The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

[Link]

Supply chain resilience: a Supply chain

resilience
benchmarking model for
vulnerability and capability
assessment in the 1929
automotive industry Received 30 January 2020
Revised 8 May 2020
Accepted 15 May 2020
Mohamad Amin Kaviani
Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, KIOS Research and Innovation
Center of Excellence, University of Cyprus, Nicosia, Cyprus
Madjid Tavana
Business Systems and Analytics Department, La Salle University, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania, USA and
Department of Business Information Systems, University of Paderborn,
Paderborn, Germany
Fatemeh Kowsari
Young Researchers and Elite Club, Islamic Azad University, Abadeh Branch,
Abadeh, Iran, and
Roghayeh Rezapour
Department of Industrial Engineering, Kharazmi University, Tehran, Iran

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this study is to evaluate two supply chain resilience key elements of vulnerability
and capability in the automotive industry.
Design/methodology/approach – We propose a fuzzy approach for statistical hypothesis testing and
analyze two research hypotheses by synthesizing the results of a questionnaire given to 44 companies in the
Iranian automotive industry.
Findings – The results indicate that the automotive industry in Iran should: (1) resist five elements of
vulnerability, i.e. “external pressures,” “sensitivity,” “connectivity,” “supplier/customer disruptions,” and
“resource limits,” and (2) embrace nine elements of capability, i.e. “flexibility in order fulfillment,” “capacity,”
“efficiency,” “visibility,” “adaptability,” “recovery,” “dispersion,” “organization,” “market position” and
“security” to achieve greater resiliency elasticity in the supply chain.
Originality/value – This is the first study on the supply chain resilience vulnerabilities and capabilities in the
Iranian automotive industry.
Keywords Supply chain resilience, Benchmarking, Vulnerability, Capability, Fuzzy logic, Automotive
industry
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
1.1 Background
Supply chain management involves all activities associated with the flow of goods, money,
information and the effective management of these resources across different organizations
Benchmarking: An International
Journal
Vol. 27 No. 6, 2020
The authors would like to thank the anonymous reviewers and the editor for their insightful comments pp. 1929-1949
and suggestions. Dr. Madjid Tavana is grateful for the partial support he received from the Czech © Emerald Publishing Limited

Science Foundation (GACR
19-13946S) for this research. 1463-5771

DOI 10.1108/BIJ-01-2020-0049
BIJ (Tavana et al., 2016; Azevedo et al., 2013; Siddiqui et al., 2012). Although the goal of supply
27,6 chain management is to achieve the effectiveness of the product flow and increasing supply
chain profitability, however, every activity in a supply chain has inherent risk due to the
existence of uncertain and vague information and is potentially subject to disturbances,
which can affect the performance of the whole system (Pournader et al., 2016).
Quick recovery after a disruption is crucial for the success of any organization. Sheffi and
Rice (2005) propound that organizations can decrease the required recovery time by
1930 employing the concept of resiliency in the supply chain. Conversely, if an organization fails to
quickly and effectively recover after a disruption, the induced risk negatively influences its
supply chain resilience (SCRE). As Pettit et al. (2013, 2019) state, higher resiliency improves
supply chain performance and aids an organization to attain a competitive advantage in the
market. Hohenstein et al. (2015) elucidate the reason why organizations struggle recovering
from disruptions is that they do not have a clear understanding of SCRE, its benefits and even
the implementing process. Therefore, enterprises must become aware of what SCRE is and
how it maintains supply chain performance in the event of a disruption.
As an organizational term, resiliency describes the capability of an enterprise to preserve
effective performance under challenging and emergent circumstances (Bunderson and
Sutcliffe, 2002). From a supply chain management perspective, SCRE is the adapting ability
of the system to simultaneously face unpredictable events, address disorders and solve them,
ensuring operational continuity. In such scenarios, there is a right level of communicability
while having control over the organizational functions and operations (Kaviani et al., 2016;
Ribeiro and Barbosa-Povoa, 2018). Resilient processes are fast, flexible and capable of
changing immediately. Therefore, a resilient supply chain can reconcile its structure in case of
disruptions, to recover consequently, or to achieve a better state of supply chain operations
(Kamalahmadi and Parast, 2016).
Several authors (i.e. Brandon-Jones et al., 2014; Colicchia et al., 2010; Ribeiro and
Barbosa-Povoa, 2018) have described the key elements of SCRE as “vulnerability” and
“capability.” The vulnerability elements are potential causes of disruptions within or
among supply chain members, e.g. delays in information processing, or procurement, while
capability factors describe the ability of each supply chain entity to handle the unforeseen
situations caused by disruption, e.g. information sharing, multiple sourcing for key inputs
or collaboration. Pettit et al. (2019) mentioned that capability factors reflect the significant
role of the improvement strategies in integrating, reconfiguring and adapting to respond to
the changes that could disturb supply chain activities. The relationship between
vulnerability and capability elements has been analyzed by some researchers like Peck
(2005), Donadoni et al. (2019) and Pettit et al. (2013). These latter authors, in particular,
integrated vulnerability and capability factors into a single framework. Furthermore, Pettit
et al. (2010) developed a model to assess the resilience of the enterprise supply chain. Their
study categorizes vulnerabilities into seven types, including Turbulence, Deliberate
Threats, External Pressures, Resource Limits, Sensitivity, Connectivity and Supplier/
Customer Disruptions. To counteract these vulnerabilities, the authors identified fourteen
supply chain capabilities, such as flexibility in sourcing, flexibility in order fulfillment,
capacity, efficiency, visibility, adaptability, anticipation, recovery, dispersion,
collaboration, organization, market position, security and financial strength. They
concluded, “the balance between vulnerabilities and capabilities must be measured to
assess the current level of resilience” (Pettit et al., 2013, p. 46).

1.2 The contribution of this study

Supply chain disruptive events can have both internal and external causes and harm the
performance of the whole system. In this study, we considered 21 variables proposed by Pettit
et al. (2010, 2013) and tried to contribute to the available knowledge in supply SCRE as Supply chain
follows: resilience
(1) The SCRE vulnerabilities and capabilities are empirically evaluated in the automobile
parts manufacturing industry of Tehran, Iran.
(2) The possibility of implementing the aforementioned SCRE capabilities is explored,
and the evaluation of their effectiveness is discussed as well.
1931
(3) A hybrid fuzzy hypothesis testing approach is utilized to empirically evaluate SCRE
vulnerabilities and capabilities.
(4) Because of its empirical nature, this study is expected to represent a stepping-stone in
the existing field of knowledge and research in SCRE.
The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. Section 2 presents a comprehensive
literature review, encompassing differing definitions and understandings of resilience and
evaluating SCRE. Section 3 details the hypotheses in this study. Section 4 describes the
analysis in terms of the research procedure, fuzzy hypothesis testing approach and outcomes
of this research. The final section concludes and outlines the results of this study, research
contributions and suggestions for future research activities.

2. Literature review
This section provides an in-depth literature review in the field of SCRE and its evaluation. In
the end, the relevant studies on the SCRE assessment problem will be summarized, and the
research gap will be highlighted.
2.1 Resilience in the SC
Resilience concept is defined as the ability of a system to react, adapt and grow when facing
turbulent changes (Pettit et al., 2019). It is a crucial characteristic of complex systems, such as
organizations, cities and ecosystems, and is currently considered as a must in the objectives
of any organizational manager. To understand the concept of SCRE more clearly, first, we
need to consider the various trends in the relevant literature. A review of the previous
literature shows several definitions for SCRE in diverse disciplines (e.g. Gunasekaran et al.,
2015; Ribeiro and Barbosa-Povoa 2018; Pettit et al., 2010, 2013, 2019). As some researchers like
Spiegler et al. (2012) and Tukamuhabwa et al. (2015) express, there is no consensus on the
definition of the resilience concept in supply chain management literature. Nonetheless, most
scholars agree that the concept of resilience is context and situation-dependent (i.e. social and
ecological vulnerability, disaster recovery policies and psychology, and risk management).
A company is as resilient as its supply chain is (Tukamuhabwa et al. (2015). Disruptions in
the supply chain may originate from various sources, including external sources (e.g. natural
disasters) and internal issues (e.g. failure to integrate supply chain operations). In most cases,
these accidents occur rapidly and without warning. In many companies, logistics activities,
such as the raw materials supply, assembly of components, production and product defects,
are the results of external supplier activities. When the risk in the supply chain increases, a
company needs to develop logistics, processes and capabilities that enable efficient and
effective responses, and the ability to continue normal business activities also increases
(Ponomorov and Holcomb, 2009). As it is highlighted by Ribeiro and Barbosa-Povoa (2018),
resiliency in SCs has an important role in supply chain operations’ effectiveness.

2.2 Evaluating SCRE

Considering the increasing attention to SCRE assessment, we found several studies that try
to evaluate the resilience of a supply chain. For instance, from a company’s perspective, Sheffi
BIJ and Rice (2005) discussed the relevance of being able to recover from a disruption quickly.
27,6 They noted that such ability could be improved by increasing redundancy and enhancing
flexibility in the supply chain. They argued that investing in the resiliency of the firm’s
supply chain would yield numerous additional benefits for day-to-day operations.
Ponomarov and Holcomb (2009) proposed an integrated perspective on resilience, which
was built starting from the existing literature relating to different disciplines (including
developmental psychology and ecosystems). From the extant literature, the authors
1932 developed six research propositions, which link resilience to risk and supply chain
management. Colicchia et al. (2010) analyzed the inbound supply risk in a global sourcing
context. They provided numerous approaches that can be adapted to manage risk in such a
way that directly enhances and improves SCRE. They also developed a simulation-based
framework used to assess the effectiveness of the proposed strategies in a real scenario.
J€
uttner and Maklan (2011) investigated the relationship between SCRE, vulnerability and risk
management. Through three case studies, they found that supply chain risk knowledge has a
positive impact on SCRE, as it enhances flexibility, visibility and collaboration in the supply
chain. Furthermore, such positive effects were observed both in upstream supplier networks
and in distribution channels.
Carvalho et al. (2012) carried out a simulation study on a real supply chain in the
Portuguese automotive industry. Their analysis aimed at evaluating whether SCRE can be
improved using mitigation strategies and if such an improvement could affect the
performance of the whole system, in terms of lead-time ratio and total cost. Spiegler et al.
(2012) explored the concept of SCRE from a system dynamics perspective. Their analysis
captures the key features of resilience (e.g. readiness, responsiveness and recovery) and
shows that optimum solutions for resilience do not (necessarily) lead to a system that is robust
to uncertainties in lead-time; rather, such a system would experience drastic changes in
resilience performance if lead-time changes.
Azevedo et al. (2013) developed the “ecosilient” index to evaluate the level of resilience and
greenness of automotive companies. Their study demonstrated that the resilient paradigm
contributes considerably to the competitiveness of companies in the automotive supply
chain. A significant contribution to resilience comes from the use of flexible sourcing
strategies, which allow switching suppliers. Pettit et al. (2013) developed a measurement tool,
called Supply Chain Resilience Assessment and Management (SCRAM), to help manage risk
through resilience. They validated the model with data from firms, and further identified 311
specific links to use as guides for a resilience improvement process. They also found a
correlation between the increase in resilience and improvement in supply chain performance.
Brandon-Jones et al. (2014) carried out empirical research in 264 UK manufacturing
companies to explore the impact of information sharing and connectivity (resources) and
visibility (capability) on the resilience of a supply chain. They found a positive relationship,
meaning that increased visibility is expected to improve the resilience and robustness of a
system.
Roberta Pereira et al. (2014) examined the role of procurement activities in identifying and
managing intra- and inter-organizational issues that could affect the resilience of a supply
chain. In another study, Soni et al. (2014) presented a model that considers the key enablers of
resilience and their interrelationships. It is expected that managers will use the model as a tool
to compare different supply chains. Urciuoli et al. (2014) analyzed the resilience of the energy
supply chain, with particular attention on how these systems work to enhance their resilience
against security threats. They found that the energy supply chains have, in general, a good
number of strategies to protect themselves against disruptions; an example of these
strategies include flexible contracts, transport capacity planning and safety stocks.
In addition to the surveyed studies, Gunasekaran et al. (2015) studied the relationship
between complexities and proactive management practices in SCRE, focusing on global
sourcing strategies. They suggested a framework to be used by future practitioners when Supply chain
analyzing the impact of global sourcing complexity factors on SCRE. Hohenstein et al. (2015) resilience
reviewed the concepts of SCRE through the analysis of 67 published studies. Their study
indicates the need for a univocal terminology about resilience, as well as for the classification
of resilience strategies (proactive vs. reactive) and measurement indexes. Munoz and Dunbar
(2015) focused on the quantification of resilience. They simulated the long-run performance of
a supply chain subject to disruptions. Each disruption was modeled in terms of frequency,
magnitude and supply chain tier affected. The resulting transient responses are measured 1933
along with several metrics popular among resilience researchers. They found that individual
metrics of resilience are adequate when evaluating the response performance of a single firm,
while more measures should be aggregated to evaluate the response of a supply chain. Again,
about resilience measurement, Chowdhury and Quaddus (2016) reviewed the existing
literature in an attempt to develop a series of indexes to evaluate the readiness, response and
recovery capability of a company. At the same time, in their analysis, the authors explored
and justified the antecedences of SCRE. Rajesh (2016) identified the metrics for resilience,
starting from typical supply chain performance, such as flexibility, quality, responsiveness or
productivity. An adapted grey prediction model is used to link these performance indexes to
SCRE and estimate its level.
Dabhilkar et al. (2016) empirically validated and further analyzed the supply-side
resilience capabilities as well as their constituent bundles of practices. They have identified
four supply-side resilience capabilities and unearthed a relationship between the practice
bundles of the capabilities and recovered operations performance. Fahimnia and Jabbarzadeh
(2016) further analyzed the relationship of sustainability-resilience at the supply chain design
level. They developed a multi-objective optimization model that could be utilized to perform a
dynamic sustainability tradeoff analysis. Furthermore, they suggested the model be used to
create a resiliently sustainable supply chain. Kamalahmadi and Parast (2016) provided a
summary of the existing research on enterprise and SCRE, including definitions, principles
and strategies. Furthermore, Kaviani et al. (2016) suggested a way in which to measure SCRE
based on a grey system theory approach. They concluded that distribution issues and supply
limitations are the most serious vulnerabilities that threaten the case study company located
in Iran. Lam and Bai (2016) developed a quality function deployment approach suitable to
enhance the resilience of the maritime supply chain. They analyzed three maritime systems,
identified their main risks and the possible countermeasures. The approach developed allows
prioritizing the interventions a maritime supply chain can implement against risk factors.
Pournader et al. (2016) presented and tested an analytical model to evaluate the resilience of a
supply chain, both as a whole and amongst its tiers. Their findings indicate that there is
variation in the resilience ratings between the overall supply chains in Iranian industry firms
and their tiers. They also found that system-wide resilience does not necessarily involve the
resilience amongst individual tiers.
Table 1 shows a summary of some relevant recent studies in the area of SCRE appraisal.

2.3 Research gaps

The review of the literature given in the previous section reveals the following research gap.
Although several studies have proposed frameworks for analyzing the impact of SCRE in the
context of the overall supply chain, not many have focused explicitly on the supply chain
capabilities and vulnerabilities. To the best of our knowledge, there are very few empirical
studies of SCRE in developing countries (Kaviani et al., 2016) and, more specifically, in the
Iranian automotive industry (Yazdanparast et al., 2018). Nonetheless, the supply chains in
developing countries constitute a significant portion of the world’s supply chain, and any
vulnerabilities in the developing countries’ supply chains will have an impact on the
BIJ Author(s) Study purpose Application
27,6
Vugrin et al. (2011) Introducing a comprehensive resilience assessment Petrochemical supply
framework, including quantitative and qualitative chain
analysis methodologies
Spiegler et al. (2012) Proposing a system dynamics approach using Make-to-stock supply
Integral of the Time Absolute Error tool for chain
1934 measuring SCRE
Azevedo et al. (2013) Presenting an Ecosilient Index-based framework to Automotive supply chain
assess the resilience of the supply chain
Pettit et al. (2013) Proposing a quantitative measurement framework Seven companies with
“SCRAM” to evaluate the management of SCRE global supply chains
Chowdhury and Introducing a hierarchical SCRE measurement model Apparel supply chain
Quaddus (2016) considering quantitative and qualitative approaches
Fahimnia and Designing A “resiliently sustainable” supply chain Sportswear clothing
Jabbarzadeh (2016) network as a multi-objective optimization model supply chain
solved by a stochastic fuzzy goal programming
approach
Kaviani et al. (2016) Presenting a grey systems theory approach to SCRE Cement supply chain
appraisal
Papadopoulos et al. Using the unstructured big data to test a theoretical Disaster supply chain
(2017) framework for clarifying resilience in supply chains
for sustainability
Maheshwari et al. Developing a supply chain design optimization model Biomass to biofuel supply
(2017) for considering SCRE cost reduction chain
Ivanov (2018) Employing a simulation-based framework for Smartphone supply chain
mitigating the ripple effect in a resilient supply chain
Yazdanparast et al. Assessing SCRE applying a novel hybrid Z-number Automotive supply chain
(2018) data envelopment analysis and neural network
approach
Rajesh (2019) Proposing a risk management framework for resilient Electronics manufacturing
supply chains using a Grey-Verhulst model supply chain
Table 1. Hossain et al. (2019) Utilizing a Bayesian network model for supply chain Oil and gas supply chain
Summary of new resilience appraisal
relevant studies on Shao and Jin (2020) Applying a system dynamics modeling approach to Lithium supply chain
SCRE assessment supply chain resilience evaluation

worldwide supply chain system. In fact, the supply chains in developing countries are more
vulnerable because they cannot rely on government safety networks (Prasad et al., 2015). As
far as the context of analysis is concerned, only some studies have addressed the issue of
resilience in the automotive industry (e.g. Azevedo et al., 2013, 2016). Yet, this industry is
typically seen by researchers as a place to develop, introduce and improve supply chain
management concepts (Yazdanparast et al., 2018) and frequently becomes the reference for
other industrial fields. Besides, the automotive industry is the second most active industry of
Iran (after the oil and gas one), accounts for 10% of the GDP of the country and enrolls
approximately 700,000 employees (Govindan et al., 2016). In light of the above considerations,
the authors believe that it is important to empirically analyze the capabilities and
vulnerabilities of SCRE in the context of an automotive company in a developing country.

3. Hypotheses
3.1 Capabilities of SCRE
Modern supply chains are facing many challenges, in addition to their complexity and
inherent uncertain natures. These challenges are making supply chains more vulnerable and
force decision-makers to design their supply chains more resilient to cope up with this Supply chain
challenge. To this end, supply chains must have resilient capabilities to mitigate and prevent resilience
potential disruptions and minimize vulnerability. Many attributes and abilities of resilient
supply chain capabilities have been identified in the literature. They include collaboration
(Pettit et al., 2010; J€
uttner and Maklan, 2011; Zhang et al., 2011), risk management (Zhang et al.,
2011), flexibility (Pettit et al., 2010; J€
uttner and Maklan, 2011; Zhang et al., 2011), integration,
redundancy and transparency (Ponomarov and Holcomb, 2009; Pettit et al., 2010; J€ uttner and
Maklan, 2011; Zhang et al., 2011). 1935
In literature, some studies have identified the capabilities of SCRE (see Hamel and
Valikangas, 2003; Rice and Caniato, 2003; Tang, 2006; Pettit et al., 2010, 2013). In this paper,
we consider the list of factors identified by Pettit et al.’s (2010), as it is more comprehensive
compared to other works. Based on this list, we hypothesized:
H1. Flexibility in sourcing, flexibility in order fulfillment, capacity, efficiency, visibility,
adaptability, anticipation, recovery, dispersion, collaboration, organization, market
position, security and financial strength are suitable capabilities for the assessment
of SCRE in the automotive parts industry of Iran.

3.2 Vulnerabilities of SCRE

Many authors demonstrated empirically that vulnerability and SCRE have conceptual
linkage and are relatively close concepts (Gallopın, 2006). It is obvious that SCRE increases as
vulnerability decreases and capabilities increase (Pettit et al., 2010). The vulnerability also
has a direct relationship with supply chain performance. According to Elleuch et al. (2016),
vulnerability measures the intensity of impact generated because of the risk in the supply
chain. Similarly, Pettit et al. (2010) stated that vulnerability is the potential for a system to be
affected by internal or external factors. Vulnerability in the SCRE context has been discussed
by several scholars in the literature, for instance, to identify drivers of supply chain
vulnerability (Peck, 2005; Wagner and Neshat, 2012; Wagner and Bode, 2006) or to find out
best practices to minimize vulnerability. Wagner and Neshat (2012) proposed a method to
measure vulnerability in supply chains.
In the earlier studies, we found some researches where the vulnerabilities of SCRE are
introduced (see Svensson, 2002; Hamel and Valikangas, 2003; Sheffi and Rice, 2005; Peck,
2005; Pettit et al., 2010). As per the previous section, we have considered the Pettit et al.’s
(2010) list of factors, which appears to be more comprehensive compared to the other works.
According to this list, we hypothesized:
H2. Vulnerability indicators such as Turbulence, Deliberate Threats, External Pressures,
Resource Limits, Sensitivity, Connectivity and Supplier/Customer Disruptions, are
appropriate for SCRE assessment in the automotive parts industry of Iran.

4. Methodology
4.1 Data collection and sample
A questionnaire survey was designed to test the hypotheses developed. The population for
this research included 44 active companies in the automotive parts industry in Tehran, Iran.
After contacting these companies, all 44 manufacturers agreed to participate in the research
project. A questionnaire was designed distributed among the supply chain experts, and 31
useable responses were received. Figure 1 shows the research framework adopted for
this study.
The questionnaire designed for the first round was given to the experts, along with the
necessary explanations and directions similar to the format used by Pettit et al. (2010, 2013).
BIJ
27,6 Questionnaire Development

Data Collection and

1936 Conversion

Calculation of Fuzzy Mean

and SD

Set Benchmarking
Value

Figure 1. Determination, Testing and

The research Analysis of Hypothesis Test
framework of the study

An extraction of variables measured from the literature and their localization using experts’
viewpoints and elementary samples were considered to validate the studied criteria, as
suggested by Hult and Ferrell (1997). Because the components of variables measured were
derived from the research literature, the questionnaire contains validated content.
One out of several ways to establish reliability is to measure internal consistency (Conca
et al., 2004). This factor is typically measured by the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient.
The minimum acceptable value for this ratio should be 0.7, 0.6 and even 0.55 values could be
acceptable (Van de Ven and Ferry, 1979). The reliability of the questionnaire, computed using
Cronbach’s alpha, was 0.84 for general inquiries, 0.73 for questions related to the vulnerability
and 0.89 for questions related to the enabling factors. All the values are higher than 0.7, which
indicates good reliability.

4.2 Fuzzy hypothesis testing approach

Several aspects of an SC (e.g. supplier’s goodwill, variability in demand, or sourcing
strategies) are qualitative and quite difficult to evaluate in quantitative terms. Moreover,
during the decision-making process, the decision maker’s judgments and their
subjectivity are also difficult to ponder. Therefore, to evaluate the effectiveness of the
selected indices on the SCRE, a fuzzy approach was used for statistical hypothesis
testing. The advantage of using fuzzy hypothesis testing over the conventional
hypothesis testing approaches is that the former works based on the null and alternative
hypotheses, while the latter works solely based on the null hypothesis. Consequently, the
fuzzy hypothesis testing technique provides more analytical power to the decision-maker
(Parchami et al., 2016).
 The fuzzy set theory, developed by Zadeh (1965), is effective in capturing the uncertainty Supply chain
associated with the decision-makers. The fuzzy set theory has also been proven to be an resilience
objective method, frequently applied in the evaluation, and making inference systems. As
detailed in Figure 1, we developed the questionnaire and got experts’ opinions using a Likert
scale. Once these data have been collected, we converted them into triangular fuzzy numbers
using the values proposed in Table 2. 8 >
xa
>
> ; a≤x≤b
>
> ba 1937
>
<
μM~ ðxÞ ¼ c  x; b ≤ x ≤ c
>
> cb (1)
>
>
>
>
:
0 otherwise
θ < a ≤ b ≤ c < θ

After defining the fuzzy sets, fuzzy numbers should be added. To this end, assuming the same
importance for all experts’ opinions, these values were expressed as triangular fuzzy
numbers; X ~ i ¼ ðX a ; X b ; X c Þ for linguistic variables is expressed as follows:
i i i
 
~ i ¼ X a; X b; X c
X (2)
i i i

 α ¼ fx ∈ R : μ  ðxÞ ≥ α
X (3)
X
 
 U ¼ Sup x ∈ R : μ  ðxÞ ≥ α
X (4)
α X

By fuzzy numbers summation, we have the new fuzzy numbers as follows:

!
 Xn Xn Xn
~¼
X X ;
a
X ;
b
X c
(5)
i i i
i¼1 i¼1 i¼1

Then the fuzzy numbers were converted into a crisp value using Eq. (6) as the defuzzification
formula:
   
Xib  Xia þ Xic  Xia
Xi ¼ þ Xia (6)
3
Defuzzified numbers represent the independent variables of each questionnaire answered by
companies. Thereafter we computed the fuzzy mean of collected experts’ opinions. Similarly,
as shown in Figure 1, to calculate the fuzzy mean and standard deviation of the variables, we
used Eqs. (7) and (8) as given below:
Pn a Pn b Pn c !

~¼ i¼1 Xi X X
X ; i¼1 i ; i¼1 i (7)
n n n

Very low Low Medium High Very high Table 2.

1 2 3 4 5 The conversion of the
Likert scale to fuzzy
(1,1,3) (1,3,5) (3,5,7) (5,7,9) (7,9,9) numbers
 vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
uXn h  2 i
BIJ u a 2 c 2
u i¼1 ðXia X Þ þ Xib X þðXic X Þ
b

27,6 t
S~ ¼ 3
(8)
n1

We then needed to compute the lower bound for acceptance of each hypothesis, as
mentioned in Figure 1. To this end, we calculate the fuzzy interval estimation of the average
1938 phase of each variable and low acceptance of the hypothesis using Eqs. (9) and (10) as given
below:
e e  ea e b
e a  ec e c
e b
X U ¼ X
 L; X   ðX  X  Þα ; ðX  ðX X  ÞαÞ α ∈ ð0; 1Þ (9)
e  pffiffiffi
 U þ Za ~s nÞ;Z ¼ 1:64
X (10)
0:95

In the next step, we needed to determine the region of acceptance to decide whether to accept
or reject a numerical hypothesis. As recommended by Van de Ven and Ferry (1979), we used
0.7 for fuzzy assumptions as minimum acceptance criteria. Eq. (11) was used to decide
whether to reject or accept a research hypothesis:
b  
e e  αÞ þ Za ~s pffiffiffi
e
c c
ðX  ðX X n (11)

Table 3 shows the procedure used to determine the degree of acceptance of the hypothesis in a
fuzzy environment. It is evident from Table 3 that with a higher degree, the hypothesis is
validated, and its assurance level is significant.

5. Results and discussion

5.1 Analysis of the outcomes
Table 4 shows the results of hypotheses testing for the factors considered.
Some considerations from the outcomes obtained can be formulated as follows:
(1) Among the empowerment indices, “recovery” got a membership degree of 1.00; thus,
its influence on SCRE is fully accepted. This corresponds with Tang (2006), Pettit et al.
(2010, 2013), Rice and Caniato (2003) and Peck et al. (2003). The index of “flexibility in
sourcing” with the membership degree of (0.57) is accepted with a medium impact on
SCRE; this is consonant with Christopher and Peck (2004) and Peck (2005).
Conversely, “anticipation,” “financial strength,” and “collaboration” with a
membership degree of 0.32, 0.26 and 0.15 are not probable to be accepted as
significant aspects of SCRE. It should be mentioned that outcomes for “collaboration”
show a weak correspondence with Rice and Caniato (2003) and Peck et al. (2003). The
“financial strength” index is not likely to correspond with Rice and Caniato (2003) or
Pettit et al. (2010).
(2) Among the indicators of vulnerability, “deliberate threats” turned out to get a
membership degree of zero, which means that the influence of this index on SCRE

Commenting on the acceptance of the hypothesis Degree of membership

Complete acceptance of the hypothesis 1.0

Very high possibility and assurance of accepting the hypothesis 0.9 – 1.0
Table 3. High possibility of accepting the hypothesis 0.7 – 0.9
Acceptance scale of a Medium possibility of accepting the hypothesis 0.5 – 0.7
hypothesis in the fuzzy Low possibility of accepting the hypothesis 0.0 – 0.5
environment Rejecting the hypothesis 0.0
 Acceptance of Average
Commenting on the assumed Acceptance of zero alternative Standard
Category Index effectiveness of the index assumption assumption X
c X
b X
a deviation

Vulnerabilities 1. Turbulence Medium possibility of accepting the 0.45 0.55 6.62 4.73 3.08 1.38
assumption of index effectiveness
2. Deliberate threats Rejecting the assumption of index 1.00 0.00 5.40 3.48 2.06 1.48
effectiveness
3. External pressures Accepting the assumption of index 0.00 1.00 7.91 6.64 4.75 1.48
effectiveness
4. Resource limits High possibility of accepting the 0.27 0.73 7.13 5.20 3.22 0.92
assumption of index effectiveness
5. Sensitivity Accepting the assumption of index 0.00 1.00 7.82 6.22 4.22 0.91
effectiveness
6. Connectivity Accepting the assumption of index 0.00 1.00 7.68 6.22 4.26 1.54
effectiveness
7. Supplier/customer Very high possibility of accepting the 0.09 0.91 7.36 5.43 3.46 1.30
disruptions assumption of index effectiveness

(continued )
resilience

1939

Statistical analysis of
Supply chain

data under fuzzy

Table 4.

environment
 BIJ
27,6

1940

Table 4.
Acceptance of Average
Commenting on the assumed Acceptance of zero alternative Standard
Category Index effectiveness of the index assumption assumption X
c X
b X
a deviation

Capabilities 8. Flexibility in Medium possibility of accepting the 0.43 0.57 6.82 4.95 3.04 0.82
sourcing assumption of index effectiveness
9. Flexibility in order High possibility of accepting the 0.26 0.74 7.02 5.08 3.22 1.35
fulfillment assumption of index effectiveness
10. Capacity High possibility of accepting the 0.19 0.81 7.17 5.33 3.33 1.08
assumption of index effectiveness
11. Efficiency High possibility of accepting the 0.14 0.86 7.37 5.44 3.46 0.98
assumption of index effectiveness
12. Visibility High possibility of accepting the 0.10 0.90 7.11 5.33 3.42 1.64
assumption of index effectiveness
13. Adaptability High possibility of accepting the 0.19 0.81 7.20 8.28 3.42 1.18
assumption of index effectiveness
14. Anticipation Weak possibility of accepting the 0.68 0.32 6.31 4.31 2.46 1.31
assumption of index effectiveness
15. Recovery Accepting the assumption of index 0.00 1.00 7.88 6.26 4.33 1.26
effectiveness
16. Dispersion High possibility of accepting the 0.13 0.87 6.91 5.35 3.57 1.48
assumption of index effectiveness
17. Collaboration Weak possibility of accepting the 0.85 0.15 5.91 3.91 2.17 1.27
assumption of index effectiveness
18. Organization High possibility of accepting the 0.18 0.82 7.22 5.35 3.37 1.06
assumption of index effectiveness
19. Market position Very high possibility of accepting the 0.06 0.94 7.46 5.33 3.57 1.6
assumption of index effectiveness
20. Security High possibility of accepting the 0.30 0.70 7.04 5.11 3.24 1.07
assumption of index effectiveness
21. Financial Weak possibility of accepting the 0.74 0.26 6.06 4.13 2.42 1.46
strength assumption of index effectiveness
 should be rejected. Conversely, for “external pressure,” “sensitivity,” and “connectivity,” Supply chain
with the membership degree of one, the impact on SCRE should be fully accepted. As far resilience
as the “external pressure” index is concerned, this outcome is consonant with Hamel and
Valikangas (2003), Pettit et al. (2010, 2013), Peck (2005). Similarly, the outcomes obtained
for “sensitivity,” correspond with Pettit et al. (2010), Peck (2005) and Sheffi and Rice
(2005); finally, correspondence with Pettit et al. (2010), Hamel and Valikangas (2003) and
Svensson (2002) can be observed for “connectivity.” Moreover, “supplier/customer
disruptions” with a membership degree of 0.91 (which highlights the possibility of very 1941
high impact) is accepted too; this outcome is consonant with Pettit et al. (2010, 2013) and
Svensson (2002). The same consideration is true for “resource limitation,” which got a
membership degree is 0.73 and shows a high potential impact; this index will be
accepted and corresponds with Pettit et al. (2010, 2013). Similarly, the “turbulence” index
with a membership degree of 0.55 is accepted, with an average probability of
correspondence with Pettit et al. (2010) and Svensson (2002).
(3) Among the enabling indices, for indicators such as “visibility” and “market position”
(whose membership degrees are 0.90 and 0.94, respectively) with a very high
frequency, the assumption of their impact on SCRE will be accepted. As far as
“market position” is concerned, these findings correspond with Hamel and
Valikangas (2003), Pettit et al. (2010, 2013), while for “visibility” our findings are
consonant with Rice and Caniato (2003) and Peck et al. (2003).
(4) Indexes like “dispersion,” “organization,” “adaptability,” “capacity,” “flexibility in
order fulfillment,” and “security” got membership degrees ranging from 0.87 to 0.70.
Their influence on SCRE is therefore accepted. The outcomes for the “dispersion”
capability are consistent with Hamel and Valikangas (2003) and Pettit et al. (2010,
2013), while for “efficiency,” they show correspondence with Rice and Caniato (2003)
and Peck et al. (2003). Similarly, correspondence can be found for “organization” (Rice
and Caniato, 2003; Pettit et al., 2010, 2013), “adaptability” (Pettit et al., 2010, 2013;
Tang, 2006), “flexibility in order fulfillment” and “security” (Hamel and Valikangas,
2003; Pettit et al., 2010; Peck, 2005).

6. Discussion
It is evident from the results of this study that SCRE has a direct impact on the overall supply
chain performance. To compete in this challenging environment, supply chain management
has been changed from a fragmented chain to an integrated chain. Moreover, due to
globalization and digitization and after the introduction of information technology, supply
chain activities are becoming more uncertain and vulnerable. Variations in supplier’s delivery
due to the increasing trend of having global suppliers and frequent customer preference
changes made the supply chain riskier. Therefore, organizations need to design their supply
chain so as they can predict disruptions or, in case of disasters, minimize their impact on
supply chain performance. In line with this premise, in this study, we have analyzed the effect
of supply chain capability and vulnerability elements in a specific context, i.e. the Iranian
automotive industry. The results obtained show that the automotive industry of Iran should
counteract five main elements of vulnerability, i.e. “external pressures,” “sensitivity,”
“connectivity,” “supplier/customer disruptions,” and “resource limits.” A suitable way to
counteract “supplier/customer disruptions” could be, for instance, to redesign the purchasing
process by distributing the supplies among both 1st tier suppliers and 2nd tier ones. This is
also expected to increase the flexibility of automotive industries, making them more prepared
in case of any disaster. As far as the resilient capabilities are concerned, the automotive
supply chain should enhance “flexibility in order fulfillment,” “capacity,” “efficiency,”
BIJ “visibility,” “adaptability,” “recovery,” “dispersion,” “organization,” “market position” and
27,6 “security” as the most effective countermeasures to vulnerability.
For example, Toyota Motor Corporation faced significant production loss due to the
earthquake, tsunami and nuclear meltdown in Japan in 2011. In response, to build a disaster-
resilient future, Toyota moved some of its production to other countries to improve flexibility
and manage vulnerability in case of future disasters. Vulnerability and flexibility are inter-
related concepts. In this respect, we demonstrate the Iranian automotive industry is in a
1942 transition phase, from traditional supply chain management to resilient supply chain
management, compared to the world-class automotive manufacturing companies. It is
noteworthy that by flourishing the capability elements and overcoming the vulnerability
factors, the Iranian automotive industry can gradually implement resiliency to cope with
disruptive events, even in light of the economic sanctions.
However, more awareness and cultural change are required to adopt and designing
resilient supply chains. Similarly, this study demonstrates that collaboration and visibility
are also perceived as important for companies to improve their performance and increase the
surplus.

6.1 Managerial implications

The outcomes of this research can be of interest to supply chain managers in the automotive
industry, in particular those who work in developing countries. First, using fuzzy hypothesis
testing allows supply chain managers to identify, intervene and eliminate vulnerabilities and
enhance the capabilities of their SCRE. In addition, outsourcing is a viable and practical
strategy for mitigating risks and vulnerabilities (i.e. turbulence, deliberate threats) in supply
chains. Second, regarding strengthening the capability elements like collaboration and
security, supply chain managers should grow their relationship with known suppliers and
partners, and reduce ties with unknown and vulnerable partners who could potentially
weaken their SCRE. The findings of this research could help supply chain managers in the
automotive companies to survive in the highly vulnerable and competitive markets by
adopting the following two strategies: (1) regulating their internal resources and taking a
resource-based view to reconcile between the vulnerability and capability elements, and (2)
using a market-based view to improve their SCRE and efficiently compete with rivals,
benchmarking operations and adopting best practices, and ultimately reaching the efficient
frontier in the industry.

7. Conclusion and future research directions

7.1 Summary of the contribution
This paper explains the impact of some selected indicators on the resilience of the supply
chain. Fuzzy hypothesis tests and the determination of the membership degree were used to
evaluate the effectiveness of each index. Flexibility in the supply chain is an important aspect
to meet customer demands effectively and efficiently. The modern supply chain should be
flexible so that organizations will be able to manage variation in demand in an effective
manner. Similarly, visibility is essential for the organization so that the supply chain will be
able to predict and manage risk and sustain its effect on supply chain performance. The
empirical analysis reveals that indexes like “flexibility in sourcing,” “anticipation,” “financial
strength” and “collaboration” got low membership degrees; therefore, it is suggested that
companies in the automotive industry of Tehran strengthen these measures to achieve
greater elasticity in the supply chain. On the other hand, since “external pressures,”
“sensitivity,” “connectivity” and “supplier/customer disorders” have a high degree of
membership, it is suggested that companies in the auto parts industry reduce the effects of
these factors to experience greater resilience in their supply chain by considering appropriate
policies. This study explores the capabilities and vulnerabilities of the supply chain in a
specific industry field, and, because of its empirical nature, it is expected to represent a Supply chain
stepping-stone in the existing field of knowledge and research in SCRE. resilience
7.2 Future research directions
Based on the analysis of our result and considering the limitations of our study, we propose
the following future research ideas:
(1) This study focuses exclusively on the auto parts industry in the Tehran province of
1943
Iran. Further research can have the potential of transferring such findings to other
industrial sectors such as service, textile, aviation, and oil and gas.
(2) This study can be extended in developing a decision support system based on a fuzzy
inference system to identify the effect of different resilience factors on the
performance of the whole supply chain.
(3) This study can be useful in developing and proposing a framework for resilience
supply chain performance measurement, which evaluates resilient supply chain
performance in different industrial sectors.
(4) In addition to the factors that we considered in this study, a more comprehensive list
of factors could be obtained through an extensive literature review and by analyzing
the effects of these factors’ impact on supply chain performance.

References
Azevedo, S.G., Govindan, K., Carvalho, H. and Cruz-Machado, V. (2013), “Ecosilient index to assess the
greenness and resilience of the upstream automotive supply chain”, Journal of Cleaner
Production, Vol. 56, pp. 131-146.
Azevedo, S.G., Carvalho, H. and Cruz-Machado, V. (2016), “LARG index: a benchmarking tool for
improving the leanness, agility, resilience and greenness of the automotive supply chain”,
Benchmarking, Vol. 23 No. 6, pp. 1472-1499.
Brandon-Jones, E., Squire, B., Autry, C.W. and Petersen, K.J. (2014), “A contingent resource-based
perspective of supply chain resilience and robustness”, Journal of Supply Chain Management,
Vol. 50 No. 3, pp. 55-73.
Bunderson, J.S. and Sutcliffe, K.M. (2002), “Comparing alternative conceptualizations of functional
diversity in management teams: process and performance effects”, Academy of Management
Journal, Vol. 45 No. 5, pp. 875-893.
Carvalho, H., Barroso, A.P., Machado, V.H., Azevedo, S. and Cruz-Machado, V. (2012), “Supply chain
redesign for resilience using simulation”, Computers and Industrial Engineering, Vol. 62 No. 1,
pp. 329-341.
Chowdhury, M.M.H. and Quaddus, M. (2016), “Supply chain readiness, response and recovery for
resilience”, Supply Chain Management: International Journal, Vol. 21 No. 6, pp. 709-731.
Christopher, M. and Peck, H. (2004), “Building the resilient supply chain”, International Journal of
Logistics Management, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 1-14.
Colicchia, C., Dallari, F. and Melacini, M. (2010), “Increasing supply chain resilience in a global
sourcing context”, Production Planning and Control, Vol. 21 No. 7, pp. 680-694.
Conca, F.J., Liopis, J. and Tari, J.J. (2004), “Development of a measure to assess quality management in
certified firms”, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 156, pp. 683-697.
Dabhilkar, M., Birkie, S.E. and Kaulio, M. (2016), “Supply-side resilience as practice bundles: a critical
incident study”, International Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol. 36 No. 8,
pp. 948-970.
BIJ Donadoni, M., Roden, S., Scholten, K., Stevenson, M., Caniato, F., van Donk, D.P. and Wieland, A. (2019),
“The future of resilient supply chains”, Revisiting Supply Chain Risk, Springer, Cham, pp. 169-186.
27,6
Elleuch, H., Dafaoui, E., Elmhamedi, A. and Chabchoub, H. (2016), “Resilience and vulnerability in
supply chain: literature review”, IFAC-Papers OnLine, Vol. 49 No. 12, pp. 1448-1453.
Fahimnia, B. and Jabbarzadeh, A. (2016), “Marrying supply chain sustainability and resilience: a
match made in heaven”, Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review,
Vol. 91, pp. 306-324.
1944
Gallopın, G.C. (2006), “Linkages between vulnerability, resilience, and adaptive capacity”, Global
Environmental Change, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 293-303.
Govindan, K., Khodaverdi, R. and Vafadarnikjoo, A. (2016), “A grey DEMATEL approach to develop
third-party logistics provider selection criteria”, Industrial Management and Data Systems,
Vol. 116 No. 4, pp. 690-722.
Gunasekaran, A., Subramanian, N. and Rahman, S. (2015), “Supply chain resilience: role of complexities
and strategies”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 53 No. 22, pp. 6809-6819.
Hamel, G. and Valikangas, L. (2003), “The quest for resilience”, Harvard Business Review, September,
pp. 52-63.
Hohenstein, N.O., Feisel, E., Hartmann, E. and Giunipero, L. (2015), “Research on the phenomenon of
supply chain resilience: a systematic review and paths for further investigation”, International
Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, Vol. 45 Nos 1/2, pp. 90-117.
Hossain, N.U.I., Jaradat, R., Marufuzzaman, M., Buchanan, R. and Rianudo, C. (2019), “Assessing and
enhancing oil and gas supply chain resilience: a Bayesian network based approach”, IIE Annual
Conference. Proceedings, pp. 241-246.
Hult, G.T.M. and Ferrell, O.C. (1997), “Global organizational learning capacity in purchasing: construct
and measurement”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 40 No. 2, pp. 97-111.
Ivanov, D. (2018), “Revealing interfaces of supply chain resilience and sustainability: a simulation
study”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 56 No. 10, pp. 3507-3523.
uttner, U. and Maklan, S. (2011), “Supply chain resilience in the global financial crisis: an empirical
J€
study”, Supply Chain Management: International Journal, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 246-259.
Kamalahmadi, M. and Parast, M.M. (2016), “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, Vol. 171, pp. 116-133.
Kaviani, M.A., Mobin, M. and Bottani, E. (2016), Supply Chain Resilience Assessment: A Grey Systems
Theory Approach, Proceedings of the 2016 International Conference on Industrial Engineering
and Operations Management, Detroit, Michigan, USA, September 23-25.
Lam, J.S.L. and Bai, X. (2016), “A quality function deployment approach to improve maritime supply
chain resilience”, Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Vol. 92,
pp. 16-27.
Maheshwari, P., Singla, S. and Shastri, Y. (2017), “Resiliency optimization of biomass to biofuel supply
chain incorporating regional biomass pre-processing depots”, Biomass and Bioenergy, Vol. 97,
pp. 116-131.
Munoz, A. and Dunbar, M. (2015), “On the quantification of operational supply chain resilience”,
International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 53 No. 22, pp. 6736-6751.
Papadopoulos, T., Gunasekaran, A., Dubey, R., Altay, N., Childe, S.J. and Fosso-Wamba, S. (2017),
“The role of big data in explaining disaster resilience in supply chains for sustainability”,
Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 142, pp. 1108-1118.
Parchami, A., Taheri, S.M., Gildeh, B.S. and Mashinchi, M. (2016), “A simple but efficient approach for
testing fuzzy hypotheses”, Journal of Uncertainty Analysis and Applications, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 1-16.
Peck, H. (2005), “Drivers of supply chain vulnerability: an integrated framework”, International
Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, Vol. 35, pp. 210-232.
Peck, H., Abley, J., Christopher, M., Haywood, M., Saw, R., Rutherford, C. and Strathern, M. (2003), Supply chain
Creating Resilient Supply Chains: A Practical Guide, Cranfield University, Centre for Logistics
and Supply Chain Management, Cranfield. resilience
Pettit, T.J., Fiksel, J. and Croxton, K.L. (2010), “Ensuring supply chain resilience: development of a
conceptual framework”, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 1-21.
Pettit, T.J., Croxton, K.L. and Fiksel, J. (2013), “Ensuring supply chain resilience: development and
implementation of an assessment tool”, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 46-76.
1945
Pettit, T.J., Croxton, K.L. and Fiksel, J. (2019), “The evolution of resilience in supply chain
management: a retrospective on ensuring supply chain resilience”, Journal of Business Logistics,
Vol. 40 No. 1, pp. 56-65.
Ponomarov, S.Y. and Holcomb, M.C. (2009), “Understanding the concept of supply chain resilience”,
The International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 124-143.
Pournader, M., Rotaru, K., Kach, A.P. and Razavi Hajiagha, S.H. (2016), “An analytical model for
system-wide and tier-specific assessment of resilience to supply chain risks”, Supply Chain
Management: International Journal, Vol. 21 No. 5, pp. 589-609.
Prasad, S., Su, H.C., Altay, N. and Tata, J. (2015), “Building disaster-resilient micro enterprises in the
developing world”, Disasters, Vol. 39 No. 3, pp. 447-466.
Rajesh, R. (2016), “Forecasting supply chain resilience performance using grey prediction”, Electronic
Commerce Research and Applications, Vol. 20, pp. 42-58.
Rajesh, R. (2019), “Social and environmental risk management in resilient supply chains: a periodical
study by the Grey-Verhulst model”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 57 No. 11,
pp. 3748-3765.
Ribeiro, J.P. and Barbosa-Povoa, A. (2018), “Supply chain resilience: definitions and quantitative
modelling approaches–a literature review”, Computers and Industrial Engineering, Vol. 115,
pp. 109-122.
Rice, J.B. and Caniato, F. (2003), “Building a secure and resilient supply network”, Supply Chain
Management Review, Vol. 7 No. 5, pp. 22-30.
Roberta Pereira, C., Christopher, M. and Lago Da Silva, A. (2014), “Achieving supply chain resilience:
the role of procurement”, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 19 Nos 5/6,
pp. 626-642.
Shao, L. and Jin, S. (2020), “Resilience assessment of the lithium supply chain in China under impact of
new energy vehicles and supply interruption”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 252, p. 119624.
Sheffi, Y. and Rice, J.B. Jr (2005), “A supply chain view of the resilient enterprise”, MIT Sloan
Management Review, Vol. 47 No. 1, p. 41.
Siddiqui, F., Haleem, A. and Sharma, C. (2012), “The impact of supply chain management practices in
total quality management practices and flexible system practices context: an empirical study in
oil and gas industry”, Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 11-23.
Soni, U., Jain, V. and Kumar, S. (2014), “Measuring supply chain resilience using a deterministic
modeling approach”, Computers and Industrial Engineering, Vol. 74, pp. 11-25.
Spiegler, V.L., Naim, M.M. and Wikner, J. (2012), “A control engineering approach to the assessment of
supply chain resilience”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 50 No. 21,
pp. 6162-6187.
Svensson, G. (2002), “Dyadic vulnerability in companies’ inbound and outbound logistics flows”,
International Journal of Logistics, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 13-43.
Tang, C.S. (2006), “Robust strategies for mitigating supply chain disruptions”, International Journal of
Logistics: Research and Applications, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 33-45.
Tavana, M., Kaviani, M.A., Di Caprio, D. and Rahpeyma, B. (2016), “A two-stage data envelopment
analysis model for measuring performance in three-level supply chains”, Measurement, Vol. 78,
pp. 322-333.
BIJ Tukamuhabwa, B.R., Stevenson, M., Busby, J. and Zorzini, M. (2015), “Supply chain resilience:
definition, review and theoretical foundations for further study”, International Journal of
27,6 Production Research, Vol. 53 No. 18, pp. 5592-5623.
Vugrin, E.D., Warren, D.E. and Ehlen, M.A. (2011), “A resilience assessment framework for
infrastructure and economic systems: quantitative and qualitative resilience analysis of
petrochemical supply chains to a hurricane”, Process Safety Progress, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 280-290.
Urciuoli, L., Mohanty, S., Hintsa, J. and Boekesteijn, E.G. (2014), “The resilience of energy supply
1946 chains: a multiple case study approach on oil and gas supply chains to Europe”, Supply Chain
Management: An International Journal.
Van de Ven, A.H. and Ferry, D. (1979), Measurement and Assessment of Organizations, New York.
Wagner, S.M. and Bode, C. (2006), “An empirical investigation into supply chain vulnerability”,
Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, Vol. 12 No. 6, pp. 301-312.
Wagner, S.M. and Neshat, N. (2012), “A comparison of supply chain vulnerability indices for different
categories of firms”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 50, pp. 2877-2891.
Yazdanparast, R., Tavakkoli-Moghaddam, R., Heidari, R. and Aliabadi, L. (2018), “A hybrid Z-number
data envelopment analysis and neural network for assessment of supply chain resilience: a case
study”, Central European Journal of Operations Research, pp. 1-21.
Zadeh, L.A. (1965), “Fuzzy sets”, Information and Control, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 338-353.
Zhang, D., Dadkhah, P. and Ekwall, D. (2011), “How robustness and resilience support security
business against antagonistic threats in transport network”, Journal of Transportation Security,
Vol. 4, pp. 201-219.

Appendix. Questionnaire
This survey is designed to evaluate supply chain resilience key elements that contain vulnerability and
capability factors in your company. Please appraise each factor associated with each group of
vulnerabilities and capabilities employing the following five-point scale:

Very low 1
Low 2
Medium 3
High 4
Very high 5

Category Criteria Sub-criteria 1 2 3 4 5

Vulnerabilities 1. Turbulence 1.1. Unpredictable demand shifts in , , , , ,

products
1.2. Dependency to supplies and export , , , , ,
markets that endure vigorous
currency or price fluctuations
1.3. Facing disruptions because of , , , , ,
geopolitical turmoil in imports/
exports
1.4. Natural disasters mostly threaten , , , , ,
company’s facilities or markets
1.5. Facing unforeseen technology , , , , ,
defeats in the operations
Table A1.
Questionnaire (continued )
Category Criteria Sub-criteria 1 2 3 4 5 Supply chain
2. Deliberate 2.1. Facing liability claims in products or , , , , ,
resilience
threats operations
2.2. Possibility of being targeted by , , , , ,
terrorism or facility desolation
2.3. Possibility of industrial espionage of , , , , ,
products or technologies
2.4. Regular vandalization or robbery of , , , , , 1947
the products
3. External 3.1. Threat of products by repeated , , , , ,
pressures competitive innovations
3.2. Severe price competition of products , , , , ,
with rivals
3.3. Dependency of products to changes , , , , ,
of governmental regulations
4. Resource limits 4.1. Large number of members in , , , , ,
company’s supply chain
4.2. Limited capacity of company , , , , ,
production as well as suppliers
4.3. Scarcity of raw materials for the products , , , , ,
4.4. Difficulty in hiring high-skill and , , , , ,
professional workers
5. Sensitivity 5.1. Co-dependency or geographical , , , , ,
concentration of manufacturing
facilities
5.2. Hazardous conditions for workers , , , , ,
during operating
5.3. Strict storage or handling , , , , ,
requirements of products
5.4. Complexity of production operations , , , , ,
6. Connectivity 6.1. Being part of a universal distributed , , , , ,
supply chain
6.2. Need of particular components for , , , , ,
most of products
6.3. Outsourcing operations to diverse , , , , ,
companies
7. Supplier/ 7.1. Facing remarkable disruptions by , , , , ,
customer suppliers
disruptions 7.2. Facing substantial disruptions by , , , , ,
customers
Capabilities 8. Flexibility in 8.1. Instantly changing the inputs of the , , , , ,
sourcing products or the mode of them
8.2. Having alternate sources of inputs , , , , ,
8.3. Flexibility in supply contracts to , , , , ,
modify the quantities, terms and
specifications of key inputs
9. Flexibility in 9.1. Swiftly reallocate orders to diverse , , , , ,
order suppliers or jobs to various
fulfillment production units
9.2. Having effective inventory , , , , ,
management system
9.3. Quickly shifting the mode of , , , , ,
transportation of products and
routing the orders
9.4. Being more responsive to orders by , , , , ,
delay in production

(continued ) Table A1.

BIJ Category Criteria Sub-criteria 1 2 3 4 5
27,6
10. Capacity 10.1. Having dependable back-up , , , , ,
utilities (water, electricity, etc.)
10.2. Marinating access to redundant , , , , ,
resources (types of equipment,
facilities, etc.)
1948 11. Efficiency 11.1. High productivity of labors and , , , , ,
high-reliability equipment
11.2. Producing high-quality products , , , , ,
with a reasonable amount of waste
11.3. Effectively utilizing assets and , , , , ,
resources
12. Visibility 12.1. Tracking all operations through an , , , , ,
effective information system
12.2. Regular information interchange , , , , ,
among different parties of supply
chain
12.3. Assessing real-time data on the , , , , ,
location and status of products, raw
materials and other resources
13. Adaptability 13.1. Developing innovative technologies , , , , ,
to foster operations
13.2. Utilizing continuous improvement , , , , ,
programs
13.3. Being flexible to the changes in , , , , ,
market
14. Anticipation 14.1. Employing efficient demand , , , , ,
forecasting methods
14.2. Rapidly diagnosing warning , , , , ,
signals of conceivable disruptions
14.3. Recognizing and capitalizing on , , , , ,
new business ideas to enter the new
markets
15. Recovery 15.1. Having an effectual communication , , , , ,
strategy in an emergent situation
15.2. Mitigate the traces of disruptions , , , , ,
taking rapid actions
15.3. Handling the crises situations , , , , ,
successfully
16. Dispersion 16.1. Distributing production facilities at , , , , ,
diverse locations
16.2. Geographical diversity in , , , , ,
customers locations
16.3. Accessing to a decentralized , , , , ,
network of suppliers for providing
key inputs of the company
17. Collaboration 17.1. Exploiting shared data for , , , , ,
collaborative demand forecasting
17.2. Utilizing product life cycle , , , , ,
management techniques and
programs that are proactive
17.3. Collaborative decision making , , , , ,
among different members of the
supply chain through transparent
data flow

Table A1. (continued )

Category Criteria Sub-criteria 1 2 3 4 5
Supply chain
resilience
18. Organization 18.1. Applying creative problem-solving , , , , ,
approaches
18.2. Having employees caring culture , , , , ,
18.3. Training employees with a wide , , , , ,
diversity of skills
19. Market 19.1. The loyalty of customers to , , , , , 1949
position products of the company
19.2. Strong communications ways with , , , , ,
customers
19.3. Possibility of entering novel , , , , ,
domestic and international markets
19.4. Superb customer recognition of , , , , ,
company’s brand
20. Security 20.1. Providing a high level of security in , , , , ,
information systems of the
company
20.2. Training personnel for security , , , , ,
programs
20.3. Collaboration with governmental , , , , ,
and expert organizations to
improve the cybersecurity
defensive systems
21. Financial 21.1. Accessing notable financial , , , , ,
strength reserves to supply potential
requirements
21.2. Diversity of company’s business , , , , ,
portfolio Table A1.

Corresponding author
Madjid Tavana can be contacted at: tavana@[Link]

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
[Link]/licensing/[Link]
Or contact us for further details: permissions@[Link]