See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/340657770

Viability of intertwined supply networks: extending the supply chain

resilience angles towards survivability. A position paper motivated by COVID-
19 outbreak

Article in International Journal of Production Research · April 2020

DOI: 10.1080/00207543.2020.1750727

CITATIONS READS

1,642 7,548

2 authors:

Dmitry Ivanov Alexandre Dolgui

Berlin School of Economics and Law IMT Atlantique
434 PUBLICATIONS 32,724 CITATIONS 992 PUBLICATIONS 30,512 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Dmitry Ivanov on 16 April 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 [Author version; accepted in International Journal of Production Research]
Viability of Intertwined Supply Networks: Extending the Supply Chain Resilience An-
gles towards Survivability. A Position Paper Motivated by COVID-19 Outbreak
Dmitry Ivanov1, Alexandre Dolgui2
1
Berlin School of Economics and Law
Supply Chain and Operations Management, 10825 Berlin, Germany
Phone: +49 30 85789155; E-Mail: divanov@hwr-berlin.de
2
IMT Atlantique, LS2N - CNRS, La Chantrerie, 4 rue Alfred Kastler, 44307 Nantes, France
E-Mail: alexandre.dolgui@imt-atlantique.fr

Abstract: An intertwined supply network (ISN) is an entirety of interconnected supply chains

(SC) which, in their integrity secure the provision of society and markets with goods and ser-
vices. The ISNs are open systems with structural dynamics since the firms may exhibit multiple
behaviors by changing the buyer-supplier roles in interconnected or even competing SCs. From
the positions of resilience, the ISNs as a whole provide services to society (e.g., food service,
mobility service or communication service) which are required to ensure a long-term survival.
The analysis of survivability at the level of ISN requires a consideration at a large scale as
resilience of individual SCs. The recent example of coronavirus COVID-19 outbreak clearly
shows the necessity of this new perspective. Our study introduces a new angle in SC resilience
research when a resistance to extraordinary disruptions needs to be considered at the scale of
viability. We elaborate on the integrity of the ISN and viability. The contribution of our position
study lies in a conceptualization of a novel decision-making environment of ISN viability. We
illustrate the viability formation through a dynamic game-theoretic modelling of a biological
system that resembles the ISN. We discuss some future research areas.
Keywords: supply chain resilience; supply chain risk management; supply chain dynamics;
intertwined supply network; viability; survival; coronavirus (COVID-19)
1. Introduction
Coronavirus COVID-19 outbreak is an unprecedented and extra-ordinary situation that clearly
shows a need for progressing the supply chain (SC) resilience research and practices. The coro-
navirus outbreak affects the global and local economies at a larger scale. Supply availability in
global SCs has been drastically reduced and misbalanced with the demands. According to Araz
et al. (2020), the COVID-19 dispersal “is breaking many global SCs”. Early in March 2020, the
number of COVID-19 cases has grown exponentially all over the world resulting in border
closures, quarantines, and entirely full shut downs of many crucial facilities, markets and ac-
tivities in the SCs. On March 11, 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) announced the
global pandemic.
Being lean and globalized in structures, the SCs of many companies became specifically prone
to coronavirus outbreaks (Ivanov 2020). 94% of the Fortune 1000 companies have been affected
by coronavirus-driven SC disruptions (Fortune 2020). Linton and Vakil (2020) show on the
example of data from the Resilinc system that the world’s largest 1,000 SCs own more than
12,000 facilities (i.e., factories, warehouses and other operations) in COVID-19’s quarantine
areas. For some SCs, demand has drastically increased and the supply was not able to cope with
that situation (e.g., facial masks, hand sanitizer, disinfection spray). As such, the question of
market and society survivability was raised. For other SCs, the demand and supply have dras-
tically dropped resulting in the production stops (e.g., automotive industry), the danger of bank-
ruptcies and necessities of governmental supports (Harbour 2020). Here, the questions of SC
survivability arose. Obviously, both these questions go beyond the existing state-of-the-art in
SC resilience since they cannot be resolved within a narrow SC perspective but rather require
an analysis at a larger scale.
One interesting research avenue to bring the discussion at the level of survivability is to consider
the concept of viability. While SC resilience has gained a considerable attention (Dolgui et al.
2020, Hosseini et al. 2019), the understanding of viability remains an open research question.
In this paper, we define viability as the system ability to meet the demands of surviving in a
changing environment following the Viable System Model by Beer (1981) and ecology mod-
eling perspectives (Aubin 1991). The example of coronavirus COVID-19 outbreak shows that
in case of extraordinary events, SC resistance to disruptions needs to be considered at the scale
of survivability or viability to avoid SC and market collapses and secure the provision with
goods and services.
Analysis of the viability concepts in ecology, biological systems (Aubin 1991) and cybernetics
(Beer 1981) shows that viability is mostly considered in the settings of complex systems which
span and connect some individual sub-systems. In SC domain, several examples of such sys-
tems can be observed in literature and practice. Niu et al. (2019) show that Apple and Samsung
play the role of both suppliers and competing focal firms in two different but intersecting SCs.
Wang (2014) and Wang et al. (2019) develop the concept of holistic SC networks that are com-
posed of a group of intersecting SCs which are intertwined. The SC intertwining can also be
encountered in industrial symbiosis as well as in circular and sharing economies (Fracassia et
al. 2017, Choi et al. 2020). Another example is a symbiosis of commercial and humanitarian
logistics when several business and humanitarian SCs are sharing the warehouse facilities
(Altay and Green 2006, Dubey and Altay 2018, Dubey et al. 2019b). Considering the practical
environments, Kelly and Marchese (2015) point to “complex, dynamic, interconnected supply
chains” highlighting to the role of information technology in synchronizing the SCs within the
value webs. As noted by Vincenzo Boccia, the president of Confindustria in Italy on March 23,
2020 (Agi 2020), it is very difficult to overcome the epidemic crisis and determine the most
essential SCs to ensure survivability since “suppliers in the automotive sector are at the same
time producers of valves for respirators”.
Despite the existence and an increasing practical utilization of the above concepts, the SC man-
agement literature has not framed this new kind of network integrities in a specific concept so
far. In this study, we introduce for the first time the term “Intertwined Supply Network” (ISN)
that encapsulates entireties of interconnected SCs which, in their integrity secure the provision
of society and markets with goods and services. While the resilience is related to the level of
individual SCs or supply networks, viability is considered at the ISN level. SCs rarely represent
single, isolated networks but are rather open systems that are characterized by structural dy-
namics (Ivanov et al. 2010, Kelly and Marchese 2015). In contrast to linearly directed SCs or
supply networks (cf. Fig. 1) with static structures, the firms in the ISNs may exhibit multiple
behaviors in buyer-supplier relations (i.e., behavioral dynamics) being buyers and suppliers in
interconnected or even competing SC simultaneously.

Fig. 1. Linear supply chains, supply networks and intertwined supply networks
The assumption that the firms’ roles in the SCs can vary might change the kind of problem
settings and results to be expected from the analysis of system properties closed to resilience.
Differently but supplementing to the studies on SC resilience, we consider in this paper the ISN
viability. From the positions of resilience, the ISNs as a whole provide services to society (e.g.,
food service, mobility service or communication service) which are required to ensure a long-
term survival. The analysis of survivability at the level of ISN requires a consideration at a large
scale as resilience of individual SCs. The recent example of coronavirus COVID-19 outbreak
clearly shows the necessity of this new perspective.
For example, a traditional understanding of automotive SCs is the car production as the final
output goal. Differently, the ultimate goal of an automotive ISN is to provide a mobility service
to society. In electronics industry, a traditional SC understanding yields production of some
electronic devices as a desired output performance while the performance of the electronics
ISN is rather related to providing communication service to society. As such automotive and
electronics ISNs are responsible to provide to important services to society, i.e., mobility and
communication at a global scale. Obviously, the analysis of disruption impacts at such a level
is concerned with long-term securing the mobility and communication in the society, i.e., en-
suring the viability, rather than with performance impact of disruptions in individual SCs in
terms of revenue or annual sales, as traditional SC resilience analysis usually does.
Therefore, the ISN viability appears a timely and crucial topic which opens doors for a variety
of new problem settings and solution techniques. The global pandemic and SC collapses moved
the SC survivability issues through collective behavioral changes in the forefront of risk man-
agement discussions (Keogh 2020, Ivanov 2020). The SC survivability in the context of such
extra-ordinary events goes beyond a narrow understanding of SC performance as some profits
or revenues and brings the discussion to the next level, i.e., SC performance in terms of securing
the provision of the goods and services in society and long-term survival of the whole industry
sectors.
The contribution of this position paper lies in conceptualization of a novel decision-making
environment for SC resilience that considers ISN and viability as an integrity. Our study intro-
duces a new angle in SC resilience research when SC resistance to extraordinary disruptions
needs to be considered at the scale of survivability, or viability. We also illustrate the viability
concept idea through a dynamic game-theoretic modelling inspired from a biological system
that resembles the ISN. We discuss some future research areas. Conceptually, in Section 2 we
show how viability is different than the resilience, and why viability appears a necessary quality
to be added to the SC resilience analysis in the ISN context. Technically, building upon the
resemblance of ISN to ecological systems, we illustrate in Section 3 the viability formation
through dynamic game-theoretic modelling of a biological system. Section 4 is devoted to the
discussion of theoretical and practical implications as well as future research avenues. We sum-
marize in Section 5 the main ideas of the paper.
2. Literature review
In this section, we discuss recent literature on SC resilience in the aspects concerned with via-
bility. Since there is no specific literature on SC viability, we consider the state-of-the-art SC
resilience angles as the most appropriate methodical basement for a development of the viability
concept.
2.1. Viability vs. stability, robustness, and resilience of SCs
To recapitulate, Viability is a system ability to meet the demands of surviving in a changing
environment. SC literature has produced a large body of knowledge for analysis of network
behaviors and their adaptations in the presence of changing environments which are related to
the categories of stability, robustness, and resilience. Therefore, we present these concepts here
and compare with each other. Our analysis remains at a generalized level according to the ob-
jective of this position paper, and we refer the interested reader to the survey papers by Ho et
al. (2015), Ivanov et al. (2017), Dolgui et al. (2020), Bier et al. (2019), DuHadway et al. (2019),
Hosseini et al. (2019), for more detailed considerations.
Put simply, SC reaction to disturbances can be analysed as follows (Table 1):
 Stability – ability to return to a pre-disturbance state and ensure a continuity (Ivanov
and Sokolov 2013, Demirel et al. 2019)
 Robustness – ability to withstand a disruption (or a series of disruptions) to maintain
the planned performance (Nair and Vidal 2011, Simchi-Levi et al. 2018)
 Resilience – ability to withstand a disruption (or a series of disruptions) and recover
the performance (Spiegler et al. 2012, Hosseini et al. 2019).
Table 1: Major analysis concepts for SC performance under uncertainty
Concept Operational Disruption in Output per- Recovery Survivability
disturbance SC structures formance
Stability +
Robustness + + +
Resilience + + +
Viability + + + +

Demirel et al. (2019) point to stability as a “basic desirable property of a supply network without
an explicit consideration of performance” while the robustness and resilience explicitly include
the performance in the analysis of disruption impacts. Ivanov and Sokolov (2013) show that
robustness allows to analyse the system ability to withstand a disruption (or a series of disrup-
tions) without any structural and parametrical changes/adaptations, while resilience analysis
explicitly allows the system to employ some recovery/adaptation in order to restore the dis-
rupted operations and performance (Craighead et al. 2007, Zhao et al. 2019).
Research in SC reaction to disturbances is related to the semantic network analysis level with a
focus on structural properties, complexity roles, and node/arc criticality (Ivanov and Dolgui
2019). The studies (Basole and Belami 2014, Ivanov et al. 2014a,b, Kim et al. 2015, Brintrup
et al. 2016, Sawik 2017, Machdonald et al. 2018, Yoon et al. 2018, Scheibe and Blackhurst
2018, Pavlov et al. 2018, Ojha et al. 2018, Giannoccaro et al. 2017, Ivanov 2018, 2019, Dolgui
et al. 2018, Li et al. 2019, Pavlov et al. 2019b) recognized the structural SC properties as crucial
determinant to maintain stability and robustness and to achieve resilience. Another important
observation in literature is a linkage of SC complexity and resilience (Blackhurst et al. 2005,
Nair and Vidal 2011, Bode and Wagner 2015, Dubey et al. 2019a, Tan et al. 2020). Ivanov and
Dolgui (2019) emphasize that complex networks become more vulnerable to severe disruptions
which change the SC structures and are involved with SC structural dynamics. Finally, node/arc
criticalities in SCs have attracted attention of researchers. Basole and Bellamy (2014) focused
on the identification of “healthy nodes” in the SC based on the level of risk diffusion. Chen et
al. (2017) and Macdonald et al. (2018) show that SC robustness and resilience should not
merely be based on a straightforward disruption magnitude analysis, but rather seek trajectories
of how different disruption scenarios influence the severity in network degradation and recov-
ery (Pavlov et al. 2019a).
The term “viability” has been widely used in ecological modelling (Aubin 1991, Bene et al.
2001) as a system ability to maintain itself and recover in the presence of disturbances over a
long-term horizon. In Table 2, we summarize the major differences between the resilience and
viability.
Table 2 Differences Resilience vs. Viability
Criterion Resilience Viability
System Close Open
Structure Static Dynamic
Scope of analysis Disruption-driven (single, dis- Behavior-driven (continuous
crete, unique events) change)
 Subject of analysis Discrete, singular disruption-re- Continuous evolution through
action analysis within a closed disruption-reaction balancing in
system setting the open system context
Target of analysis Performance-oriented Survival-oriented
Period of analysis Fixed time-window No fixed time window
Object of analysis Linear supply chain system Intertwined supply networks /
supply chain ecosystems

To this end, resilience is considered a disruption-driven SC property (single, discrete, unique

events). It relates to singular disruption-reaction analyses within a closed system setting. These
analyses are performance-oriented for some fixed time-windows and mostly linear, single-flow
directed SC systems. Viability is a behavior-driven property (continuous system change) of a
system with structural dynamics. It considers system evolution (i.e., open system context)
through disruption-reaction balancing in the open system context. The viability analysis is sur-
vival-oriented without fixed time windows at a long-term scale.
2.2. Intertwined supply networks (ISN)
In this study, we consider ISNs, i.e. complex supply networks with dynamically changing struc-
tures, roles and behaviors of the firms involved. For example, Zhao et al. (2019) show that a
competitor of a focal firm can also serve as the focal firm’s upstream supplier echoed by Niu et
al. (2019) who consider a co-opetition SC setting on the example of Apple and Samsung with
a competitive supplier (i.e., frenemy) that plays the role of both supplier and competing focal
firm in two different but intersecting SCs simultaneously causing dependence asymmetry
(Dong et al. 2015).
In early 2000s, the ideas of dynamic SC formations have found first developments in the area
of virtual enterprises and collaborative networks (Ivanov et al. 2004, 2005, Camarinha-Matos
and Afsarmanesh 2005, Dekkers 2009, Ivanov et al. 2009, Sarkis et al. 2007, Dolgui and Proth
2010, Ivanov and Sokolov 2012, Chibani et al. 2018). Other relevant research streams can be
found in the theories of complex adaptive systems (Choi et al. 2001, Surana et al. 2005) and SC
structural dynamics (Ivanov et al. 2010).
Most recently, Fracassia et al. (2017) point to the multiple, intersecting SCs in the industrial
symbiosis which are characterized by using the waste of some SC processes as the inputs into
the other SCs (Pathak et al. 2014). Olson et al. (2018) elaborate on the intelligence-connected
manufacturing. Moreover, Industry 4.0 and cyber-physical manufacturing have significantly
transformed the SCs and increased their intertwining (Liao et al. 2017, Ivanov et al. 2019, Pan-
etto et al. 2019, Tang and Veelenturf 2019). Choi et al. (2020) show different forms of SC
interconnections in the sharing and circular economies. As such, we can conclude that many
SCs evolve into ISNs based on the principles of co-creation and co-evolution. Such mechanisms
are principally different from the classical SC understanding and therefore it becomes a timely
and crucial research task to develop a new thinking of resilience towards viability.
Moreover, analyses from the value point of view are often applied. A possible new way for the
research from viability perspectives deals with the value web approaches developed, for exam-
ple by Amazon. A value web is based on the use of highly synchronized information technolo-
gies to coordinate value chains of different firms of ISN (Kelly and Marchese 2015).
2.3. ISN analysis inspired from ecology modeling
ISNs in this context can be studied with approaches similar to ecological modelling. Ecological
modelling is a research area concerned with the analysis of ecosystems in dynamics (Gross et
al. 2004, 2009). Recent literature point to resemblance of the SCs to ecosystems (Byrne et al.
2018, Gross et al. 2018, Demirel et al. 2019, Nair and Reed‐Tsochas 2019). The applications
of ecological modelling to SC uncertainty have been mostly focused on the stability analysis
and multi-echelon SC synchronization in terms of balancing the demand and inventory levels
(Anne et al. 2009, Demirel et al. 2019, Mondal et al. 2019).
Ecological perspective of the resilience has been developed by Holling (2006) which is based
on the ability of system to react to stressors, to absorb and withstand shocks, with an emphasis
on persistence. We consider ecological perspective as the closest one to SC viability since it
focuses on the ecosystem services provided to society (Linkov and Kott 2019).
Major principles of ecology modeling are survival-orientation, absence of explicit time win-
dows in analysis, and ecosystem focus. These principles appear to be very close to the ISN
viability (cf. Sect. 2.1). We note that viability does not replace resilience but rather adds a new
quality to analysis of SC performance and behaviors under uncertainty.
3. Trophic chain-based model of the ISN viability
In this section, we illustrate the viability formation in networks by an original interpretation of
a three-level trophic chain model developed in the area of ecological modelling (Aubin 1991,
Bonneuil and Saint-Pierre 2005). We note that this model is presented in our study to illustrate
the concept of viability rather than to be used as an optimization tool for a particular decision-
making setting. Our interpretation comprehensively combines major determinants of the ISNs,
i.e., competition between suppliers, market demands, and behavioral dynamics.
3.1 Trophic chain
Trophic chains are a part of ecological modelling. Conceptually, trophic chains are used for
modeling and analysis of prey-predator systems. Technically, the trophic chain modelling is
rooted into the Lotka–Volterra first-order nonlinear differential equations, also known as the
predator–prey equations (Getz et al. 2003, Baudrot et al. 2018).
The system of differential equations describes the trophic chain dynamics subject to some func-
tional response (i.e., the consumption rate of the predator depending on the density rate of the
preys) and interactions between the prey and predator. The Jacobian matrix of the predator–
prey model can be used to analyse the stability of the ecological system and the impact of os-
cillations (Gross et al. 2004). Moreover, the bifurcation point analysis makes it possible to ob-
serve the disturbance propagation through the trophic chain, i.e., the cascading effect (Baudrot
et al. 2018) and to identify the timing when the ecosystem will turn into a chaotic state under
the given dynamics (Dilao and Domingos 2000, Gross et al. 2009, Castellanos and Chan-Lopez
2017).
It can be observed that the trophic chain exhibits some characteristics close to the SC. In liter-
ature, SCs are considered multi-stage systems which dynamics is guided through vendor-buyer
operations. Generally, a firm that plays the buyer role in an upstream echelon of the supply
chain becomes a supplier in the next downstream stage. We take up this observation of com-
monalities between the trophic chains and the SCs and bring the discussion to the next level by
using the trophic chain concept for viability analysis of the ISNs.
3.2. Model
We illustrate the viability formation in an ISN through dynamic game-theoretic modelling of
an ecosystem. Game-theoretical models have been considered suitable to address the SC dis-
ruption risks analysis (Gupta and Ivanov 2020). We follow the model of Bonneuil and Saint-
Pierre (2005) rooted in population viability analysis as a method of risk assessment frequently
used in conservation biology. We describe the viability of an ISN where firms exhibit inde-
pendent, time-varying survival strategies by a specific set, the viability kernel, gathering all
states from which there exists at least one trajectory safeguarding each firm over a given sur-
vivability threshold (e.g., minimal levels of some financial or operational indicators which al-
low maintaining the firm’s operations and avoiding bankruptcy) .
Consider an ISN structure (Fig. 2).

Fig 2. Intertwined supply network modelling

In an ISN ecosystem, three major roles can be distinguished, i.e., suppliers, focal firms, and
market demand, i.e., the consumers. Notably, the firms can play different roles simultaneously.
As such, if we talk about a supplier, we do not mean a concrete firm but rather a role in a
particular SC that can be taken by different firms situationally.
Denote inventories at suppliers, focal firms, and markets (customers) as vector functions x1(t),
x2(t), x3(t), respectively. Eqs. (1)-(3) represent the dynamics of firm interactions and can be
considered as a dynamical game (Bonneuil and Saint-Pierre 2005) where supplier, focal firm
and customer constitute the three players, and where 𝑢(𝑡) ∈ [𝑢𝑚𝑖𝑛 , 𝑢𝑚𝑎𝑥 ] = 𝑈, v(t) ∈
[𝑣𝑚𝑖𝑛 , 𝑣𝑚𝑎𝑥 ] = 𝑉, and 𝑤(𝑡) =∈ [𝑤𝑚𝑖𝑛 , 𝑤𝑚𝑎𝑥 ] = 𝑊 represent the respective behavioral strat-
egies of suppliers, focal firms, and customers.
𝑥1′ (t) = 𝑥1 (𝑡)(1 − 𝑢(𝑡)𝑥1 (𝑡) − 𝑣(𝑡)𝑥2 (𝑡)) ≔ 𝑓1 (𝑥(𝑡), 𝑢(𝑡), 𝑣(𝑡), 𝑤(𝑡)) (1)
𝑥2′ (t) = 𝑥2 (𝑡)(𝑣(𝑡)𝑥1 (𝑡) − 𝑤(𝑡)𝑥3 (𝑡)) ≔ 𝑓2 (𝑥(𝑡), 𝑢(𝑡), 𝑣(𝑡), 𝑤(𝑡)) (2)
𝑥3′ (t) = 𝑥3 (𝑡)(𝑤(𝑡)𝑥2 (𝑡) ≔ 𝑓1 (𝑥(𝑡), 𝑢(𝑡), 𝑣(𝑡), 𝑤(𝑡)) (3)
The dynamical game (1)-(3) consists in having the system change so that the firms in an ISN
can keep the possibility to survive jointly by selecting such strategies that allow each player to
continue playing the game, i.e., to survive. In the setting of coronavirus COVID-19 pandemic,
the strategies 𝑢(𝑡) ∈ [𝑢𝑚𝑖𝑛 , 𝑢𝑚𝑎𝑥 ] = 𝑈, v(t) ∈ [𝑣𝑚𝑖𝑛 , 𝑣𝑚𝑎𝑥 ] = 𝑉, and 𝑤(𝑡) =∈
[𝑤𝑚𝑖𝑛 , 𝑤𝑚𝑎𝑥 ] = 𝑊 would mean some operating policies (e.g., inventory control) at firms of
different SC echelons. u(t) describes the strategies at the suppliers. v(t) and w(t) describe the
buyer and customer strategies, respectively. Technically, the game consists in safeguarding a
least one solution of the system (1)-(3) that can be written into the differential inclusion (4)
x ′ (t) ∈ F(x(t)) (4)
under constraint (5)
𝑥(t) ∈ K (5)
remaining in a fixed closed set K, where
F(x(t)) ≔ {𝑓(𝑥, 𝑢, 𝑣, 𝑤)|𝑢(𝑡) ∈ 𝑈, 𝑣(𝑡) ∈ 𝑉, 𝑤(𝑡) ∈ 𝑊} (6)
is a point-to-set map, also called correspondence.
The set K describes the strategies for co-existence of the entities in the ISN. The set K is viable
if suppliers, focal firms and markets are maintain themselves above certain thresholds and are
able to co-exist under these conditions. In other words, there exists at least one solution x(•) =
(x1(•), x2(•), x3(•)) of the dynamical game (1)-(3) starting from x0 and satisfying the threshold
conditions. The viability kernel of the set 𝐾 ̃ is the largest closed viable set in K under the
dynamic F (Eq. 6) that represents the integrity of survival strategies for the firms in the ISN.
According to Aubin (1991) and Bonneuil and Saint-Pierre (2005), the strategies permitting the
property (7):
̃ there exists 𝑢(𝑡) ∈ 𝑈, 𝑣(𝑡) ∈ 𝑉, 𝑤(𝑡) ∈ 𝑊
for all 𝑥(t) ∈ 𝐾
such that
{𝑓1 (𝑥, 𝑢, 𝑣, 𝑤), 𝑓2 (𝑥, 𝑢, 𝑣, 𝑤), 𝑓3 (𝑥, 𝑢, 𝑣, 𝑤) ∈ 𝑇𝐾̃ (𝑥)} (7)
can be called viable strategies of the ISN, where 𝑇𝐾̃ (𝑥) is the contingent cone at state x. All the
solutions outside the viability kernel lead to loss of either internal competition between suppli-
ers, or behavioral dynamics, or market demand fulfilment. Moreover, the viability approach
make it possible to highlight the timing when the strategy change is needed for an ISN to per-
petuate itself.
4. Discussion and implications for future research
Stability, robustness, and resilience analysis have covered a large area of SC disruption risk
analysis. Though, none of them deals with ISNs mostly assuming directed network graphs and
fixed time-window for analysis. While the resilience analysis of individual SCs is useful for
many cases, the firms are participating in different SCs in different roles. This makes it an
important research task to model the ISNs and not the individual SCs to correctly understand
the impacts of disruptions and the ripple effects on the viability in the presence of extraordinary
events. As such, a new terminology is obviously required.
We suggested using the term “viability” differently than the resilience in regard to the ISNs, in
analogy to ecological modelling (Aubin 1991, Bene et al. 2001) that considers viability as a
system ability to maintain itself and recover in the presence of disturbances over a long-term
horizon.
In future, different topics of the ISNs in connection with viability can frame an interesting re-
search avenue. Potential topics include but are not limited to:
 Framing the ISN viability and SC survivability concepts
 Network structures of ISNs and their viability
 Roles and dynamics of ISNs at the times of epidemic outbreaks
 Contributions of ISNs to recover the SCs after an epidemic outbreak
 How long can an ISN sustain a disruption so what is the critical disruption time?
 What are the most critical scenarios of epidemic propagation for the global SCs and their
ISNs?
 Impact of digitalization, Big Data analytics, and additive manufacturing on the ISN viabil-
ity
 Viability in the context of Value Web approaches
 Ripple effect in the ISNs
 Game-theoretic modelling of the ISN viability
 Complex adaptive systems with applications to ISNs
 Collaboration of humanitarian and business logistics for survivability
 Ecological modelling approaches to ISN viability
 Dynamic analysis of the ISN viability (simulation, control theory)
We use the example of coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak to describe some future research
angles. The global pandemic and collapses of many SCs and the markets depict the importance
of the SC viability research. While the firms have increasingly dealt with the resilience of their
global SCs triggered by some severe natural and man-made disasters and established a set of
useful methods such as risk mitigation inventories, subcontracting capacities, backup supply
and transportation infrastructures, and data-driven, real-time monitoring and visibility systems,
it is unclear how these methods can be applied to SC survivability analysis.
One can expect that some of the SC resilience actions established to cope with natural disrup-
tions can be useful for the viability analysis, too. Though, one can also expect that the specific
features of viability would require an examination of new concepts or a modification of the
existing ones. For example, the cases of epidemic disruptions, proactive measures such as in-
ventory can help only at the beginning of the crisis due to very long disruption times. Backup
suppliers and subcontracting facilities can also be supposed to be less efficient because of quar-
antining the whole regions and even continents. As such, our sentiment is that the focus of SC
viability management would rather be shifted towards the situational reactions to real-time
changes rather than building some proactive redundancies. At the same time, the importance of
proactive management does not disappear. Here the focus would be shifted towards creating a
flexible redundancy which would make the SC networks less sensitive to external uncertainties.
One research are in this direction is the LCN (low-certainty-need) SC framework (Ivanov and
Dolgui 2019). In addition, the viability goes beyond a narrow understanding of SC performance
as some profits or revenues and brings the discussion to the next level, i.e., SC performance in
terms of securing the life on the earth. As such, the issues of collaborative, collective survival
in the presence of extra-ordinary conditions are very important, and new research areas.
Some other open questions to address are, e.g.: How to analyse disruption impacts in ISNs?
How to analyse disruption propagation, i.e., the ripple effect in ISNs? We note that even if
viability is important, the questions of resilience, robustness and stability in ISNs are of equal
importance as in the SC settings.
The concept and techniques for analysis and modeling of complex ecological networks as pos-
tulated by viability and trophic chains can find several applications to production and SC man-
agement and can stimulate some new ideas and research in SCs. The ecological modeling in
general and trophic chains in particular have a potential to be applied to different areas of SC
decision-making, such as:
  Risk propagation analysis in the SCs (e.g., bullwhip effect (propagation upstream) and
ripple effect (propagation downstream))
 Quality management control (i.e., how a quality error propagates downstream the SC)
 Circular economy (i.e., cycles control)
 Competition modeling (survival competition, agent modeling, learning agents, learn-
ing through evolution).
At the same time, some potential limitations need to be addressed. A direct usage of mathemat-
ics for trophic chain analysis (i.e., non-linear dynamic differential system, bifurcation points)
requires a specific technical competence which is not a standard equipment of SC and opera-
tions management researchers. Besides, the analysis of the ecological system frequently results
in bifurcation points derivation of which can be difficult for large-scale system. Methodically,
the bifurcation point analysis does not bring new insights into the recovery optimization. This
analysis ends with the insight if we loss resilience or not, and we can also understand the con-
ditions surrounding the resilience dynamics. Such an analysis of alternative paths the system
takes to save resilience can be useful for deciphering the contingency plans. However, we do
not go beyond the bifurcation point - this analysis is not much helpful for recovery and is there-
fore restricted to the pre-disruption stage and subject to very generalized flows. Such stylized
models can certainly be of methodical interest; real system modelling will require simulations
of complex adaptive systems and SC structural dynamics.
5. Conclusion
SCs evolve towards ISNs that are characterized by structural dynamics. Differently than line-
arly directed SCs with static structures, the firms in ISNs may exhibit multiple behaviors in
buyer-supplier relations (i.e., behavioral dynamics) in interconnected or even competing SCs
simultaneously. These new dynamic, co-evolving structures require re-thinking of some tradi-
tional analysis concepts.
An intertwined supply network (ISN) is an entirety of interconnected supply chains (SC) which,
in their integrity secure the provision of society and markets with goods and services. Unlike
the resilience of individual SCs, the viability of ISNs has not received much attention in litera-
ture so far. The recent example of coronavirus COVID-19 outbreak shows that in the case of
extraordinary events, SC resistance to disruptions needs to be considered at the scale of surviv-
ability or viability to avoid SC and market collapses and secure the provision with goods and
services. In this paper, we elaborated on the integrity of these two novel angles, i.e., ISNs and
viability. The contribution of this study lies in conceptualization of a novel decision-making
environment that considers ISNs and viability as an integrity to ensure the survivability at a
large scale. We showed how the viability is different than the resilience, and why a necessary
quality to be added to the SC resilience analysis in the context of ISNs ecosystems. Building
upon the analogy of ISNs to ecological systems, we illustrated the viability formation through
dynamic game-theoretic modelling of an ecosystem.
Some limitations exist in our approach, as with any study. We took a much generalized, “bird-
eye” perspective on the viability and its modelling. For concrete applications, the concept of
viability and the trophic chain modelling should be detailed and extended given the context of
decision-making situations. In addition, the ISNs themselves need to be thoroughly investigated
in terms of methodology and practice of their formations and control. Finally, the role of ISNs
survivability in the securing the provision with goods and services in the case of extra-ordinary
events, such as epidemic outbreaks and global pandemics (e.g., coronavirus COVID-19). These
areas can be considered promising future research avenues.
Another interesting research topic is examination of disruption outbreaks in the downstream
SC parts and the resulting combined effects of the forward and backward propagations of the
ripple effect. One promising research area in research on ISNs and their viability is the utiliza-
tion of digital, data-driven technologies to uncover their potentials to support the decision-
making in cases of long-term, sever disruptions such as epidemic outbreaks. In particular, dig-
ital SC twins (Ivanov and Dolgui 2020) – i.e., the computerized SC models that represent the
network state for any given moment in real time – can be further investigated in this direction.

References
Agi (2020). L'economia di guerra ci costa 100 miliardi al mese, dice Boccia. https://www.agi.it/eco-
nomia/news/2020-03-23/coronavirus-boccia-costo-economia-di-guerra-7773008/, accessed on
March 25, 2020.
Altay, N., & Green, W. G. (2006). OR/MS research in disaster operations management. European
Journal of Operational Research, 175(1), 475–493.
Anne, KR., J. C. Chedjou & K. Kyamakya (2009). Bifurcation analysis and synchronisation issues in
a three-echelon supply chain. International Journal of Logistics Research and Applications 12(5),
347-362.
Araz, O.M., Choi, T.-M., Olson, D., Salman, F.S. (2020). Data Analytics for Operational Risk Man-
agement. Decision Sciences, forthcoming.
Aubin J.P. (1991). Viability Theory, Birkhäuser, Boston, 1991.
Basole, R.C. and Bellamy, M.A. (2014). Supply Network Structure, Visibility, and Risk Diffusion: A
Computational Approach, Decision Sciences, 45(4), 1–49.
Baudrot V., C. Fritsch, A. Perasso, M. Banerjee, F. Raoul (2018). Effects of contaminants and trophic
cascade regulation on food chain stability: Application to cadmium soil pollution on small mam-
mals – Raptor systems. Ecological Modelling 382, 33–42.
Beer, S. (1981). Brain of the firm. Chichester: Wiley.
Bene, C., L. Doyen, and D. Gabay (2001). A viability analysis for a bio-economic model. Ecological
Economics, 36:385–396.
Bier, T., Lange, A., & Glock, C. (2019). Methods for mitigating disruptions in complex supply chain
structures: A systematic literature review. International Journal of Production Research. https
://doi.org/10.1080/00207 543.2019.16879 54.
Blackhurst, J., Craighead, C.W., Elkins D., and Handfield, R. (2005). An empirically derived agenda
of critical research issues for managing supply-chain disruptions. International Journal of Produc-
tion Research, 43(19), 4067-4081.
Bode, C., S.M. Wagner, Structural drivers of upstream supply chain complexity and the frequency of
supply chain disruptions, Journal of Operations Management 36, 215-228, 2015.
Bonneuil N., P. Saint-Pierre (2005). Population viability in three trophic-level food chains. Applied
Mathematics and Computation 169, 1086–1105.
Brintrup, A., Y. Wang, and A. Tiwari (2015). Supply networks as complex systems: A network sci-
ence-based characterization. IEEE Systems Journal, (99):1–12.
Byrne, G. D Dimitrov, L Monostori, R Teti, F van Houten, R Wertheim (2018). Biologicalisation:
Biological transformation in manufacturing. CIRP Journal of Manufacturing Science and Tech-
nology 21, 1-32.
Camarinha-Matos, L.M. and Afsarmanesh, H. (2005) Collaborative networks: a new scientific disci-
pline, Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, 16, 439–452.
Castellanos V., Chan-López RE (2017). Existence of limit cycles in a three level trophic chain with
Lotka–Volterra and Holling type II functional responses. Chaos, Solitons and Fractals 95, 157–
167.
Chen, X., Z Xi, P Jing (2017) A Unified Framework for Evaluating Supply Chain Reliability and
Resilience. IEEE Transactions on Reliability, 66(4), 1144 – 1156.
Chibani A., Delorme X., Dolgui A., Pierreval H. (2018). Dynamic optimisation for highly agile sup-
ply chains in e-procurement context, International Journal of Production Research, 56 (17): 5904–
5929.
Choi T.-M., Taleizadeh A.A., Yue X. (2020). Game theory applications in production research in the
sharing and circular economy era. International Journal of Production Research, 58(1), 118-127.
Choi TY, Dooley KJ, Rungtusanatham M (2001) Supply networks and complex adaptive systems:
control versus emergence. J Oper Manag 19(3):351–366
Craighead, C.W., Blackhurst, J., Rungtusanatham, M.J. and Handfield, R.B. (2007), “The severity of
supply chain disruptions: design characteristics and mitigation capabilities”. Decision Sciences,
38(1), 131-156.
Dekkers, R. (2009). Distributed Manufacturing as Co-Evolutionary System. International Journal of
Production Research, 47(8), 2031-2054.
Demirel, G., MacCarthy, B.L., Ritterskamp, D., Champneys A. & Gross, T. (2019). Identifying dy-
namical instabilities in supply networks using generalized modeling. Journal of Operations Man-
agement, 65(2), 136-159.
Dilao R., T. Domingos (2000). A general approach to the modelling of trophic chains. Ecological
Modelling 132, 191–202.
Dolgui A., Ivanov D., Sokolov B. (2018). Ripple effect in the supply chain: An analysis and recent
literature. International Journal of Production Research, 56(1-2), 414-430.
Dolgui A., Ivanov D., Rozhkov M. (2020). Does the ripple effect influence the bullwhip effect? An
integrated analysis of structural and operational dynamics in the supply chain. International Jour-
nal of Production Research, 58(5), 1285-1301.
Dolgui A., Proth J.-M. (2010). Supply chain engineering: Useful methods and techniques, Springer.
Dong, M. C., Z. Liu, Y. Yu, and J.-H. Zheng (2015). Opportunism in distribution networks: The role
of network embeddedness and dependence. Production and Operations Management 24 (10):
1657–1670.
DuHadway, S., Carnovale, S., & Hazen, B. (2019). Understanding risk management for intentional
supply chain disruptions: Risk detection, risk mitigation, and risk recovery. Annals of Operations
Research, 283(1–2), 179–198.
Dubey, R., & Altay, N. (2018). Drivers of coordination in humanitarian relief supply chains. In G.
Kovács, K. Spens, & M. Moshtari (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of humanitarian logistics and
supply chain management (pp. 297–325). London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Dubey R., Gunasekaran A., Childe, S. J. Wamba S.F., Roubaud D., Foropon C. (2019a). Empirical
Investigation of Data Analytics Capability and Organizational Flexibility as Complements to Sup-
ply Chain Resilience. International Journal of Production Research,
https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2019.1582820
Dubey, R., A. Gunasekaran, T. Papadopoulos (2019b). Disaster relief operations: past, present and
future. Annals of Operations Research 283 (1-2), 1-8
Fortune (2020). https://fortune.com/2020/02/21/fortune-1000-coronavirus-china-supply-chain-im-
pact/, accessed on March 10, 2020
Fracassia L., Giannoccaro I., Albino V. (2017). Rethinking Resilience in Industrial Symbiosis: Con-
ceptualization and Measurements. Ecological Economics, 137, 148-162.
Getz W.M., H. V. Westerhoff, J.H. S. Hofmeyr, J. L. Snoep (2003). Control analysis of trophic chains.
Ecological Modelling 168, 153–171.
Giannoccaro I., Nair A., Choi T. (2017). The Impact of Control and Complexity on Supply Network
Performance: An Empirically Informed Investigation Using NK Simulation Analysis. Decision
Science, 49 (4), 625-659
Gross T., MacCarthy B., Wildgoose N. (2018). Introduction to dynamics of manufacturing supply
networks. Chaos 28(9):093111
Gross, T., L Rudolf, SA Levin, U Dieckmann (2009). Generalized models reveal stabilizing factors
in food webs. Science 325 (5941), 747-750
Gross, T., W Ebenhöh, U Feudel (2004). Enrichment and foodchain stability: the impact of different
forms of predator–prey interaction. Journal of Theoretical Biology 227 (3), 349-358
Gupta V., Ivanov, D. (2020) Dual sourcing under supply disruption with risk-averse suppliers in the
sharing economy. International Journal of Production Research, 58(1), 291-307.
Harbour L. (2020). The coronavirus’ impact on the global automotive supply chains.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/laurieharbour1/2020/03/13/the-coronavirus-impact-on-the-global-au-
tomotive-supply-chain/#185153c8444e, [accessed on March 24, 2020]
Haren, P., D. Simchi-Levi (2020). How Coronavirus Could Impact the Global Supply Chain by Mid-
March. Harward Business Review, February 28, 2020, https://hbr.org/2020/02/how-coronavirus-
could-impact-the-global-supply-chain-by-mid-march?ab=hero-subleft-1, accessed on March 10,
2020
Ho, W., T. Zheng, H. Yildiz & S. Talluri (2015) Supply chain risk management: a literature review.
International Journal of Production Research, 53(16), 5031-5069.
Holling, C.S. (1996). Engineering resilience versus ecological resilience. In: P.C. Schulze (Ed.) Engi-
neering within ecological constraints. Washington D.C.: National Academy Press.
Hosseini S., Ivanov D., Dolgui A. (2019a). Review of quantitative methods for supply chain resilience
analysis. Transportation Research: Part E, 125, 285-307.
Ivanov D. (2020) Predicting the impact of epidemic outbreaks on the global supply chains: A simula-
tion-based analysis on the example of coronavirus (COVID-19 / SARS-CoV-2) case. Transportation
Research – Part E, 136, 101922, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2020.101922
Ivanov D. (2019). Disruption tails and revival policies: A simulation analysis of supply chain design
and production-ordering systems in the recovery and post-disruption periods. Computers and Indus-
trial Engineering, 127, 558-570.
Ivanov D., Dolgui, A. (2019) Low-Certainty-Need (LCN) Supply Chains: A new perspective in manag-
ing disruption risks and resilience. International Journal of Production Research, 57(15-16), 5119-
5136.
Ivanov D., Dolgui A. (2020). A digital supply chain twin for managing the disruptions risks and resili-
ence in the era of Industry 4.0. Production Planning and Control, forthcoming
Ivanov, D., Dolgui, A., Sokolov, B. (2019). The impact of digital technology and Industry 4.0 on the
ripple effect and supply chain risk analytics. International Journal of Production Research, 57(3),
829-846.
Ivanov D., Kaeschel J., Sokolov B. (2009) Structure dynamics control-based framework for adaptive
reconfiguration of collaborative enterprise networks. International Journal of Manufacturing Tech-
nology and Management, Vol. 17. No.1-2, pp.23-41.
Ivanov D., Käschel, J., Arkhipov A., Sokolov B., Zschorn L. (2005): Quantitative Models of Collabo-
rative Networks, In: Collaborative Networks and Their Breeding Environments, Proceedings of the
IFIP Conference on virtual enterprises PRO-VE 2005, edited by L. Camarihna-Matos, Afsarmanesh,
A. Ortiz, Springer, 2005, pp. 387-394.
Ivanov D., Sokolov B., Dolgui A. (2014a). The Ripple effect in supply chains: trade-off ‘efficiency-
flexibility-resilience’ in disruption management, International Journal of Production Research, 52(7),
2154-2172.
Ivanov D., Sokolov, B., & Pavlov, A. (2014b). Optimal distribution (re)planning in a centralized multi-
stage network under conditions of ripple effect and structure dynamics. European Journal of Opera-
tional Research, 237(2), 758–770.
Ivanov, D. (2018). Structural Dynamics and Resilience in Supply Chain Risk Management. Springer,
New York.
Ivanov, D., Arkhipov, A., Sokolov, B. (2004): Intelligent Supply Chain Planning in Virtual Enterprises.
In: Virtual Enterprises and Collaborative Networks, Proceedings of the IFIP Conference on virtual
enterprises PRO-VE 2004, edited by L. Camarihna-Matos, Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2004, pp.
215-223.
Ivanov, D., B. Sokolov (2013). Control and system-theoretic identification of the supply chain dynamics
domain for planning, analysis, and adaptation of performance under uncertainty, European Journal
of Operational Research, 224(2), 313–323.
Ivanov, D., B. Sokolov, J. Kaeschel (2010) A multi-structural framework for adaptive supply chain
planning and operations with structure dynamics considerations, European Journal of Operational
Research, 200, 409–420.
Ivanov, D., Dolgui A., Sokolov B., Ivanova M. (2017). Literature review on disruption recovery in the
supply chain. International Journal of Production Research, 55(20), 6158-6174.
Ivanov, D., Sokolov B. (2012) The Inter-Disciplinary Modelling of Supply Chains in the Context of
Collaborative Multi-Structural Cyber-Physical Networks, Journal of Manufacturing Technology
Management, Vol. 23(8), 976-997.
Kelly K., Marchese K. (2015). Supply chains and ISNs. Business ecosystems come of age. Deloitte
University Press, pp. 55-65.
Keogh, J. G. (2020). COVID-19. To ensure the supply of food and consumer goods, we must ‘Change
the Rules of the Game’. www.foodincanada.com [accessed on March 20, 2020]
Kim, Y., Chen, Y., Linderman, K. (2015). Supply network distribution and resilience: a network struc-
tural perspective. Journal of Operations Management, 33: 43-59.
Liao, Y., Deschamps, Y., de Freitas, E., Loures R., & LFP Ramos (2017). Past, present and future of
Industry 4.0 - a systematic literature review and research agenda proposal. International Journal of
Production Research, 55(12), 3609-3629.
Li, Y., Zobel, C. W., Seref, O., and Chatfield, D. C. (2019). Network Characteristics and Supply Chain
Resilience under Conditions of Risk Propagation. International Journal of Production Economics,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2019.107529
Linkov I., Kott, A. (2019). Fundamental concepts of cyber resilience: Introduction and overview. In:
Kott A., Linkov I. (Eds.) Cyber resilience of systems and networks, Springer, Cham, pp. 1-25.
Linton, T., Vakil B. (2020). Coronavirus Is Proving We Need More Resilient Supply Chains. Harward
Business Review, March 5, 2020, https://hbr.org/2020/03/coronavirus-is-proving-that-we-need-
more-resilient-supply-chains, accessed on March 10, 2020
Macdonald, J. R., Zobel, C. W., Melnyk, S. A., & Griffis, S. E. (2018). Supply chain risk and resilience:
theory building through structured experiments and simulation. International Journal of Production
Research, 56(12), 4337-4355.
Mondal S. (2019). A new supply chain model and its synchronization behavior. Chaos, Solitons and
Fractals, 123, 140-148.
Nair A., Reed‐Tsochas F. (2019). Revisiting the complex adaptive systems paradigm: Leading perspec-
tives for researching operations and supply chain management issues. J Oper Man, 65(2), 80-92.
Nair, A., J.M. Vidal (2011). Supply network topology and robustness against disruptions – An investi-
gation using a multi-agent model, International Journal of Production Research, 49(5), 1391–1404.
Niu B., Li. J., Zhang J., Cheng HK., Tan Y. (2019). Strategic analysis of dual sourcing and dual channel
with an unreliable alternative supplier. Production and Operations Management, 28(3), 570-587.
Ojha, R., Ghadge, A., Tiwari, M.K., Bititci, U.S. (2018). Bayesian network modelling for supply chain
risk propagation. International Journal of Production Research, 56(17), 5795-5819.
Olson, D.L., D. Wu, Y. Shanlin, J. H Lambert (2018). Complex product manufacturing in the intelli-
gence-connected era. International Journal of Production Research, 57(21), 6702-6704.
Panetto H., Iung B., Ivanov D., Weichhart G., Wang X. (2019). Challenges for the cyber-physical man-
ufacturing enterprises of the future. Annual Reviews in Control, 47, 200-213.
Pathak S.D., Wu H., and Johnston D.A., “Toward a Structural View of Co-opetition in Supply Net-
works.” Journal of Operations Management, 2014, 32, 5, pp. 254-26
 Pavlov A., Ivanov D., Dolgui A., Sokolov B. (2018) Hybrid fuzzy-probabilistic approach to supply chain
resilience assessment. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 65(2), 303-315.
Pavlov A., Ivanov D., Werner F., Dolgui A., Sokolov B. (2019a). Integrated detection of disruption
scenarios, the ripple effect dispersal and recovery paths in supply chains. Annals of Operations Re-
search, DOI:10.1007/s10479-019-03454-1
Pavlov A., Ivanov D., Werner F., Dolgui A., Sokolov B. (2019b). Optimization of network redundancy
and contingency planning in sustainable and resilient supply chain resource management under con-
ditions of structural dynamics, Annals of Operations Research, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-019-
03182-6
Sarkis J., Talluri S., Gunasekaran A. (2007). A strategic model for agile virtual enterprise partner selec-
tion. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 27(11); 1213-1234.
Sawik T. (2017) A portfolio approach to supply chain disruption management. International Journal of
Production Research, 55(7), 1970-1991.
Scheibe K.P., Blackhurst, J. (2018). Supply chain disruption propagation: a systemic risk and normal
accident theory perspective. International Journal of Production Research, 56(1-2), 43-59.
Simchi-Levi D., H. Wang and Y. Wei (2018). Increasing Supply Chain Robustness through Process
Flexibility and Inventory. Production and Operations Management, 27(8), 1476-1491.
Spiegler V., Naim M. and Wikner J. (2012). A control engineering approach to the assessment of supply
chain resilience. International Journal of Production Research, 50, 6162-6187.
Surana, A., Kumara, S., Greaves, M., Raghavan, U.N. (2005) Supply-chain networks: a complex adap-
tive systems perspective. International Journal of Production Research, 43(20), 4235-4265.
Tan WJ, Cai W. & A.N. Zhang (2020). Structural-aware simulation analysis of supply chain resilience.
International Journal of Production Research, DOI: 10.1080/00207543.2019.1705421.
Tang C.S., Veelenturf L.P. (2019). The strategic role of logistics in the industry 4.0 era. Trans-porta-
tion Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 129, 1-11.
Wang, J., Muddada, R.R., Wang, H., Ding, J., Lin, Y., Liu, C. and Wenjun Zhang, (2014). Toward a
Resilient Holistic Supply Chain NetworkSystem: Concept, Review and Future Direction. IEEE
Systems Journal, 10(2), 410-421.
Wang J., Dou R., Dou, Muddada, R.R., W. Zhang (2018). Management of a holistic supply chain net-
work for proactive resilience: Theory and case study. Computers and Industrial Engineering, 125,
668-677.
Yoon, J., S. Talluri, H. Yildiz, W Ho (2018). Models for Supplier Selection and Risk Mitigation: A
Holistic Approach. International Journal of Production Research, 56(10), 3636-3661.
Zhao K., Zuo Z., Blackhurst J.V. (2019). Modelling supply chain adaptation for disruptions: An empir-
ically grounded complex adaptive systems approach. Journal of Operations Management, 65(2), 190-
212.

View publication stats