle of IT-OT systems; Higher security of employee practices across the SC; Mitigating
information and cyber security risks and vulnerabilities across tiers of supplier systems.
(continued)
30 M. GHOBAKHLOO ET AL.

Table A2. Continued.

Causal relationship Enabling role
Information and Communication Quality (ICQ)
ICQ ! SCIC Improved communication for the idea and information sharing; More comprehensive and detailed overview of SC innovation
processes; Data-driven early trend recognition; More agile innovation processes.
ICQ ! SCPM Compatibility and coherence of data; Data accessibility for influential components and factors; Reliability and comparability of
performance indicators.
ICQ ! SCRM Effective management of SC data points; Increased operational efficiencies via data alignment; Data-driven response orchestration;
Data alignment with regulatory requirements; Facilitating the end-to-end assessments of risk processes.
ICQ ! SCT Communication of factually backed SC information; Data safety and ethical compliance; Improved stakeholder communication.
ICQ ! SCV Accuracy, reliability, and timeliness (real-time or near real-timeliness) of data shared across SC partners; Better identification of SC
pain points; Elimination of information and functional silos; Higher information trustworthiness.
Supply Chain Process Monitoring (SCPM)
SCPM ! BCM Better synchronisation of SC processes, applications, and technological infrastructure; Facilitating continuous operations under
disruption scenarios.
SCPM ! SCCM Optimizing procurement and shipment schedules; Better compliance with everchanging regulations and legal restrictions; Minimized
data disinformation or manipulation.
SCPM ! SCF Efficient diversification of supplier base; Higher control on third-party logistics companies’ activities; Information access for business
planning model development; Condition monitoring of SC automation tools.
SCPM ! SCMP Real-time tracking of SC changes; Value chain-wide accessibility of SC element (e.g. processes, shipment, equipment, raw material)
information; Remote information verification for every SC tier.
SCPM ! SCV Real-time product location tracking; Logistics and transportation performance monitoring; Constant condition monitoring across SC;
Automating reporting processes; Reduced chance of human errors.
Supply Chain Visibility (SCV)
SCV ! SCAG Improved inventory accuracy; reconfigurability of supplier base and distribution networks; Faster action plan development
SCV ! SCC Data synchronisation across SC nodes; Data harmonisation; real-time information sharing capability; Process interconnectedness;
People (e.g. customer, managers) interconnectedness.
SCV ! SCCM Unnecessary complexity avoidance; Identifying processes that require simplification; Higher integrity across SC relationships.
SCV ! SCF Increased ease (mobility) of supply chain reconfiguration; Timely understanding of occurring/forthcoming disruptions; SC-wide
information systems alignment; Streamlining the re-alignment or reinvention of the SC.
SCV ! SCRM Clearer shared understanding of SC risks; Streamlining SC integration; Better tracking of shifts in customer/market demands;
Determining and handling bad data
SCV ! SCT Accurate data identification and collection across the SC nodes and links; Facilitating the internal/external communication of relevant
information.
Supply Chain Collaboration (SCC)
SCC ! SCAG Higher operational alignment; SC-openness to change; Higher market sensitivity; Strategic orientation; Improved demand
management.
SCC ! SCIC SC governance system openness to accommodating innovation; Streamlining the innovation/R&D investments; Joint innovation
training strategies.
SCC ! SCRP Collective situational awareness; SC-wide communication of changes to production/delivery schedules; Coordination for technological
alignment and heterogeneity; Collaborative planning and forecasting.
SCC ! SCRM Collective understanding of risk/failure implications and impacts; Constant tracking of changes in SC risk factors; Dynamic SC risk
recognition, ranking, and prioritisation; Collective risk mitigation planning.
SCC ! SCT Active collaboration on common SC issues; Collective materiality assessment and SC priority identification; Collective establishment of
disclosure levels.
Supply chain mapping (SCMP)
SCMP ! SCC Identifying areas where SC partners have a solid footing for collaboration; Optimised SC partner selection (in terms of, e.g. strategic
alignment or shared value); Stronger collaboration via effective benefit-sharing models.
SCMP ! SCCM Visual control of SC element interactions; Better understanding of SC processes and their impacts; Identification of SC complexity
sources; Functional SC complexity control.
SCMP ! SCAC Better SC localisation and diversification strategy development; Rationalisation of the supplier base; Detailed assessment of SC
product and process compliance with new trends.
SCMP ! SCRM Better identification of disruption risks; Improved SC vulnerability assessment; SC-wide compliance and risk exposure assessment;
Streamlined supplier segmentation.
Supply Chain Transparency (SCT)
SCT ! SCAG Ease of information access and sharing; Improved flow of information across partners and customers; Higher dependability of logistics
systems.
SCT ! SCC Promoting trust across SC; Identifying resources needed for effective collaboration; More detailed design of collaboration program
and underlying responsibilities.
SCT ! SCCM Detailed understanding of SC value propositions for complexity avoidance; Better understanding of SC partners and customers;
Transparency of internal and external collaboration.
SCT ! SCMP A deeper understanding of end-to-end SC; Visual representation of variability points across supply networks; Identification of
information gaps throughout supply, manufacturing, and distribution nodes.
SCT ! SCRM Improved accuracy of SC data used for risk assessment; Satisfying SC quality and capacity requirements; Better recognition of risk
sources and risk drivers; Streamlined implementation of risk mitigation strategies.
Supply Chain Complexity Management (SCCM)
SCCM ! SCAC Freeing up working capital; Reducing obsolescence throughout the SC; Cost efficiency; Higher responsiveness to internal and external
disruptive forces.
SCCM ! SCAG Faster implementation of action plans and SC process changes; Improved efficiency of reactive decision-making; Awareness of
imminent/happening disruptions, competitions, or opportunities.
SCCM ! SCRM Better integration of risk compliance into SCM functions; Detailed understanding of impact speed, disruption scope, and financial
implications of various risk/failure factors; Better understanding of SC partners’ risk potential (product, operational, process, and
operating region risks).
(continued)
 PRODUCTION PLANNING & CONTROL 31

Table A2. Continued.

Causal relationship Enabling role
Supply Chain Flexibility (SCF)
SCF ! SCAG Ability to efficiently change the production mix; Procurement capability to supply required resources for changing production
schedules; Reduced complexity of SC operations.
SCF ! SCRM Lower supply cost risks via the ability to shift order quantities across multiple active suppliers; Lower process risk due to the flexibility
of manufacturing processes and capacity; Lower demand risks by enabling postponement strategy.
Supply Chain Innovation Capability (SCIC)
SCIC ! SCF Ability to leverage disruptive technologies in support of SC processes; Better organisation of manufacturing operations; Introducing
new (resource-efficient and eco-friendly) product design.
SCIC ! BCM New ways of threat discovery and analysis; Development and implementation of novel business impact analysis tools; Better
designing, testing, and upgrading of the business continuity plan.
SCIC ! SCRP Streamlined shareholder interactions for satisfying complex/dynamic environmental (especially customers’) expectations; Lower time
to market of new products; Countering environmental changes via novel business and monetisation models.
Supply Chain Risk Management (SCRM)
SCRM ! BCM Better identification and management of continuity risks; Prioritisation of SC flow risks (e.g. reputation, price, quality, or delivery risks);
Development of effective risk prevention and risk mitigation strategies.
SCRM ! SCRP SC partner performance assessment for reducing supply and delivery risks; Better fulfilment of customer demands/requirements;
Improved reliability of SC operations; Maintaining SC functions via early risk detection.
Supply Chain Agility (SCAG)
SCAG ! SCIC Reduced SC costs and resource availability for innovation; Streamlined SC innovation processes (e.g. dynamic R&D team building);
Better articulation of SC innovation strategy; Better alignment of innovation strategy with SC overall strategy.
SCAG ! SCRP Swiftness in the efficient implementation of SC changes; Adjustability of operational tactics; Expandability in products, regions, or
business models; Decisiveness in responding to new opportunities, changes, or threats.
Supply Chain Responsiveness (SCRP)
SCRP ! SCAC Data-driven proactive demand responsiveness; SC infrastructure and management alignment for effective value creation and delivery;
Strategic intuition for SC disruption management; Improved responsiveness of logistics operations and processes.
Supply Chain Adaptive Capability (SCAC)
SCAC ! BCM Deployment strategy to adapt to ongoing or unforeseen changes (e., customer demand, regulations, labour rates, or raw material
rates); SC modularity for proactive disruption response strategy.