Promising research fields in supply chain risk management and supply chain resilience and the gaps concerning human factors: A literature review

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

Recent studies concerning supply chain management have shown that topics such as supply chain risk management (SCRM) and supply chain resilience (SCRes) are the new trends in supply chain management. Initial studies in the early 2000s developed frameworks to identify, measure and mitigate risks and assess/evaluate the degree of resilience of a company or supply chain. Recently, a large variety of studies has emerged, including more conceptual and review studies as well as more sophisticated, quantitative studies. However, studies on human-related factors are still lacking, and there is no systematic method to answer questions such as “What literature is available concerning human factors related to SCRM and SCRes?”, “Which human factors contribute to SCRes?” and “Which human factor can amplify SC Risks?”

OBJECTIVE:

The main goal of this paper is to conduct a systematic literature review to identify human factors that impact supply chain resilience and supply chain risk management.

METHOD:

This study was performed using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) method. The objective of using this review protocol is to ensure that the review has the minimum amount of bias due to research expectations.

RESULTS:

This study highlighted a summary of human-related risk and resilience factors as well as a discussion about these preliminary findings.

CONCLUSIONS:

As our main conclusion, we highlight that human factors may generate significant risks in the supply chain, nevertheless, there are other human factors that must be nourished to obtain SCRes.

Keywords

1 Introduction

Recently, topics such as supply chain resilience (SCRes) and supply chain risk management (SCRM) have been studied more frequently. Currently, due to the urge to offer leaner services, supply chains have become more vulnerable in terms of natural and man-made disasters [1]. As both of these topics are becoming more consolidated in the literature, many researchers are investigating different risk/resilience mitigation strategies, including collaboration [2], innovation [3, 4], safety [5], SCRes assessment and metrics [6 –8], and review papers [9 –12]. In this context, there are also human factors, which can be either an asset, considering, for example, mutual trust [13, 14] and openness [15], or a hazard, considering factors such as poor customer service [14] and dishonest pricing [16]. To create a model that implements both a supply chain management and behavioral approach in the supply chain management context, it is crucial to develop models that describe human behavior [17]. This paper aims to fill this gap by presenting a systematic literature review to identify human factors that impact SCRes and SCRM.

2 Literature review

2.1 Supply chain risk management

Companies should focus not only on their own particular risks but also on risks related to the whole supply chain (SC) [18]. Four basic risk constructs should be distinguished [19]: supply chain risk sources, risk consequences, risk drivers and risk mitigating strategies. Supply chain disruptions can be financial losses, a negative corporate image, a bad reputation or damages in security and health [19]. The focus of supply chain risk management (SCRM) is to understand and avoid business disruptions in a supply chain [20]. In general, companies implement risk management at an organizational level only, and there is not sufficient evidence of risk management implemented in an entire SC [20]. Risk can be defined as a mismatch between supply and demand, generating rupture in the SC [20]. Such mismatch may include information, raw materials and product flow from dirt-to-dirt [18].

Supply disturbances include: supply insolvency, war, supplier failure, natural hazards/disasters, ter-rorism, human disasters, regulatory/legal, and infrastructure [21]. Supply chain risks emerge from the disruption of supply chain flows due to disruptions of material flows, information flows, knowledge flows, and control and coordination flows [17].

2.2 Supply chain resilience

Resilient SC systems must provide adequate levels of services and protection at an affordable cost [22]. In addition, to become competitive, SC systems must be resilient to disturbances [21].

There are two main objectives for SCRes: i) to recover the desired states of a disturbed system within an acceptable time period and at an acceptable cost; and ii) to reduce the effectiveness of the disturbance by minimizing potential threats [23].

If a company emphasizes only lower costs and higher efficiency, ignoring resilience, the supply chain system may become vulnerable [24]. Although resi- lience is becoming increasingly important, there are still only a few quantitative studies on this topic [24].

Resilience is related to an adaptive capability of the SC to prepare for unexpected and/or unwanted events, respond to disruptions, and maintain continuity of operations and control [25]. An SC has to be resilient to guarantee survival [26, 27]. Resilience may also be seen as a way to overcome SC vulnerability [28] and prevent shifts to undesirable states [27].

Companies must develop strategies to obtain resi-lience. The main strategies found in literature are: redundancies, i.e. strategic stock, maintain low- capacity utilization, multiple suppliers [29 –31]; Resi- lience culture [29, 32]; Information sharing among partners [31]; Supply chain integration ([32]); Business process management [29, 32] and flexibility [30].

2.3 Human factors and behavioral approach

Operations management (OM) models are built under the consideration that humans are deterministic and predictable in their actions and that they act independently of others and make decisions that are emotionless, observable, and independent of the product [33]. To develop a LARG (Lean, Agile, Resilient and Green) company, it is crucial to create a human factor-oriented approach [22]. Implementing new production systems that reduce work time and task variety (for example, lean manufacturing) requires atention to human factors to avoid health and safety problems with workers and losses to the companies. These problems include: increased number of errors, decreased productivity, absenteeism, and diminishment of employees’ morale and compensations as well as lawsuits [22].

Human, technical and environmental factors are all causal factors of accidents in transportation systems [34]. Therefore, the major method to reduce accident occurrence is enhanced operator skill development, including periodic refresher training to maintain a high level of operational efficiency [34]. Organizations are dependent on humans, and human behavior has a large role in successful collaboration [16]. The willingness to share information is critical, and individuals’ communication behavior has a profound influence on the satisfaction and commitment to collaboration because individuals communicate [35].

Behavioral operations management is a framework that extends standard OM to include human behavioral features that are not present in the traditional approach [17]. Operations often present as highly complex and dynamic settings in which individuals are obligated to solve complex problems to attain the goals of effectiveness, efficiency and quality [17]. The SCRM literature has provided important insights and has made a considerable contribution to the general understanding of causes, effects, and management of supply risk. Nevertheless, little research has been devoted to the investigation of behavioral aspects of supply risk management [17]. Considering human factors, the issue of trust seems to be of particular importance in relation to global value chains [13]. In SCRM, there are intangible elements that include, for example, risk attitudes as well as risk perceptions of users and members of supply chains [36]. Additional examples of these intangible elements include mistrust and the lack of confidence between actors in a supply chain, which can lead to actions and interventions that may lead to cost escalation [36].

3 Research methodology

In this study the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) method was used [37] (see Fig. 1). The objective of using this review protocol was to ensure that the review had the minimum amount of bias from re-search expectations.

Fig. 1

PRISMA protocol of the study.

3.1 Formulate research question

In the first step, it was verified that the research scope was in line with the objectives of identifying human factors that impact supply chain resilience. Therefore, the research questions (RQ) were preci-sely formulated to avoid ambiguity [38].

RQ1 –What literature is available concerning Human factors related to SCRM and SCRes?

RQ2 –Which human factors contribute to SCRes?

RQ3 –Which human factors can amplify SC risks?

3.2 Select databases

The databases chosen for searching the research terms were Scopus and Web of Science. Scopus is the largest database of peer-reviewed literature, and Web of Science can recover documents from 1945 to the present. Previous studies [11, 41] used ABS (associationofbusinessschools.org) ranking and limited their review to journals with grades 3 or 4 (the scale goes from 0 to 4 [44]). Kilubi [41] used peer-reviewed journals with a VHB ranking (vhb.online.org/startseite) of A+, A, B or C as the selection criteria. In this paper, these restrictions were not imposed to ensure that every relevant study was collected, consistent with the methods in a previous systematic review [42].

3.3 Define search terms

The search strings were based on consolidated supply chain risk management and supply chain resilience terminologies as shown in Table 1.

Table 1
Search strings used for the study

Strings Scopus 108

“SUPPLY CHAIN RESILIENCE” 122 0

“SUPPLY CHAIN RESILIENCE” AND “HUMAN FACTOR” 0 0

“SUPPLY CHAIN” AND “HUMAN FACTOR” 42 7

“SUPPLY CHAIN RISK MANAGEMENT” OR SCRM 412 280

“SUPPLY CHAIN RISK MANAGEMENT” 0 0

AND “HUMAN FACTOR”

Total 576 395

Both bases 971

Total results without duplicates 626

Strings	Scopus	108
“SUPPLY CHAIN RESILIENCE”	122	0
“SUPPLY CHAIN RESILIENCE” AND “HUMAN FACTOR”	0	0
“SUPPLY CHAIN” AND “HUMAN FACTOR”	42	7
“SUPPLY CHAIN RISK MANAGEMENT” OR SCRM	412	280
“SUPPLY CHAIN RISK MANAGEMENT”	0	0
AND “HUMAN FACTOR”
Total	576	395
Both bases	971
Total results without duplicates	626

3.4 Select papers

The search took place in June 2018 and resulted in a total of 971 publications. After duplicate removal, there were 626 publications. Then, two different approaches were adopted: i) quantitative bibliometric analysis with the 626 document database using the software R (Bibliometrix package) and ii) a qualitative approach after screening all 626 articles and selecting the 22 articles that specifically addressed all research question. All the authors were involved in the screening process. Disagreements concerning paper selection were solved by a majority consensus. There were no cases where the voting was tied. We selected papers that specifically identified human factors that generated hazards (supply chain risks) or benefits (improving SCRes) to the supply chain. Steps 5 and 6 are shown in Section 4. The complete list of papers (full text) analyzed in the qualitative approach is shown in Table 2.

Table 2
Papers used in the qualitative approach

Paper title Reference Source

Designing software project management Reddy (2009) [45] 2009 World Congress on Computer

models based on supply chain Science and Information

quality assurance practices Engineering Designing

Customer-Supplier Collaboration in Casting Eisto and Hölttä (2010) [15] International Journal of Social,

Industry: a Review on Organizational Behavioral, Educational, Economic,

and Human Aspects Business and Industrial Engineering

Logistics node simulator as an enabler Bruzzone et al. (2011) [34] Simulation

for supply chain development: innovative

portainer simulator as the assessment

tool for human factors in port cranes

Ergonomics and sustainability Hasle and Jensen (2012) [12] Work

–challenges from

global supply chains

Integration of human factors Figueira et al. (2012) [22] Work

principles in LARG organizations

–a conceptual model

Macroergomonics’ contribution Herrera and Huatuco Work

to the effectiveness (2012) [46]

of collaborative supply chains

The effect of human factors on the Khan et al. (2012) [47] International Journal

performance of a two level supply chain of Production Research

The Human Side of Supply Chains: Ancarani and Di Mauro Supply Chain Innovation for Competing

A Behavioural Perspective (2012) [16] in Highly Dynamic Markets: Challenges

of Supply Chain Risk Management and Solutions

Human Factors in Supply Chain Management: Brauner et al. (2013) [48] Proceedings of the 15th

Decision Making in Complex HCI International 2013, Part III

Logistic Scenarios

A multi-criteria ergonomic and performance Brauner Rossi et al. International Journal

methodology for evaluating alternatives (2013) [49] of Industrial Ergonomics

in “manuable” material handling

Customer service in supply chain Naoui (2014) [13] Journal of Enterprise Information

management: A case study Management

An integrated supply chain model with errors Khan et al. (2014) [50] Omega

in quality inspection and learning in production

A Game-based Approach to Understand Stiller et al. (2014) [51] Procedia CIRP

Human Factors in Supply

Chains and Quality Management

Structural equation modeling to identify García-Alcaraz et al. International Journal of Advanced

the human resource value in the JIT (2014) [52] Manufacturing Technology

implementation: case maquiladora sector

A qualitative examination of safety-related Vasara and Kivisto-Rahnasto Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science

compliance challenges for global (2015) [53]

manufacturing

Multi-perspective strategic supplier selection Chai and Ngai (2015) [54] International Journal of Production Economics

in uncertain environments

Measuring overconfidence in inventory Ancarani et al. (2016) [55] Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management

management decisions

Optimization of healthcare supply chain Azadeh et al. (2016) [56] Applied Ergonomics

in context of macro- ergonomics factors by

a unique mathematical programming approach

Manufacturing in the cloud: Golightly et al. (2016) [57] International Journal

A human factors perspective of Industrial Ergonomics

Mapping the state of the art of ergonomics Loos et al. (2016) [58] Scientometrics

within logistics

Impact of human factor on flexibility and supply García-Alcaraz and European Journal of Industrial Engineering

chain agility of La Rioja wineries Maldonado-Macías (2017) [59]

The human factor in SCM: Introducing Schorsch et al. (2017) [60] International Journal of Physical

a meta-theory of behavioral Distribution &Logistics Management

supply chain management

Paper title	Reference	Source
Designing software project management	Reddy (2009) [45]	2009 World Congress on Computer
models based on supply chain		Science and Information
quality assurance practices		Engineering Designing
Customer-Supplier Collaboration in Casting	Eisto and Hölttä (2010) [15]	International Journal of Social,
Industry: a Review on Organizational		Behavioral, Educational, Economic,
and Human Aspects		Business and Industrial Engineering
Logistics node simulator as an enabler	Bruzzone et al. (2011) [34]	Simulation
for supply chain development: innovative
portainer simulator as the assessment
tool for human factors in port cranes
Ergonomics and sustainability	Hasle and Jensen (2012) [12]	Work
–challenges from
global supply chains
Integration of human factors	Figueira et al. (2012) [22]	Work
principles in LARG organizations
–a conceptual model
Macroergomonics’ contribution	Herrera and Huatuco	Work
to the effectiveness	(2012) [46]
of collaborative supply chains
The effect of human factors on the	Khan et al. (2012) [47]	International Journal
performance of a two level supply chain		of Production Research
The Human Side of Supply Chains:	Ancarani and Di Mauro	Supply Chain Innovation for Competing
A Behavioural Perspective	(2012) [16]	in Highly Dynamic Markets: Challenges
of Supply Chain Risk Management		and Solutions
Human Factors in Supply Chain Management:	Brauner et al. (2013) [48]	Proceedings of the 15th
Decision Making in Complex		HCI International 2013, Part III
Logistic Scenarios
A multi-criteria ergonomic and performance	Brauner Rossi et al.	International Journal
methodology for evaluating alternatives	(2013) [49]	of Industrial Ergonomics
in “manuable” material handling
Customer service in supply chain	Naoui (2014) [13]	Journal of Enterprise Information
management: A case study		Management
An integrated supply chain model with errors	Khan et al. (2014) [50]	Omega
in quality inspection and learning in production
A Game-based Approach to Understand	Stiller et al. (2014) [51]	Procedia CIRP
Human Factors in Supply
Chains and Quality Management
Structural equation modeling to identify	García-Alcaraz et al.	International Journal of Advanced
the human resource value in the JIT	(2014) [52]	Manufacturing Technology
implementation: case maquiladora sector
A qualitative examination of safety-related	Vasara and Kivisto-Rahnasto	Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science
compliance challenges for global	(2015) [53]
manufacturing
Multi-perspective strategic supplier selection	Chai and Ngai (2015) [54]	International Journal of Production Economics
in uncertain environments
Measuring overconfidence in inventory	Ancarani et al. (2016) [55]	Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management
management decisions
Optimization of healthcare supply chain	Azadeh et al. (2016) [56]	Applied Ergonomics
in context of macro- ergonomics factors by
a unique mathematical programming approach
Manufacturing in the cloud:	Golightly et al. (2016) [57]	International Journal
A human factors perspective		of Industrial Ergonomics
Mapping the state of the art of ergonomics	Loos et al. (2016) [58]	Scientometrics
within logistics
Impact of human factor on flexibility and supply	García-Alcaraz and	European Journal of Industrial Engineering
chain agility of La Rioja wineries	Maldonado-Macías (2017) [59]
The human factor in SCM: Introducing	Schorsch et al. (2017) [60]	International Journal of Physical
a meta-theory of behavioral		Distribution &Logistics Management
supply chain management

4 Results

4.1 Bibliometric analysis

This section aims to provide an answer to RQ1 by showing the full extent of the bibliometric results. Figure 2 shows the article distribution over time. Figure 3 shows the top five publishing countries. The USA presents a total of 77 publications, which is more than double the number of publications for China (33 publications). Figure 4 shows the total number of citations. While the USA has the highest number of citations, the United Kingdom is the second country with more cited papers. China does not appear in the top five. Figure 5 shows the most productive authors. None of the authors in the top 10 had “Human factors in SCRM/SCRes” as the main line of research. Figure 6 shows the most cited papers concerning SCRM and SCRes. It is important to state that although SCRM and SCRes are different concepts, they are intrinsically related. Managing the risks in a supply chain creates a pathway to generate a resilient supply chain, therefore, the concepts are often discussed toghether by the authors. Most of the papers conceptualize SCRes, SCRM or both concepts. There is no well-cited paper that approaches human-related factors in SCRes/SCRM. Figure 7 shows the top publishing journals. Tables 3 and 4 show author’s dominance statistics.

Fig. 2

Article distribution.

Fig. 3

Top 5 publishing countries.

Fig. 4

Top five citation countries.

Fig. 5

Most productive authors.

Fig. 6

Most cited papers.

Fig. 7

Publications by journal.

Table 3

Dominance factor

Author	h_index	g_index	m_index	TC
Blackhurst, J.	6	9	0.4615385	274
Sawik, T.	6	7	0.7500000	123
Samvedi, A.	6	6	10.000.000	147
Jain, V.	5	7	0.8333333	165
Wagner, S.	5	7	0.7142857	133
Mizgier, K.	4	6	0.6666667	46
Chumak, V.	4	5	0.1818182	73
Wang, X.	3	8	0.2500000	156
Ekwall, D.	3	5	0.3000000	42
Mandal, S.	2	3	0.3333333	10

Table 4

h-index, g-index and m-quotient and total citations

Author	Dominance factor
Wang, X.	0.75
Mizgier, K.	0.67
Samvedi, A.	0.67
Ekwall, D.	0.60
Govindan, K.	0.60
Wagner, S.	0.43
Mandal, S.	0.40
Chumak, V.	0.40
Jain, V.	0.14
Blackhurst, J.	0.11

Attributes of a specific paper are connected to each other, for example, through the manuscript itself: author(s) to the journal, keywords to the publication date, etc. [61]. Furthermore, scientific publications usually reference other scientific works, generating networks that can be either co-citation or coupling networks [61]. These networks are analyzed to capture meaningful properties of the underlying research system, and in particular to determine the influence of bibliometric attributes such as scholars and journals [61]. A unit of coupling was defined by Kessler [62] as any single item of reference that is used by two papers.

Co-citation is defined by Small [63] as a new form of coupling and analyzes the frequency with which two documents are cited together. In general co-citation analysis is performed for mapping older papers and bibliographic coupling is used to map a current research front [61]. Figure 8 shows the co-citation analysis. Co-word analysis aims to build a co-occurrence network to map terms extracted from keywords, titles, or abstracts in a bibliographic collection [61]. Our keyword analysis is shown in Fig. 9. Figure 9 shows two well-connected networks, one with keywords related to SC and another with human factors keywords, which shows that these two networks are not strongly connected.

Fig. 8

Co-citation analysis.

Fig. 9

Keywords network.

4.2 Human factor-based initiatives for risk mitigation

Considering this context, the literature provides examples of human factors that generate SCRes and human factors that amplify supply chain risks. The results were generated from the qualitative analysis of the 22 papers presented in Table 2. Therefore, this section answers RQ2 (Which human factors contribute to SCRes?) and RQ3 (Which human factor can amplify SC risks?). There are also human factors that may contribute to increasing SCRes and represent the answer to RQ2. Our findings are summarized in Tables 5 and 6.

Table 5
Human related resilience factors

Human related resilience factors Representative literature

Collaboration Eisto and Hölttä;

Vereecke and Muylle [64].

Mutual trust Barratt [14]; Parker [65];

Vereecke and Muylle [64];

Hasle and Jensen [12]; Naoui [13]

Openness Barratt [14]

Communication Barratt [14]; Parker [65];

Vereecke and Muylle [64];

Hasle and Jensen [12]; Naoui [13]

Training Gino and Pisano [33]

Learning Ho and Zhang [66]; Khan et al. [47]

Good customer service Naoui [13]

Human related resilience factors	Representative literature
Collaboration	Eisto and Hölttä;
	Vereecke and Muylle [64].
Mutual trust	Barratt [14]; Parker [65];
	Vereecke and Muylle [64];
	Hasle and Jensen [12]; Naoui [13]
Openness	Barratt [14]
Communication	Barratt [14]; Parker [65];
	Vereecke and Muylle [64];
	Hasle and Jensen [12]; Naoui [13]
Training	Gino and Pisano [33]
Learning	Ho and Zhang [66]; Khan et al. [47]
Good customer service	Naoui [13]

Source: Authors.

Table 6

Human risk factors

Human risk factors	Representative literature
Sharing irrelevant information	Herrera and Huatuco [46]
Not informing whether	Eisto and Hölttä
a promise must be broken
Not being honest in pricing	Eisto and Hölttä [15]
Fatigue	Gino and Pisano [33]
Too skill intensive tasks	Gino and Pisano [33]
Inspection errors	Ho and Zhang [66];
	Khan et al. [47]
General ergonomic issues	Khan et al. [50]
Bad customer service	Naoui [13]

Source: Authors.

5 Discussion

This paper had the objective of conducting a systematic literature review of how human factors can affect supply chain resilience strategies (with either a positive or negative impact). To address this objective, we proposed three research questions: RQ1 –What literature is available concerning human factors related to SCRM and SCRes? RQ2 –Which human factors contribute to SCRes? RQ3 –Which human factor can amplify SC risks? We answered the first question via an extensive bibliometric analysis, which showed that SCRM articles often disregard human factors. To answer RQ2 and RQ3, we selected 22 papers that discussed SC human factors. Among these papers, only one paper considered human factors in the SCRM context. We mapped the factors and associated each one of them with resilience strategies previously estabilished by qualified literature. Nevertheless, we are aware of the degree of subjectivity that surrounds the analysis, which can be considered the main limitation of this paper. The next research step would be to test these literature assumptions in real-life case studies, preferably with rigorous statistical analyses. Therefore, a relevant contribution of our study is the identification of a promising research field often neglected by most hegemonic SCRM and SCRes approaches. We expect that this paper will be a first step towards mapping human factors, as we demonstrated that they can have favorable or hazardous effects on a supply chain. We also recommend optimizing the desirable human factors mapped and mitigating the unwanted factors to develop a resilient supply chain.

6 Conclusion

In a world that is moving towards complete process automation, it is essential to question and emphasize the relevance and impact that human factors have on the processes and relationships between supply chain companies. In this sense, this article demonstrates that human factors such as “collaboration” and “mutual trust” are essential for building supply chain resilience, while factors such as “not being honest in pricing” and “sharing irrelevant information” may lead to increased risks. To fully understand the impact of human factors in the supply chains we recommend the conduction of a systematic empirical study in order to measure these effects.

Conflict of interest

None to report.

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the editors and the two anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments that gave an essential contribution to the paper.

References

Soni

, Jain

. Minimizing the vulnerabilities of supply chain: A new framework for enhancing the resilience, 2011; Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management (IEEM): 933-9. doi: 10.1109/IEEM.2011.6118053

Ayuso

, Roca

, Colomé

. The role of collaboration in supply chain resilience, 2009; Supply Chain Management: An International Journal. 14(2):75–86. doi: https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1108/13598540910941975/nhttps://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1108/13598540910941948

Gölgeci

, Ponomarov

. Does Firm Innovativeness Enable Effective Responses to Supply Chain Disruptions? An Empirical Study, 2013; Supply Chain Management. 18(6):604–17. doi:10.1108/SCM-10-2012-0331

Gölgeci

, Ponomarov

. How Does Firm Innovativeness Enable Supply Chain Resilience? The Moderating Role of Supply Uncertainty and Interdependence, 2015; Technology Analysis & Strategic Management. 27(3):267–82. doi:10.1080/09537325.2014.971003

Chen

. A General Framework for Evaluation Supply Chain Resilience, 2016; Proceedings of the ASME 2016 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference: 1-10.

Pournader

, Rotaru

, Kach

, Hajiagha

HRS

. An analytical model for system-wide and tier-specific assessment of resilience to supply chain risks, 2016; Supply Chain Management: An International Journal. 21(5):589–609. doi: 10.1108/SCM-11-2015-0430

Vargas

, Gonzalez

. Model to assess supply chain resilience, 2016; International Journal of Safety and Security Engineering. 6(2):282–92. doi: 10.2495/SAFE-V6-N2-282-292

Mandal

. Supply Chain Resilience: A State-of-the-Art Review and Research Directions. International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment. 2014;5(4):427–53 doi:10.1108/IJDRBE-03-2013-0003

Durach

, Wieland

, Machuca

JAD

. Antecedents and Dimensions of Supply Chain Robustness: A Systematic Literature Review. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management. 2015;45(1):118–37. doi:10.1108/IJPDLM-05-2013-0133

10.

Tukamuhabwa

, Stevenson

, Busby

, Zorzini

. Supply chain resilience: definition, review and theoretical foundations for further study. International Journal of Production Research. 2015;53(18):5592–23. doi: 10.1080/00207543.2015.1037934

11.

Kamalahmadi

, Parast

. A Review of the Literature on the Principles of Enterprise and Supply Chain Resilience: Major Findings and Directions for Future Research. International Journal of Production Economics. 2016;171:116–33. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpe.2015.10.023

12.

Hasle

, Jensen Per

. Ergonomics and sustainability - challenges from global supply chains. Work. 2012;41:3906–13. doi: 10.3233/WOR-2012-0060-3906

13.

Naoui

. Customer service in supply chain management: a case study. Journal of Enterprise Information Management. 2014;27(6):786–801.

14.

Barratt

. Understanding the meaning of collaboration in the supply chain. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal. 2004;9(1):30–42. doi: https://doi.org/10.1108/13598540410517566

15.

Eisto

, Hölttä

. International Journal of Social, Behavioral, Educational. Economic, Business and Industrial Engineering. 2010;4(6):1287–93.

16.

Ancarani

, Di Mauro

. The human side of supply chains: a behavioural perspective of supply chain riskmanagement, In: Evangelista, P., McKinnon, A., Sweeney, E., Esposito, E. (Eds.), Supply Chain Innovation for Competing in Highly Dynamic Markets: Challenges and Solutions: 2011;290-314. ICI Global, Hershey (USA).

17.

Souter

. Risks from supply chain also demand attention. Business Insurance. 2000;34(20):26–8.

18.

Juttner

, Peck

, Christopher

. Supply Chain Risk Management: outlining an agenda for future research. International Journal of Logistics: Research & Applications. 2003;6(4):197–210. doi: 10.1080/13675560310001627016

19.

Norman

, Jansson

, Norrman

. Ericsson ’ s proactive supply chain risk management approach after a serious sub-supplier accident. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management. 2004;34(5):434–56. doi: 10.1108/09600030410545463

20.

Tang

, Musa

. Identifying risk issues and research advancements in supply chain risk management. International Journal of Production Economics. 2011;133(1):25–34.

21.

Barroso

, Machado

, Barros

, Cruz Machado

. Toward a Resilient Supply Chain with Supply Disturbances, Proceedings of the 2010 IEEE IEEM: 2010;245-9.

22.

Figueira

, Cruz-Machado

, Nunes

. Integration of Human Factors Principles in LARG Organizations - A Conceptual Model. Work. 2012;41(1):1712–19. doi:10.3233/WOR-2012-0374-1712

23.

Haimes

. On the definition of vulnerabilities in measuring risks to infrastructures. Risk Analysis. 2006;26(2):293–6.

24.

Pettit

, Fiksel

, Croxton

. Ensuring Supply Chain Resilience: Development of a Conceptual Framework. Journal of Business Logistics. 2010;31(1):1–21.

25.

Barroso

, Machado

, Cruz Machado

. TheResilience Paradigm in the Supply Chain Management: A Case Study, Proceedings of the 2011 IEEE IEEM: 2011;928-32.

26.

Carvalho

, Cruz Machado

, Tavares José

. A mapping framework for assessing Supply Chain resilience. International Journal of Logistics Systems and Management. 2012;12(3).

27.

Peck

. Drivers of supply chain vulnerability: an integrated framework, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management. 2005;35(4):210–32. https://doi.org/10.1108/09600030510599904.

28.

Luthans

, Vogelgesang

, Lester

. Developing the psychological capital of resiliency. Human Resource Development Review. 2006;5(1):25–44.

29.

Sheffi

. The Resilient Enterprise: Overcoming Vulnerability for Competitive Advantage. MIT Press, Boston, MA: 2005;41–8.

30.

Cummings

, Barnes

, Perz

, Schmink

, Sieving

, Southworth

, Binford

, Holt

, Stickler

, Van Holt

. An exploratory framework for the empirical measurement of resilience. Ecosystems. 2005;8(8):975–87.

31.

Tang

. Perspectives in supply chain risk management. International Journal of Production Economics. 2006;103:451–88.

32.

Wisdomnet. Managing Supply Chain Risk: Building in Resilience and Preparing for Disruption, 2006; http://www.wisdomnet.net.

33.

Gino

, Pisano

. Toward a theory of behavioral operations, Manufacturing and Services Operations Management. 2008;10(4):676–91. doi:10.1287/msom.1070.0205

34.

Bruzzone

, Fadda

, Fancello

, Massei

, Bocca

, Tremori

, Tarone

, D’Errico

. Logistics Node Simulator as an Enabler for Supply Chain Development: Innovative Portainer Simulator as the Assessment Tool for Human Factors in Port Cranes. Simulation. 2011;87(10):857–74. doi:10.1177/0037549711418688

35.

Daniel

, Hempel

, Srinivasan

. A model of value assessment in collaborative R&D programs, Industrial Marketing Management. 2002;31:653–64. doi: 10.1016/S0019-8501(01)00173-0

36.

Tang

, Tomlin

. The power of flexibility for mitigating supply chain risks. International Journal of Production Economics. 2008;116:12–27.

37.

Moher

, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLoS Medicine. 2009;6(7). doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097

38.

Hohenstein

, Feisel

, Hartmann

, Giunipero

. Research on the phenomenon of supply chain resilience A systematic review and paths for further investigation, 2015; International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 45 (1/2): 90-117.

39.

Kilubi

. The strategies of supply chain risk management - a synthesis and classification. International Journal of Logistics Research and Applications. 2016b;19(6):604–29.

40.

Kilubi

. Investigating current paradigms in Supply Chain Risk Management—a bibliometric study, 2016a; Business Process Management Journal, 22(4).

41.

Kilubi

, Haasis

H D

. Supply chain risk management enablers-A framework development through systematic review of the literature from 2000 to 2015. International Journal of Business Science and Applied Management. 2015;10(1):35–54.

42.

Hamdi

, Ghorbel

, Masmoudi

, Dupont

. Optimization of a supply portfolio in the context of supply chain risk management: literature review. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing. 2015;29(4):763–88.

43.

, Zheng

, Yildiz

, Talluri

. Supply chain risk management: a literature review. International Journal of Production Research. 2015;53(16):5031–69.

44.

Morris

, Harvey

, Kelly

. Journal rankings and the ABS Journal Quality Guide. Management Decision. 2009;47(9):1441–51. https://doi.org/10.1108/00251740910995648

45.

Reddy Gautham N . Designing software project management models based on supply chain quality assurance practices, 2009; World Congress on Computer Science and Information Engineering: 659-63.

46.

Herrera

, Huatuco

. Macroergomonics’ Contribution to the Effectiveness of Collaborative Supply Chains. Work. 2012;41(1):2695–700. doi:10.3233/WOR-2012-0513-2695

47.

Khan

, Jaber

M Y

, Guiffrida

A L

. The Effect of Human Factors on the Performance of a Two Level Supply Chain. International Journal of Production Research. 2012;50(2):517–33. doi:10.1080/00207543.2010.539282

48.

Brauner

, Runge

, Groten

, Schuh

, Ziefle

. Human Factors in Supply Chain Management: Decision Making in Complex Logistic Scenarios. HIMI/HCII 2013, Part III, LNCS. 2013;8018:423–32.

49.

Brauner

R M A

, Rossi

, Bertoloni

, Fenaroli

, Marciano

. A multi-criteria ergonomic and performance methodology for evaluating alternatives in “manuable” material handling, International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics. 2013;43:314–27.

50.

Khan

, Jaber

M Y

, Ahmad

. An Integrated Supply Chain Model with Errors in Quality Inspection and Learning in Production, Omega. 2014;42(1):16–24. doi:10.1016/j.omega.2013.02.002.

51.

Stiller

, Falk

, Philipsen

, Brauner

, Schmitt

, Ziefle

. A game-based approach to understand human factors in supply chains and quality management. Procedia CIRP. 2014;20:67–73.

52.

García-Alcaraz

, Maldonado

, Alvarado

, Rivera

. Human critical success factors for kaizen and its impacts in industrial performance. International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology. 2014;70(9–12):2187–98. doi:10.1007/s00170-013-5445-4

53.

Vasara

, Kivisto-Rahnasto

. A qualitative examination of safety-related compliance challenges for global manufacturing, Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science. 2015;16(4):429–46. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1080/1463922X.2015.1033034.

54.

Chai Junyi

, Ngai Eric

. Multi-perspective strategic supplier selection in uncertain environments. International Journal of Production Economics. 2015;166:215–25.

55.

Ancarani

, Di Mauro

, D’Urso

. Measuring Overconfidence in Inventory Management Decisions. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management. 2016;22(3):171–80. doi:10.1016/j.pursup.2016.05.001

56.

Azadeh

, Haghighi

S Motevali

, Gaeini

, Shabanpour

. Optimization of healthcare supply chain in context of macro- ergonomics factors by a unique mathematical programming approach. Applied Ergonomics. 2016;55 (2016):46–55.

57.

Golightly

, Sharples

, Patel

, Ratchev

. Manufacturing in the cloud: A human factors perspective. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics. 2016;55(2016):12–21.

58.

Loos

M J

, Merino

, Rodriguez

C M T

. Mapping the state of the art of ergonomics within logistics. Scientometrics. 1960;109:85–101. 10.1007/s11192-016-1960-z.

59.

García-Alcaraz

, Maldonado-Macías

Ai A

, Hernandez

, Macías

, Muro

JCSD

, Fernández

. Impact of human factor on flexibility and supply chain agility of La Rioja wineries, 2017; European Journal of Industrial Engineering, 11(5).

60.

Schorsch

, Wallenburg

C M

, Wieland

. The human factor in SCM: Introducing a meta-theory of behavioral supply chain management. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management. 2017;47(4):238–62. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPDLM-10-2015-0268.

61.

Aria

, Cuccurullo

. Bibliometrix: An R-tool for comprehensive science mapping analysis. Journal of Informetrics. 2017;11(4):959–75.

62.

Kessler

. Bibliographic coupling between scientific papers. American Documentation. 1963;14(1):10–25.

63.

Small

. Co-citations in the scientific literature: a new measure of the relationship between two documents. Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 1973;24(4):265–9.

64.

Vereecke

, Muylle

. Performance improvement through supply chain collaboration in Europe, Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 2006;26(11):1176–98. Parker (2000)

65.

Parker

. Interfirm collaboration and the new product development process. Industrial Management & Data Systems. 2000;100(6):255–60.

66.

T H

, Zhang

. Designing price contracts for boundedly rational customers: does the framing of the fixed fee matter? Management Science. 2008;54(4):686–700. doi:10.1287/mnsc.1070.0788