Sustainable Manufacturing and Service Economics 2 (2023) 100008

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Sustainable Manufacturing and Service Economics

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/smse

Surviving major disruptions: Building supply chain resilience and visibility

through rapid information flow and real-time insights at the “edge”
Shantanu Dey
Indian Institute of Management, Indore, India

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Keywords: Disruptive events with damaging consequences afflict supply chains across industries. The survival of the busi-
Supply chain resilience ness and its consequent recovery depend on the supply chain’s resilience. This exploratory article discusses how
Real-time analytics technology-driven real-time decision-making in a connected supply chain achieves intended business outcomes
Connected supply chain
of resilience, agility, and visibility. Based on an Integrative Literature Review and adopting a Design Science Re-
Edge computing
search Methodology (DSRM), we propose a distributed approach for real-time inferencing in edge near the data
Digital control tower
Data governance sources for rapid autonomous decisioning and recovery planning under disruption. We develop a framework for
building resilience in the supply chain using real-time distributed information sharing in a collaborative partner
ecosystem. Visibility across the supply chain is ensured with a Digital Control Tower by making information
available to any connected node for synchronized action. The important contribution of this research is building
a real-time decision framework for sustainable resilience-building in resource-constrained organizations unable
to invest in big data and enterprise systems. A set of design propositions following the CIMO framework is ex-
pected to help scholars and practitioners alike. A research agenda is provided for the researchers to take forward
hypothesis formulation and empirical validation on the basis of the propositions. (194 words)

1. Introduction
Supply chains across industries periodically suffer from unplanned
disruptions, resulting in an imbalance in the supply and demand situa-
tion (Munoz and Dunbar, 2015) [2]. Supply chain disruptions are related
to climate (NoAA) [11] and human-induced risk (Katsaliaki, Galetsi, and
Kumar, 2021) [34]. Ideally, there should be a quick recovery in sup-
ply chains after a disruption to preserve the continuity of operations
(Munoz, Dunbar, 2015; Sheffi and Rice, 2005) [2,53]. The ability to
rapidly recover some or most of the desired level of performance post
disruption is called resilience (Munoz and Dunbar, 2015; Ponomarov
and Holcomb, 2009) [2,47]. Enhancing resilience can be a strategic
response that helps reinvent business models when situations change
(Munoz, Dunbar, 2015; Hamel and Välikangas, 2003) [2,30]. Resilience
is the adaptive capability of the supply chain to prepare for unexpected
events, respond, and recover “by maintaining continuity of operations
to the desired level of connectedness and control over structure and
function.” (Ponomarov and Holcomb, 2009) [47]. Therefore, it is essen-
tial to adopt suitable mitigating and responsive measures, both ex-ante
and ex-post, to prepare for disruptions and reduce the disruption’s im-
pact after its occurrence. New research in designing a resilient supply
chain takes the help of real-time analytics-driven decision-making ca-
pabilities for both proactive response planning activities and reactive
real-time control (Ivanov and Dolgui, 2020) [31]. Waller and Fawcett
(2013) [64] classify supply chain analytics into four areas: descriptive
and diagnostic analysis, predictive simulation and prescriptive optimiza-
tion, real-time control, and adaptive learning. Among these capabilities,
the data driven analytics capabilities that include real time control and
adaptive learning, can feed to the other areas like optimization (scenario
generation) and simulation (disruption identification in real time) for
supply chain reconfiguration (Ivanov, Dolgui and Sokolov, 2019) [70].
Descriptive and diagnostic analysis can be based on the past data and
post facto analysis of disruptions. Predictive simulation and optimiza-
tion models disruption scenarios and responses for recovery planning.
Real time control enables performance, recovery control, and discovery
of disruptions that come as an antecedent to predictive and prescrip-
tive analytics. Adaptive learning helps in risk mitigation and pattern
recognition (Ivanov, Dolgui and Sokolov, 2019) [70]. Gathering and
sharing real-time information and insights is extremely important for
supply chain recovery planning and collaborative decision-making by
the ecosystem partners (Sheffi, 2015; Ivanov and Dolgui, 2020) [52,31].
Taken together, real time control and adaptive learning help in the re-
active phase in identification of disruption scenarios, provide informa-
tion to the control tower for end to end supply chain visibility, provide
data to the simulation model for recovery planning and reconfiguration
option generation, and develop a feedback loop for predictive, diag-
nostic, and prescriptive analytics using Big data for proactive resilient
supply chain design (Ivanov and Dolgui, 2020) [31]. Such real-time an-

E-mail address: ef21shantanud@iimidr.ac.in

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smse.2022.100008
Received 19 March 2022; Received in revised form 16 November 2022; Accepted 15 December 2022
2667-3444/© 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
S. Dey
alytics and decision-making for a collaborative and connected supply
chain can happen at the “edge” or near the sources of data generation
(Satyanarayan, 2017) [50]. An edge-based information flow can poten-
tially reduce the overall delay in insight generation, transformation, and
inferencing (Wang et al., 2020) [69]. Real-time collaborative decision
making is contingent upon a) generation, filtering, and aggregation of
data across the supply chain in an event-driven process chain (Achir
et al., 2022) [1] b) active monitoring and processing of the data near
the source to reduce the time lag between data generation and deriving
insights, and c) a distributed paradigm for sharing information, alerts,
and notifications in real-time among ecosystem partners for collabora-
tive and cognitive decision making in the event of disruptions. A Dig-
ital Control Tower (DCT), like its analogous counterpart in an airport,
can provide visual alerts that warn of disruptive events like inventory
shortfalls or congestion and bottlenecks, i.e., potential or actual disrup-
tions (Boute and Udenio, 2021) [12]. The antecedent for such a system
is the focal firm’s connected, digital supplier ecosystem, since one of
the four significant flows of a digital supply chain is information flow
(Garay-Rondero et al., 2020) [27]. The consequences are resilience and
visibility.
This study analyzes the following research questions (RQ):
• Can supply chain resilience be a business outcome-based on real-
time information analytics in resource-constrained organizations de-
void of Big data (BDA) infrastructure?
• Which factors influence decision-making through real-time informa-
tion mining?
• How can edge analytics enable rapid real-time information flow
within the constraints of computational resources and ensure visi-
bility and resilience as business outcomes?
In this article, the Design Science Research Methodology proposed
by Peffers et al. (2014) [46], which involves six steps, is adopted to
develop a conceptual framework and a set of design propositions as ar-
tifacts. A design proposition is used as a “template for creating solutions
for a particular class of problems” (Denyer, Tranfield, and Aken, 2008)
[71]. An integrative review of the literature on edge computing (Tor-
raco, 2005) [63] discovers themes that help construct the framework
and respond to the RQ. A research agenda section provides scholars
insights on how multiple research themes and avenues can be devel-
oped from the current research. The remainder of this article’s structure
is as follows. In Section 2, the terms and concepts of supply chain re-
silience, connected supply chains, digitalization, and edge computing
are introduced. In Section 3, the methods adopted, the literature search
and selection process, and the DSRM framework are discussed. The re-
view findings are presented in Section 4. Section 5 discusses the overall
framework, theoretical and practical implications, and design proposi-
tions to address the research questions, and puts forward a research
agenda. Section 6 concludes the study and provides avenues for further
exploration.
2. Theoretical Background- Supply Chain Disruption Literature
Review
2.1. Supply Chain Disruption Propagation and Impact
Supply chain disruptions are “unplanned and unanticipated events
that disrupt the normal flow of goods and materials within a supply
chain.” (Brüning and Bendul, 2017; Craighead et al., 2007) [13,21].
Since a supply chain may possess multiple layers and tiers, the tier in
which the disruption occurs is a critical consideration (Ponomarov and
Holcomb, 2009) [47]. There are nine major groups of disruptive events
(Katsaliaki, Galetsi, and Kumar, 2021) [34], of which four are relevant
from a real-time monitoring and predictive capability perspective:
• Disasters (natural or manmade).
• Delays (e.g., congestion).
2
Sustainable Manufacturing and Service Economics 2 (2023) 100008
• Systems (e.g., information systems breakdown).
• Forecast inaccuracies (sudden demand pattern changes).
They can be further classified into demand, supply, and environmen-
tal or climate risks (Christopher and Peck, 2004; Katsaliaki, Galetsi,
and Kumar, 2021) [17,34]. Disruptive events are also characterized
by their type, intensity, and duration (Ivanov et al., 2019) [33], fre-
quency, source, and impact (local vs. global) (Katsaliaki, Galetsi, and
Kumar, 2021) [34]. Natural or manmade (geopolitical) disruptions are
low-probability, high impact events with damaging consequences. High
probability and medium impact disruptions include sudden changes in
demand, shortages in supply, congestion in supply or distribution net-
work, and sourcing constraints (Scheibe and Blackhurst 2018; Katsali-
aki, Galetsi, and Kumar, 2021) [54,34]. Disruption in any supply chain
node may be propagated and amplified across the connected network
in a phenomenon called the ripple effect, which leaves a broader im-
pact (Ivanov, Sokolov, and Dolgui, 2014; Katsaliaki, Galetsi, and Ku-
mar, 2021) [32,34]. Supply chain density, complexity, and importance
of the disrupted node contribute to the severity of the disruption inci-
dent (Craighead et al., 2007) [21]. The spread of disruption across the
supply chain is explained by Systemic Risk and Normal Accident Theory
for complex and highly coupled systems (Scheibe and Blackhurst 2018)
[54]. Propagation of disruption across a tightly coupled supply chain
may be prevented by monitoring across the supply chain (Craighead
et al., 2007; Scheibe and Blackhurst, 2018) [21,54], as recovery and
warning capabilities can mitigate the severity of disruption (Craighead
et al., 2007) [21].
2.2. Resilience as Path to Quick Recovery
Post-implementation of an effective response, a subsequent mono-
tonic recovery period to achieve the desired or pre-disruption level of
performance is observed (Munoz & Dunbar, 2015) [2]. Ponomarov and
Holcomb (2009) [47] define resilience as “the adaptive capability of the
supply chain to prepare for unexpected events, respond to disruptions,
and recover from them by maintaining continuity of operations to the
desired level of connectedness and control over structure and function”
(Ponomarov and Holcomb, 2009; Munoz and Dunbar, 2015) [47,2]. The
application of proactive and mitigating measures before disruption, and
adaptive control, reduce the impact in the aftermath (Munoz and Dun-
bar, 2015) [2]. There are several strategies to build resilience in the sup-
ply chain, including but not limited to slack in resources like high levels
of inventory, unutilized capacity through built-in redundancy, and flex-
ibility in selecting alternate sources of supply (Ivanov et al., 2017) [66].
Resilience increases with enhanced capabilities and reduced vulnerabil-
ities (Pettit et al., 2010) [45]. Capabilities include agility or the ability
to react quickly to unforeseen events and the high level of collabora-
tion for managing risks (Christopher and Peck, 2004; Pettit et al., 2010)
[17,45]. The spread of disruption and recovery depends on the design
elements of the connected supply chain like node density, complexity,
and criticality (Chowdhury et al., 2017) [16].
2.3. Monitoring, Real-Time Alerts, and Inferencing in a Collaborative,
Connected Supply Chain
Collaboration and visibility across the supply chain improve supply
chain resilience through information sharing on time (Al-Talib et al.,
2020) [3]. A connected and collaborative supply chain enables early
real-time information flow across the different partners in the supply
chain network by developing synergies among partners and facilitat-
ing collaborative planning (Scholten and Schilder, 2015) [55]. Cap-
turing data and sharing information in real-time is critical for detect-
ing problems and their impact and planning the recovery from shocks
(Sheffi, 2015; Ivanov, Dolgui, Das & Sokolov, 2019) [52,33]. Artificial
Intelligence (AI) in supply chain operations helps trigger alarm through
continuous monitoring and taking timely actions, deals with an uncer-
S. Dey
tain environment through a fast information flow across an intercon-
nected channel, continuous learning, and adaptation (Munoz and Dun-
bar, 2015) [2]. The key contribution of AI is Collaborative Agility, an
ability to adapt quickly to the rapidly evolving environment (Dash, Mc-
Murtrey, et al., 2019) [22]. An increasingly dominant theme is data
and analytics-driven decision-making for responsive supply chains in
managing risks, including real-time control (Ivanov and Dolgui, 2020)
[31]. Digital technologies significantly impact agility and responsive-
ness (Ivanov and Dolgui, 2020; Dubey, Gunasekaran, Childe, Wamba,
et al., 2019) [31,26]. Monitoring systems enable the identification of
failure modes and create notifications for disruptions in near-real-time
(Ivanov and Dolgui, 2020) [31]. Using the analytical and predictive ca-
pabilities from the data generated from real-time systems, like Global
Positioning System (GPS), Industrial Internet of Things (IIoT) sensors,
Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) tags, smart sensors, images or
video feeds from cameras, results in improved visibility and fault de-
tection (Rai, Tiwari, Ivanov, and Dolgui, 2021) [48]. A connected and
collaborative supply chain has the following features – 1) Connected
through sensors, GPS and RFID to Cloud or the Edge network, and
generate data continuously to make real-time decisions 2) Optimized
to allow automated workflows and continuous tracking 3) Transparent
to provide end to end visibility in real-time for converting data to ac-
tionable insights 4) Proactive to anticipate and act before issues occur
through predictive capabilities using real-time data 5) Agile to adapt
and self configure in response to the changes (Burke et al., 2017) [14].
These factors work together to enable synchronized cognitive decision-
making close to the event horizon and pervasive visibility. Synchronized
response underlines the importance of ‘shared information and process
alignment’ by all participants (Christopher, 2016) [18] for a coordinated
recovery across the supply chain.
2.4. Edge Computing and Distributed Decision Processing in real time
“Edge” computing is a framework with computing and storage re-
sources between the data sources and cloud data centers near the source
of data generation (Dobrescu et al., 2021) [25]. The intermediaries with
such computing and storage facilities are variously referred to as edge
cloud, cloudlet, Fog, or microdata centers (Satyanarayan, 2017) [50].
Fog computing, a decentralized approach compared with the Cloud, op-
erates on network edges and provides ‘compute, storage, control, and
networking closer to the end-users.’ (Matt, 2018) [39]. Proximity to the
end-users or sources of data is crucial for latency minimization (Grover
and Garimella, 2019) [5]. Edge nodes (which can be integrated with
the devices generating data like the camera for vision-based inferenc-
ing), can also encapsulate the logic for inferencing and provide tempo-
rary storage and logic for transmitting the insights to other connected
systems (Dobrescu et al., 2021) [25]. Other possible options include an
edge server or a gateway handling bulk of the processing of the com-
putation logic and storage and pushing the data for persistent storage
(also called cold storage) into the Cloud or on-premise server (data cen-
ter). According to Satyanarayan (2017) [50], proximity matters because
it “affects end-to-end latency, economically viable bandwidth, the es-
tablishment of trust, and survivability.” Real-time decision-making and
analytics is a special type in which data should be processed in real-
time, as they are generated (Miloslevic et al., 2016) [40]. It does not al-
ways need a big data infrastructure (BDA) and can leverage edge nodes,
near or at the source of data generation. Processing information close to
the source minimizes the round trip time or latency and improves upon
the delay in data transmission associated with a regional cloud or an
on-premise data center (Bajic et al., 2020) [6]. Many edge nodes can
exist for data sources like RFID readers for product tracking, cameras
for vision data, GPS-enabled devices, temperature, pressure or vibration
sensors, and other IoT devices. The data processing can happen in a dis-
tributed or federated manner or with multiple data aggregators near the
sources, like edge gateways or hyperscaler edge clouds (Dobrescu et al.,
2021) [25]. The devices or edge clouds have limited processing power,
3
Sustainable Manufacturing and Service Economics 2 (2023) 100008
memory, and storage capacity for filtering and aggregating data and
analyzing it with the help of predictive models (Dobrescu et al., 2021)
[25]. The insights generated are shared across the connected network of
partners through a Digital Control Tower (DCT) that centralizes and dis-
seminates the information and insights. DCT provides a panoramic view
of business events such as supply-side disruptions, impending natural
disasters, or delays and risks (Trzuskawska-Grzesińska, 2017) [62] and
can be on an on-premise data center or a Cloud. Such information flow
and insight generation happen in real-time, and hence response to ma-
jor disruptive events like congestion in the material flow path can be
generated quickly and holistically across the partner network (Ivanov
and Dolgui, 2020) [31].
3. Methodology
The literature review process enables getting insights from a plethora
of knowledge bases available for a specific line of inquiry by assess-
ing and synthesizing the existing body of knowledge (Tranfield, Denyer,
and Smart, 2003) [61]. The value of the literature review is in the re-
searcher’s ability to fully comprehend the phenomenon under study and
create scope for future research (Levy and Ellis, 2006; Webster and Wat-
son, 2002) [37,65]. A quality literature review must possess “depth and
rigor.” It needs to follow a proper method for selecting articles and deriv-
ing insight (Snyder, 2019) [57]. A quality review should also be replica-
ble (Snyder, 2019) [57]. According to Webster and Watson (2002) [65],
if there is not enough literature available on, for instance, emerging
topics that would need a theoretical framework, the review of current
literature on the emerging topic would be short. The author can con-
tribute to developing a conceptual framework. As part of this research
we develop a conceptual framework encompassing real time informa-
tion flow in predicting and notifying about disruption and a digital con-
trol tower signifying centralized visibility. A thematic analysis among
selected articles to identify, assess, and leverage the prevalent ideas in
the extant literature helps develop a conceptual framework (Corbin and
Strauss, 1990; Strauss and Corbin, 1998) [20,58]. An integrative litera-
ture review is done to ‘assess, critique, and synthesize’ the literature on
a specific subject for developing new concepts and frameworks (Snyder,
2019) [57]. Integrative literature reviews can address new or emergent
topics such as edge computing, where the focus is “preliminary con-
ceptualization” (Torraco, 2005) [63]. This review aims to synthesize
the literature to integrate ideas and create a cohesive framework that
addresses the business problem of developing resilience in the supply
chain. The common methods of synthesizing include creating a concep-
tual model (Torraco, 2005) [63] that is presented in this paper as a
research outcome. The conceptual framework, validated by the synthe-
sized body of knowledge, addresses the research questions posed earlier.
ProQuest and Scopus are the databases used in the search process, fol-
lowing the leading research in this area. The keywords used are (Edge
Computing AND Supply Chain resilience) OR (Edge Analytics AND Sup-
ply Chain) OR (Edge Computing AND Supply Chain Agility) OR (Edge
computing AND Supply Chain visibility). Peer-reviewed full-text articles
are selected because of their reliability as they are 1) written chiefly
by researchers 2) provide a detailed methodology. The contents of the
eligible papers undergo a thorough analysis using their full text. The
thematic analysis phase is the input to the reporting and dissemination
stage prescribed by Tranfield et al. (2003) [61]. Books, conference ma-
terials, newspaper articles, and other secondary sources are excluded
from the integrative literature review scope as they belong to the 1st
tier of gray literature (Adams et al., 2016) [67].
The outcome of the literature review presents four critical factors
shaping Industrial IoT (IIoT) in general and edge/Fog in particular -
Security, Integration Architecture, Deployment, and Data Governance.
The different components underneath these four classes help in unravel-
ing the proposed framework. The recency of the articles is an important
consideration, and hence we focus on the last five years of data. The
scope of our research is limited to edge and Fog computing as part of
S. Dey Sustainable Manufacturing and Service Economics 2 (2023) 100008

Table 1
Inclusion-Exclusion criteria.

ProQuest Stage 1 Article Source

Inclusion - Peer Reviewed Journals, Full Text, English Language
Exclusion - Editorials, Conference Proceedings, Correspondence, News, Industry Reports, and Interviews
Stage 2 Subject wise
Exclusion - Big Data, Sustainability, Blockchain, Cryptography, Sustainable Development, COVID 19, Social Network, Climate
change, Business Model, Competition, CoronaVirus, Pandemic, Food, Research & Development, Smart Cities, Agriculture,
Environmental impact, Product Development, Knowledge Management, Marketing, Developing Countries, Mathematical
models, Economic development, Business competition, Robotics, Digital currencies, Employees, Computer Simulation,
Economic growth, Mathematical analysis, E-commerce, Healthcare, Factories, Simulation
Scopus Stage 2 Subject wise
Inclusion - Computer Science, Engineering, Business Management, Decision Sciences (Subject)
Exclusion - Social sciences, Environmental science, Mathematics, Material science, Energy, Physics and Astronomy, Chemistry,
Biology, Genetics, Chemical engineering, Geosciences

Table 2
Integrative Literature Review Process Flow.

Database Stage 1 - Identification and Planning Stage 2 - Development Apply Filters and Exclusion Stage 3 - Dissemination and Summary

Common Apply Keywords. Full text-based search on Peer-Reviewed articles from Scholarly Journals as the source, sorted by relevance. Last five years from 2017 to
2022. English Language articles only
ProQuest

• Initial Total number of articles - 3174
• Excluding Editorials, Conference
Proceedings, Correspondence, News,
Industry Reports, and Interviews
• Total number of articles - 3098
Scopus Initial Total number of articles - 2819
Applying filters on the source - article,
journal, final publications, and taking the
last five years of articles
Total number of articles - 1298
• Applying Exclusion/Filter criteria total number of
unique articles - 898
• Removing articles that do not have a DoI, we have
a total of 821 unique articles
• Eliminating 34 duplicate articles, of which one
appears four times, we have a total of 803 unique
articles
• Eliminating non-journal articles, we have a total
of 775 articles for Title based search. No
duplicates are found in Scopus.
• Title based search
• Duplicate analysis based on Titles - 145 duplicate
articles
• Apply scope on the titles - Supply Chain, internet
of things, Fog, edge, cloud, industry 4.0
• The final list of 115 unique article
• Applying Exclusion/Filter criteria total number of
unique articles - 728
• Removing articles that do not have a DoI, we have
a total of 711 unique articles
• No duplicate articles based on titles found
• No duplicates with ProQuest found
• Overall Search Results
• Phase 1
• Initial total number of articles - 4396
• Before scope-based filtering, the total number of
articles is 1486. One duplicate article is identified.
The total number of articles is 1485
• After Scope based filtering and removing
duplicates, the total number of articles is 229
• Phase 2 - Title and Abstract based content search
• Only keep articles whose Title and abstract
pertain to the following-
• Supply Chain in Industry 4.0, 5G Technologies
with Multi-Access Edge, Industrial IoT, and Fog or
Edge Computing.
• Filter out Blockchain or DLT
• A total of 49 articles are identified based on Title
and abstract on the application of edge and fog
computing and IIoT in supply chain and industry
4.0
• Phase 3 - Full Body search and Content Analysis
• A total of 10 articles are selected for content
analysis and integrative review based on full-text
analysis and their relevance to the subject under
study, i.e., the applicability of edge and fog
computing in supply chain and industry 4.0

Title based search

• Apply scope on the titles - Supply Chain, internet

of things, Fog, edge, cloud, industry 4.0, a unique
list of 114 articles are found for Title and Abstract
based content analysis

Industrial IoT (IIoT) and their applicability in the supply chain and In-
dustry 4.0.
The inclusion-exclusion framework, which should be comprehensive
for replicability (Randolph, 2009) [68], is provided in Table 1.
Overall Process Flow for Literature Review is presented in Table 2.
The above explicit criteria and systematic approach help reduce the
bias (Snyder, 2019) [57]. The limited number of final articles is justified
in an integrative review as the purpose is not to review all articles on the
topic but rather to ‘combine perspectives and insights.’ (Snyder, 2019)
[57].
The Design Science Research Methodology (DSRM) (Peffers et al.,
2014) [46] is specifically developed for research in Information Systems
and is critical in creating artifacts. The DSRM framework comprises six
steps - Problem Identification and Motivation, Definition of the Objec-
tives for the Solution, Design and Development, Demonstration, Eval-
uation, and Communication (Haße et al., 2019; Peffers et al., 2007)
[28,46]. The research entry points correspond to the phases as depicted
in Fig. 1. The phases of DSRM are mapped to the sections in the paper.
A conceptual framework provides an interpretive approach and an un-
derstanding of the phenomenon and can be developed from qualitative
studies like a literature synthesis (Jabareen, 2009) [49]. The conceptual
framework encapsulates the concepts and can serve the future research
agenda (Jabareen, 2009) [49]. This paper has adopted a Problem cen-
tered approach, and the business problem formulation regarding supply
chain resilience is discussed in Section 2. Section 4 integrates the theory
based on the integrative literature review. Section 5 discusses the model
and comes up with the research proposition. We have left the demon-
stration and validation as research gaps to be explored in subsequent re-
search. The outcome of this research is a set of design propositions as a
prescriptive framework using CIMO logic offered by Denyer et al. (2008)
[71]. CIMO stands for Context (C) or the Problem for which the design
proposition suggests an Intervention (I), to produce intended Outcomes
(O), through specified Mechanisms (M) (Denyer, Tranfield, and Aken,
2008) [71].

4
S. Dey
4. Integrated Literature Review Findings
The findings are listed in a Concept Matrix in Appendix A, which syn-
thesizes the points of maximal interest in framing a conceptual model.
A total of 10 articles are selected for thematic analysis.
4.1. Security, Privacy and Mobility
Security vulnerabilities and challenges in industrial IoT in the de-
vices that generate data to be processed in real-time are matters of con-
cern. Wang et al. (2021) [69] point out the different vulnerabilities and
potential solutions in the form of stronger encryption for data at rest
and data in transit, multi-factor authentication for access, network pro-
tection, and authorized access to the devices. With many distributed
devices, the security of data and devices remains a prime concern be-
cause of the potential exposure to vulnerabilities, and monitoring re-
mains a key deterrent (Wang et al., 2021) [69]. The different types of
security issues can be in the form of Sybil attacks, Sleep deprivation
attacks, false data injection, unauthorized attacks, distributed denial of
services, among others (Wang et al., 2021) [69]. Dobrescu et al. (2021)
[25] claim that security at the edge computing level is improved through
better cybersecurity measures regarding access control, authentication,
and data integrity. Only authorized devices should access the network
(Paudel and Neupane, 2021) [44]. Edge computing minimizes network
traffic and improves in-transit data security (Bajic et al., 2020) [6].
Edge computation may reduce energy consumption while improving re-
sponse time (Paudel and Neupane, 2021) [44]. Encryption and crypto-
graphic algorithms and security protocols (Secure Socket Layer (SSL)
and Transport Layer Security (TLS)) are used in data transmission be-
tween devices, edge, and Cloud, and the data stored in edge is encrypted
(Paudel and Neupane, 2021) [44]. Only lightweight encryption should
be used for data in-store on the devices owing to their processing power
limitations (Paudel and Neupane, 2021) [44]. Edge devices are more
vulnerable, especially in interconnecting a large pool of heterogeneous
resource-constrained nodes (Sulieman et al., 2022) [59]. Autonomous
and remote management using an orchestrator help in reducing overall
management costs and also make the application fault-tolerant through
distributed processing (Sulieman et al., 2022) [59]. Location and con-
text awareness and mobility are the clear benefits of Fog and edge com-
puting compared to the Cloud (Basir et al., 2019; Matt, 2018; Ometov
et al., 2022) [7,39,42]. Basir et al. (2019) [7] consider several chal-
lenges in cloud computing like delays in propagation and transmission,
bandwidth challenges, resource management, security, energy, and mo-
bility, and recommend Fog computing for industrial IoT applications.
Fog computing ensures security as data can be processed on-premise.
The cost-effectiveness of Fog computing stems from its heterogeneity of
5
Sustainable Manufacturing and Service Economics 2 (2023) 100008
Fig. 1. Mapping between the research entry
stages, the phases of DSRM, and the article sec-
tions.
devices (Basir et al., 2019) [7]. The complexity and distribution of edge
nodes make them difficult to secure from vulnerabilities (Ometov et al.,
2022) [42]. Identity and location privacy can be compromised in edge
and Fog computing (Ometov et al., 2022) [42].
4.2. Architecture
Three-layered architecture with devices, intermediaries, an edge
or edge cloud, with variations based on business needs, form the
architectural backbone. A Service-Oriented Architecture is used across
a heterogeneous system to serve business needs along multiple dimen-
sions covering the layers of sensing, data access, middleware, network,
and application layers (Paudel and Neupane, 2021; Wang et al., 2021)
[44,69]. Dobrescu et al. (2021) [25] distinguish among edge, Fog, and
Mist computing paradigms. Edge is the broader umbrella term compris-
ing Fog computing, a gateway layer intermediate between the Cloud
and the devices, and Mist computing with embedded limited computing
power (Dobrescu et al., 2021; Ometov et al., 2022) [25,42]. Edge devices
can be vertically linked with the Cloud, with or without the gateways
and cloudlets, and also horizontally across other device ecosystems,
enabling synchronization and coordination for actuation functions
in a protocol-agnostic way (Dobrescu et al., 2021) [25]. Achir et al.
(2022) [1] propose a perception layer, abstraction or transport layer,
service management or middleware layer, application layer, and the
management layer for the Industrial IoT architecture. The last three can
be done in the edge gateways. In general, Fog computing can address lo-
cation and context awareness, supports mobility interoperability across
devices, and improves real-time messaging (Achir et al., 2022) [1]. Edge
gateways can be used for running latency-sensitive applications, real-
time analytics, and preprocessing data aggregated from the sensors to be
sent to the Cloud (Achir et al., 2022) [1]. Perception layer sensors com-
municate through various protocols and interfaces with the IoT Gateway
that aggregates data and communicates with the edge cloud and Cloud.
Edge clouds or gateways are used to preprocess data to reduce band-
width network traffic and provide low latency computation for real-time
decisions (Paudel and Neupane, 2021) [44]. Cellular technologies such
as 4G Long Term Evolution (LTE) and its variants LTE-M (Machine-
Type) or LTE-A(advanced) are preferable for connecting devices across
a diverse ecosystem because of their ubiquity (Paudel and Neupane,
2021) [44]. An edge architecture can also be divided into the near, mid-
dle, and far edge (Sulieman et al., 2022) [59] and therefore represents
an edge continuum rather than one entity. An overall management
or control tower layer monitors and governs the network for dynamic
adaptation to the context (Sulieman et al., 2022) [59], thus building
resilience. Marir et al. (2022) [38] define Fog architecture based on
Open fog consortium recommended features: distribution, low latency,
S. Dey
location awareness, real-time interactions, mobility, heterogeneity, and
interoperability. Cloud and edge are not competitors but complement
each other (Ometov et al., 2022) [42]. Fog nodes support data aggre-
gation and can be organized in clusters across devices in a federated
manner, across layers, and are responsible for reducing the data traffic to
the Cloud (Ometov et al., 2022) [42]. Ometov et al. (2022) [42] provide
a comparison across the edge, Fog, and cloud topologies along different
dimensions of Architecture (centralized vs. distributed), security,
energy consumption, latency, mobility, location awareness, bandwidth,
storage, and scalability. Edge and Fog support the distributed paradigm
with lower energy consumption and latency and limited storage and
cost, making them ideal for decisions triggered by disruptive events.
4.3. Deployment
The deployment process covers two vital aspects: application deploy-
ment and task or services deployment. Limited-scale dataset analysis
can be performed using edge computing to build and deploy predic-
tive models like fault analysis (Bajic et al., 2020) [6]. Edge devices can
provide deployment management, real-time data processing, predictive
and monitoring, and device management capabilities using appropri-
ate applications (Bajic et al., 2020) [6]. The devices should be updated
with patches and upgrades Over the Air (OTA) (Paudel and Neupane,
2021) [44]. Hyperscalers such as Azure IoT Edge and Amazon AWS edge
offer pre-deployed edge solutions (Sulieman et al., 2022) [59] and mi-
cro clouds like Outpost. Event-driven models are flexible, resilient, and
decoupled from each other to prevent any centralized point of failure
(Sulieman et al., 2022) [59]. Deployment of specific tasks and appli-
cations can happen in a loosely coupled distributed architecture across
devices, or the deployment process can be governed (Almutairi and Al-
dossary, 2021) [4]. An edge orchestrator can manage the governance or
task and resource allocation (Almutairi and Aldossary, 2021) [4]. The
deployment process covered in the literature does not cover the applica-
tion deployment and operations part. For example, the applications are
often deployed as microservices and communicate through Application
Programming Interfaces or API. The services are often governed while
performing specific tasks. These aspects are hardly covered in any of the
articles.
4.4. Data Governance
Data governance is one of the most challenging parts of the edge
computing paradigm. On the one hand, the normal data stream must
be distinguished from the deviations or outliers that are signs of disrup-
tions. On the other hand, false positives and negatives, and noises in
the data should be ignored. Outlier analysis is performed on the data
generated by the sensors to check on sensor malfunctioning (Paudel
and Neupane, 2021) [44]. A similar outlier analysis can be done on
the real-time data from the various data sources in a supply chain con-
text to detect disruptions or deviations of data from the normal. Edge
also helps in reducing the data volume to be sent to the Cloud for ad-
vanced analytics and centralized processing (Achir et al., 2022; Bajic
et al., 2020) [1,6]. Different formats and data structures are applicable
in a real-time scenario, including structured streaming data from the
sensors, semi-structured (JSON or XML files, Application Programming
Interface or APIs), and unstructured data like images or videos (Paudel
and Neupane, 2021) [44]. Transformation (preprocessing), integration,
storage, and analysis of these data are the key components of the data
governance model. Data that is not needed for time-sensitive or critical
processing can be sent to Cloud or centralized platforms, making a clear
distinction between Fog/edge and Cloud (Matt, 2018) [39]. Small and
Medium-sized enterprises do not have the resources to manage private
clouds. Hence, an edge or Fog-based model helps them build needed ad-
vanced analytics capabilities with real-time critical data without large
investments in the private Cloud or data risks in the public Cloud (Matt,
2018) [39]. As proposed by Almutairi and Aldossary (2021) [4], the data
6
Sustainable Manufacturing and Service Economics 2 (2023) 100008
governance and workflow model incorporates the following sequence
of data handling. Starting with aggregation from various devices, pre-
processing the aggregated data, feeding the data to the gateway node
or edge, caching data, and detecting action patterns. It then illustrates
the storage in edge or Fog nodes, running the ML model for prediction,
alerts, and notifications based on continuous monitoring of deviations
and disruptive events, it ends with consuming data for tracking status
and understanding of location and context in a centralized node.
4.5. Overall Design Framework
The integrated literature review validates the assumption that an
edge computing paradigm will reduce the overall cost of decision-
making under disruption scenarios by reducing data to be mined and
analyzed and by making rapid decisions and flow of information. Al-
though there are concerns with the security of data in transit, it is also
agreed that the vulnerabilities can be reduced with a well-planned secu-
rity governance framework like authentication, encryption, and central-
ized monitoring. Across all studies, the architecture is split into multiple
layers - the perception or sense, the governance and aggregation, and the
processing and control layer. Deployment of the application, especially
where edge node clusters are involved, is challenging, and the applica-
tions may be deployed as microservices, communicating via API, and
the coordination is managed through an orchestrator layer. However,
data governance is a real challenge that the literature does not address.
It is non-trivial to identify a potential disruption with the continuous
stream of the data entering the devices and distinguish between the
unimportant and the important information. Therefore continuous mon-
itoring, preprocessing, and sensing, become critical capabilities. In the
absence of historical data mining or enterprise transactional software,
smaller enterprises will have to depend only on analyzing data flowing
in real-time for information and visibility. The framework for achiev-
ing performance outcomes in supply chain based on real-time data for
a resource-constrained organization is a gap in the reviewed literature.
Processing at the edge helps in localizing the data near the source or
the perception layer, improving security and governance, and reduces
the congestion or data volume to be transferred to centralized reposito-
ries like Cloud (Achir et al., 2022; Paudel and Neupane, 2021) [1,44].
It therefore helps in reducing energy consumption aiding in sustainabil-
ity, and reduces the distance traversed by the data and insights to reach
the consuming layer, reducing latency and facilitating rapid decisioning
(Ometov et al., 2022) [42].
5. Discussions and Design Propositions
5.1. Building Resilience in Supply Chain: Edge-based Real-Time
Decision-Making Framework
Early Warning, Rapid Information Flow, and Collaborative Supply Chain
help build Supply Chain Resilience in response to the rapid changes or signif-
icant disruptions.
Decision synchronization and alignment of the processes are criti-
cal responses towards disruption in a collaborative supply chain (Pa-
padopoulos et al., 2017; Singh et al., 2019) [43,56]. An early warning
system built through real-time information sharing and synchronized
decision making is critical for preparing, responding to, and recover-
ing from significant disruptions by reducing their severity of impact
(Scholten and Schilder, 2015) [55]. Information sharing enhances visi-
bility, flexibility, and velocity (Scholten & Schilder, 2015) [55]. Visibil-
ity is thus an outcome of collaboration and information flow (Scholten
and Schilder, 2015) [55]. Prevention of disruption propagation or ripple
effect and development of resilience is dependent on the availability of
data (Ivanov and Dolgui, 2020) [31] for real-time communication to the
collaborating partners. The proactive control may use historical data for
learning from actual disruptions and building models. In contrast, the
S. Dey
reactive stage uses real-time event data from process feedback like sen-
sors, tracking, and tracing (RFID, GPS, Blockchain) for recovery simula-
tion using the “Plan-Monitor-Adjust-Control” loop (Ivanov and Dolgui,
2020) [31]. Adapting AI in the supply chain helps trigger an immediate
alarm and improves learning and adaptation through dynamic assess-
ment and risk response triggers (Das et al., 2021) [23]. Proactive mea-
sures like additional inventory, alternative supplier networks, alternate
transportation mediums, alternate facilities, and routes, for building re-
silience, come with additional cost and depend on predictive capabilities
(Baryannis et al., 2019) [9].
Real-Time Monitoring and Reconfiguring Supply Chain through Predic-
tive Actions and Alerts enable Early Warning and Rapid Information Flow
and thus strengthen Supply Chain Resilience in a collaborative and networked
partner ecosystem.
Digitalization is the use of digital data and technologies to change or
reconfigure supply chain processes to improve capabilities and flexibili-
ties through real-time communication and visibility (Ivanov et al., 2019)
[33]. An increase in visibility reduces risk. Tracking and Tracing sys-
tems, using RFID and mobile device data on Blockchain or AI-based ana-
lytics, provide the capability of rapid information flow and transparency
(Ivanov et al., 2019) [33]. Supply chains with automated information
flow respond quickly through predictive capabilities, early warning sys-
tems, or self-adjusting capabilities driven by a dynamic process of learn-
ing through real-time information flow (Al-Talib et al., 2020) [3]. The
application of streaming data and advanced analytics can identify the
risk exposure and monitor disruptions (Ivanov and Dolgui, 2020) [31].
For instance, active monitoring of GPS data provides immediate con-
gestion information on the route. Alternative routes are identified, and
the cost and lead time are optimized to recommend a new route (Level-
ing et al., 2014) [36]. Some real-life examples of major reconfigurations
driven by proactive monitoring of disruptions include A) Reconfiguring
nodes in a supply chain in response to a climatic/pandemic/geopolitical
risk. B) Collaborative re-planning and forecasting adjustments induced
by a significant shift in consumer preference C) Predicting possible
catastrophic machine failure from monitoring of sensor data and re-
aligning operational plan D) Intelligent redistribution or replenishment
of store inventory for synchronization with unplanned demand shift E)
Supply route/network/mode reconfiguration in response to catastrophic
events. On-time monitoring of disruptive events, using a digital infras-
tructure, rapid information flow across the connected supply network,
and consequent collaborative and agile planning reconfigures the sup-
ply chain for better risk response planning(Ivanov, Dolgui and Sokolov,
2019) [70]. It reduces both the severity and impact of the disruption.
In short, real-time monitoring, adaptive and dynamic planning, and col-
laborative information flow, together enable the supply chain to evolve
with the rapidly changing demands of the environment and develop re-
silience . It can ensure continuity of demand fulfillment in the face of
disruptions (Namdar et al., 2018) [41] and, therefore, significantly im-
prove long-term supply chain performance (Belhadi et al., 2021) [10].
Real-Time Monitoring and Decision Making in a Connected Supply Chain
can be achieved through Distributed Information Processing in the “edge” or
near the source of data and instantaneous dissemination of insights through
a Digital Control Tower for pervasive visibility and action
Real-time data is “data in motion” that is continuously streamed from
a source like RFID tags (in the presence of a reader), GPS (outdoor),
sensors, camera (vision systems), and other sources. Real-time systems
process event data as they occur, within a specified interval, which can
be as low as a few milliseconds. Latency is the time delay between the
cause and effect of a physical event under observation (Miloslevic et al.,
2016) [40]. Latency can be reduced if data is processed near the source
of data generation. The reduction in latency is achieved by three preva-
lent mechanisms (Cao, Wachowicz, and Cha, 2017) [15] 1) Multi-Access
Edge (MEC) (Taleb et al., 2017) [60], very significant and widely preva-
lent in the 5G era of computing (Dolgui and Ivanov, 2022) [24] 2) Fog
computing 3) Cloudlets or micro data centers. MEC is a cellular network
paradigm, especially relevant for 5G, where storage and computational
7
Sustainable Manufacturing and Service Economics 2 (2023) 100008
capacities are located in base stations, often at the premises (Hassan
et al., 2021) [29]. Fog computing enables local fog nodes or commodity
hardware devices, such as switches and routers, for basic inferencing
(Hassan et al., 2021) [29]. Cloudlets are self-managing, decentralized,
distributed infrastructure for insight generation, mini data centers near
data sources (Satyanarayana, 2017) [50]. In all these cases, the data
from different sources are sampled, aggregated, filtered, processed, and
forwarded as insights to the Digital Control Tower (DCT) on a Cloud.
Different partner devices like mobiles and handhelds are connected se-
curely to the DCT. The DCT encompasses the edge devices and gateways,
the analytics dashboard on the Cloud for complete visibility, and the
partner devices to which the insights and alerts are forwarded in real-
time through a connected ecosystem provided by a private network.
One of the key characteristics of real-time data is that it is a continuous
stream of information that needs to be monitored to detect anomalies
and disruptive events. Some of the data is processed in memory at the
edge gateway. The remaining data need to go for cold storage to the
data store. Such a real-time framework does not need a major invest-
ment in the form of a Big Data infrastructure and can be adopted even
by a supply chain for a low digital footprint, resource-constrained fo-
cal entity. Cold storing a large amount of streaming data generated will
increase the cost of storage. Therefore context-aware and cognitive pro-
cessing in the edge help reduce the data volume and cost (Lee and Lee,
2015) [35] thereby helping improve sustainability. The data governance
framework needs to identify the false positives and negatives from the
real disruption scenario. While false positives are tolerable, false nega-
tives put the business at risk since real disruptions are ignored. One of
the mechanisms to identify disruption is outlier analysis in the data. The
data distributions for normal and outlier scenarios differ, and such dif-
ferences manifest as anomalies in the data. The data governance frame-
work a) aggregates, filters, preprocesses, and assimilates the stream of
normal data b) divides the aggregated and accepted data storage be-
tween edge and Cloud depending on the predefined threshold and c)
continuously monitors for detection of anomalies and disruption events
like breaching of a threshold by minimizing false positives while elim-
inating the possibility of false negatives. Anomalies are sparse, and it
is challenging to differentiate them in the data from the noise or ran-
dom outliers (Cissokho et al., 2020) [19]. Continuous streaming data
can be analyzed using synopsis methods such as reservoir sampling or
sliding windows. The computation framework should run AI models on
edge in a distributed fashion, generating alerts and notifications and up-
dating location and context information for actions. The analytical and
visibility tower aggregates information from the distributed sources and
shares it with each subscriber node in a connected supply chain partner
network. The resulting rapid information dissemination with the collab-
orative partners enables coordinated and quick response to emerging
disruptions.
The overall model in Fig. 2 depicts a collaborative, connected
supplier-partner ecosystem as a prerequisite for rapid information flow,
assured through a data processing and insight generation platform
that operates in a distributed way. The perception layer contains the
data generating devices and systems like sensors, RFID readers, video,
GIS data, point of sale systems, inventory systems, route conditions,
and weather API that continuously stream data. The generated data
are ingested via API or message queues and constantly monitored for
abnormalities. The alerts are triggered based on the occurrence of a
disruptive event like a breach of a threshold or the detection of an
anomaly in the edge nodes, and in-memory data analytics transform
them to actionable insights like alternate identification as shown in
Fig. 3. The insights and the aggregated data are sent to the Control
Tower (DCT) in a data center edge, on-premise edge gateway with
higher computational and storage, edge cloud, or in the Cloud. DCT
governs information dissemination to the connected ecosystem and
ensures transparency and visibility for real-time adoption of collabora-
tive measures, like rerouting goods or rebalancing inventory positions.
The control tower may consist of a focal firm controlled analytics
S. Dey Sustainable Manufacturing and Service Economics 2 (2023) 100008

Fig. 2. Model for Real-Time Information Flow and Impact on Disruption.

Fig. 3. The real-time decision flow through the edge and the digital contol tower model.

dashboard in the Cloud that can be accessed by the handheld devices of
the suppliers who can view the statuses in near real-time in a secured
way. In this way, the decisions are synchronized and coordinated
across all nodes of the connected chain. Information processing in
this model thus represents an embedded system “enmeshed within its
context” (Orlikowski & Iacono, 2001) [73] and is therefore of strategic
value (Barney, 1991) [8]. This active monitoring and real-time flow
help develop resiliency over time through suppressing ripple effects
and reducing the severity of the impact with the help of mitigating
actions and coordinated contingency responses. Catastrophic failures
are prevented through coordinated rapid responses enabled by the
insights. The depicted model resonates with the ‘lambda architecture’
proposed by Haße et al. for real-time data processing in logistics (Haße
et al., 2019) [28] but precludes the need for Big data (BDA) and hence
is broader in context. Therefore, this model is ideal for the digitally
weaker firms with a low investment capacity in enterprise software
infrastructure, like small and medium businesses. Such businesses can
still develop resilience and agility depending only on the real-time data
analysis and visibility, using edge applications in commodity hardware
on-premise or low-cost edge clouds. Such a model of operation will help

8
S. Dey
bring down the overall energy cost and cost of operations (Paudel and
Neupane, 2021) [44] and will also drive down investment in IT infras-
tructure. We can thus frame a response to the first RQ, that real-time
information analytics in resource-constrained organizations devoid of
Big data (BDA) infrastructure can help generate resilience as outcome.
5.2. Implications and Propositions
The research questions with which the study begins, based on the in-
formation gained through the integrated review and the proposed frame-
work, can be answered as the following propositions based on Fig. 4 that
provides the research summary as a model.
Design Proposition 1 (P1) - Resource-constrained organizations devoid
of large investments in enterprise Big data (BDA) infrastructure can achieve
a business outcome like resilience and visibility in the supply chain through
real-time, context-driven information mining
Monitoring the continuous stream of real-time information from the
connected nodes in a supply chain establishes the twin capabilities of
visibility and resilience. This outcome is achieved through edge-based
decentralized contextual decision-making and subscription to the cen-
tralized digital control tower for location and context awareness. This
proposition is derived from response to RQ1.
Design Proposition 2 (P2) - Early Warning, Rapid Information Flow, Col-
laborative Partner Network, Distributed Processing in Edge Nodes, and Cen-
tralized Control Tower for rapid visibility are the key factors that influence
decision-making through real-time information mining
The early warning system develops from predictive capabilities in
the edge for reducing latency and accelerates the information flow
across connected distributed nodes. Distributed processing in edge en-
sures local information, near data generation sources, through data ag-
gregation. Contextual and locational information are sent to a central-
ized cloud or edge cloud-based repository, with higher storage and com-
puting power, for distribution across subscribed nodes. Every connected
partner gets visibility to the disruption information, thus reducing infor-
mation asymmetry. The factors influencing real time decision-making
include collaborative and interconnected partner networks, distributed
9
Sustainable Manufacturing and Service Economics 2 (2023) 100008
Fig. 4. Research Summary: Integrating the
Technology Enablers as Intervention, Business
Contexts, antecedents as and consequences like
collaboration and real time data as Mechanisms
and Resilience and Agility as Outcome.
processing for reducing latency, and centralized visibility. Thus RQ2 is
responded to.
Design Proposition 3 (P3) - Edge analytics enable rapid real-time infor-
mation flow within the constraints of computational resources and yet ensure
visibility and resilience as business outcomes
Edge computing can help reduce the information overload on the
Cloud by storing and processing data in a distributed manner. Edge
framework helps in reducing the overall delays in decision-making. As
rapid information flow is critical in a disruption scenario, edge comput-
ing reduces information asymmetry across the partner network. Cen-
tralized contextual information from edge clouds, apart from alerts and
notifications, helps the partners understand the source and the nature of
disruptions. The participating entities can thereby undertake a coordi-
nated risk mitigation strategy. The proximity of edge devices to the data
sources and the data consumers ensure rapid information, real time vis-
ibility and adaptability in responding to the disruptions, thus resulting
in a response to the RQ3. These propositions are structured as interven-
tions.
The CIMO framework for the design propositions can thus be posited
as: Context - Supply chain disruptions, Mechanism - Antecedents as
Connected Collaborative partner ecosystem and Consequence as real
time rapid information flow, Intervention - continuous monitoring, early
warning, real time distributed information processing at the edge, and
the digital control tower for visibility, Outcome - agility and resilience.
The given propositions are the design interventions that can be adopted
for addressing the problem area in the framework proposed.
5.3. Challenges
Some of the core challenges of an edge-based solution include het-
erogeneity of devices and communication protocols that poses integra-
tion and interoperability challenges, geographic spread of diversified
and distributed nodes, their connectivity and coordination, especially
in the context of real-time interactions, management, and orchestration
needs and effort (governance), and security vulnerabilities for data in
transit (Matt 2018). Edge computing suffers from inherent limitations
such as storage, memory and processing power, security of data in tran-
S. Dey
sit, performance under load, scalability of the solution, monitoring and
management across many devices, dynamic resource allocation needs
(Almutairi and Aldossary, 2021) [4], and data governance. One of the
vital components of the solution framework is data governance - identi-
fication of disruption from normal data and avoiding false positives and
especially negatives or noises from the data.
5.4. Research Agenda
The model or the framework proposed need to be validated empir-
ically. The propositions can be empirically validated with the help of
one or more case studies. Single case studies are accepted in IS litera-
ture (Levina and Ross, 2003; Seidel et al., 2013) [72,75] as they allow
researchers to develop a deep understanding of the application in their
context (Orlikowski and Iacono, 2001; Seidel et al., 2013) [74] [75] and
the actions taken by the organization. Specifically, single case studies
are appropriate if the case under scrutiny is critical, extreme, unique,
or revelatory (Dubé and Paré 2003) [76]. Eisenhardt (1989) [74] notes
that the ideal number should be between four to ten cases for case-based
research. Depending on the paucity and sparsity of relevant work, one
or more case studies are considered. However, if multiple case studies
are not available in the emerging digital technology areas for supply
chains, at least one case study will be considered. The case study will be
critical for understanding how a real-time decision framework helps in
a distributed processing environment to develop resilience and visibility
as key outcomes in the supply chain. The conceptual framework devel-
oped will be verified for the applicability of the concepts in achieving
the desired business outcome in a real organizational context. The de-
sign research framework with the aid of the case studies can demonstrate
the validity of the design propositions. The design research framework
can also promote organizational prototypes as proof.
The main objective of the qualitative researcher is to gain a com-
plete cognition of the topic of research (Polit and Beck, 2009) [77]. A
further qualitative research framework can be developed for develop-
ing a Grounded Theory based model illustrating the relationship (both
directional and causal) between the antecedents and the consequences
as well as the intended outcomes using semi structured interviews as in-
struments for data collection and thematic analysis using an interview
guide and a carefully selected sample of experts on supply chain disrup-
tion an edge computing (Krauss et al., 2009; Whiting, 2008) [79,78].
The meetings follow a Standardized Open-ended Interview Approach
(Turner, 2010) [51]. The coding process follows the method of compil-
ing the data into themes (Turner, 2010) [51]. These themes or codes
are consistent expressions or ideas common across the different inter-
view responses, and they help generate the conceptual framework at
a later stage. The focus areas are a connected partner ecosystem and
their collaboration for real time data and information sharing and pro-
cessing, continuous monitoring and sensing, a distributed computing
paradigm like edge and 5G with deployment, architectural considera-
tions and privacy, security and mobility features, and data governance
with overarching visibility from a centralized DCT. A subsequent quan-
titative model can be developed with the concepts from the grounded
theory as a sequential research by developing and empirically measur-
ing suitable constructs. The mediators and moderators among the latent
variables need to be identified and tested.
6. Conclusion
6.1. Summary
Supply chain resilience enables a firm to recover quickly from ma-
jor disruptions like disasters, delays, system breakdowns, and sudden
changes in demand. It is an adaptive capability dependent on enabling
responsive factors rather than proactive factors. The factors include real-
time monitoring, alerts, rapid information flow, flexibility to reconfig-
10
Sustainable Manufacturing and Service Economics 2 (2023) 100008
ure the supply chain in response to the disruptive event, and decision
synchronization in a connected, collaborative way among the ecosystem
partners. The agility in responding to a disruption arrests the severity
of impact and thereby suppresses the ripple effect that can paralyze the
entire supply chain. Information subsystems like AI analytics on edge
(sensors, RFID, GPS, and camera-based insights) provide the needed im-
petus to reconfigure the supply chain to respond rapidly to an event. A
rapid information flow needs to happen for taking coordinated actions
to prevent catastrophic failure. The rapid information flow is dependent
on a connected supply chain as a precondition, but it is not sufficient to
ensure resilience. What is needed is real-time information processing be-
cause any delay in the face of an impending disruption can be potentially
dangerous and debilitating. The framework that enables such real-time
distributed processing and rapid flow includes insights generation capa-
bility at the edge or near the sources of data and an overarching digital
control tower for ensuring visibility across all the connected nodes for
decision and action synchronization. The ensuing transparency enables
every entity to be aware of the decision undertaken by the focal firm and
act to reduce the magnitude of the impact, thus enabling a quick recov-
ery from the disruption. Real-life business case studies have validated
the usefulness of such a connected, agile, cognitive and collaborative
supply chain in responding to global disruptions.
6.2. Contributions and Gaps
The paper discusses a framework developing the intended busi-
ness outcome of resilience using only real-time data for a resource-
constrained organization like a small and medium business. Most of the
data mining and analytics literature works focus on Big data (BDA),
which implies investment in infrastructure and enterprise software for
large-scale storage and computation. By providing a model that can
help develop resilience and visibility as the outcome only from mon-
itoring and analyzing the data in real-time, the infrastructure needs
and costs can be reduced, providing a sustainable, energy-efficient, scal-
able and reliable solution. Edge computing and the Industrial Internet
of Things (IIoT) are emerging technologies in Industry 4.0. Commer-
cial and industry solutions exist to provide edge-based business solu-
tions. But the specific context of their application in developing sup-
ply chain resilience has not been explored much in the academic litera-
ture. Therefore this paper helps in framing an important area of research
by extending the topic of supply chain disruption and resilience to the
domain of Information Systems and emerging distributed technologies
like 5G and edge computing. As an outcome a set of design proposi-
tions are posited and research agenda identified. The Design Research
(DSRM) model adopted does not cover the three subsections of Demon-
stration, Evaluation, and Communication. Further research is needed to
explore its applicability in the context of an actual or simulated business
problem. The other potential areas of research include 1) developing a
theory from a qualitative research and a sequential quantitative model
validating the hypotheses from the design propositions 2) developing
algorithms that will detect deviations or outliers from real-time data
for identifying disruptions from noises 3) developing data governance
framework to reduce the data volume by processing and discarding irrel-
evant data, minimize false positives and eliminate false negatives from
continuous streaming data. Other research possibilities include integrat-
ing emerging technologies such as Blockchain with industrial IoT and
its impact on the intended business outcome of resilience, sustainabil-
ity, and visibility, and an assessment of 5G as an enabler of supply chain
resilience.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
S. Dey Sustainable Manufacturing and Service Economics 2 (2023) 100008

Data Availability Funding

Data will be made available on request. No grant has been provided for this research. This article is part of a
Doctoral thesis work.
Acknowledgement
Appendix A
We are thankful to the editor and the anonymous reviewer for their
help, support and guidance in improving the article. Concept Matrix - an Integrated Review of Edge Computing Literature

Topic/Subject Category Code Article Key Ideas/Theme

Industrial IoT Security Trust and Security Wang et al., 2021 [69] Distributed nature of devices induces many failure
points and vulnerabilities
Industrial IoT Architecture IoT Architecture Wang et al., 2021 [69] Multiple layers of abstraction for information
propagation and service orientation
Edge Computing Architecture Edge - Cloud Continuum Dobrescu et al., 2021 Proposes a Versatile Edge gateway layer connecting
[25] devices to the clouds for distributed processing,
reducing latency and reliability while improving costs
in Supply Chains
IoT Taxonomy Architecture Fog Computing Achir et al., 2022 [1] Fog and edge can be used to provide location and
context awareness, improve mobility and enable
real-time interactions
Real-Time Analytics Analytical Model Predictive Analytics Bajic et al., 2020 [6] Deployment of a predictive model in the edge and
Deployment in Edge processing of real production data for detection of
faults with minimal dataset and no-fault data in
training
Industrial IoT Architecture Real-Time Monitoring Paudel and Neupane, The architecture of a real-time monitoring system in
2021 [44] IoT and its implementation
Edge Computing Architecture and Edge - Cloud Continuum Sulieman et al., 2022 A Survey of edge applications, trends and the use
Governance [59] cases, challenges, and the architecture
Fog Computing in Classification and Fog Computing Matt, 2018 [39] The critical role played by the Fog computing in the
Industry 4.0 Application Industry 4.0 context, benefits and the challenges like
interoperability, integration & device heterogeneity
Fog Computing and IIoT Architecture and Fog Computing Basir et al., 2019 [7] Fog infrastructure and protocols and Fog as a critical
Governance enabler to the business domains in Industrial IoT
Security in Cloud, edge, Security Edge - Cloud Continuum Ometov et al., 2022 [42] Security and vulnerabilities in edge, Fog, and Cloud
and Fog
Offloading Tasks in Deployment and Edge Governance Almutairi and Aldossary, Task offloading (computation) by distributed devices
Distributed Processing Operations 2021 [4] to the edge and mechanisms of resource coordination
and orchestration

11
S. Dey
Reference
[1] M. Achir, A. Abdelli, L. Mokdad, J. Benothman, Service discovery and selection
in IoT: A survey and a taxonomy, Journal of Network and Computer Applications
(2022) 103331, doi:10.1016/j.jnca.2021.103331.
[2] Munoz Aneiros, A., & Dunbar, M. E. (2015). On the quantification of operational
supply chain resilience. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2015.1057296.
[3] M. Al-Talib, W.Y. Melhem, A.I. Anosike, J.A.G. Reyes, S.P. Nadeem, Achieving re-
silience in the supply chain by applying IoT technology, Procedia Cirp 91 (2020)
752–757, doi:10.1016/j.procir.2020.02.231.
[4] J. Almutairi, M. Aldossary, Modeling and analyzing offloading strategies of IoT
applications over edge computing and joint clouds, Symmetry 13 (3) (2021) 402,
doi:10.3390/sym13030402.
[5] J. Grover, R.M. Garimella, Optimization in Edge Computing and Small-Cell Net-
works, in: F. Al-Turjman (Ed.), Edge Computing, Springer International Publishing,
2019, pp. 17–31. Chapter 2.
[6] B. Bajic, N. Suzic, N. Simeunovic, S. Moraca, A. Rikalovic, Real-time Data Analytics
Edge Computing Application for Industry 4.0: The Mahalanobis-Taguchi Approach,
International Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management 11 (3) (2020) 145–
156 http://doi.org/10.24867/IJIEM- 2020- 3- 260.
[7] R. Basir, S. Qaisar, M. Ali, M. Aldwairi, M.I. Ashraf, A. Mahmood, M. Gidlund, Fog
computing enabling industrial internet of things: State-of-the-art and research chal-
lenges, Sensors 19 (21) (2019) 4807, doi:10.3390/s19214807.
[8] J. Barney, Competitive Advantage, Journal of Management 17 (1) (1991) 99–120.
[9] G. Baryannis, S. Validi, S. Dani, G. Antoniou, Supply chain risk management and
artificial intelligence: state of the art and future research directions, International
Journal of Production Research 57 (7) (2019) 2179–2202, doi:10.1080/00207543.
2018.1530476.
[10] A. Belhadi, V. Mani, S.S. Kamble, S.A.R. Khan, S. Verma, Artificial intelligence-
driven innovation for enhancing supply chain resilience and performance under the
effect of supply chain dynamism: an empirical investigation, Annals of Operations
Research (2021) 1–26, doi:10.1007/s10479- 021- 03956- x.
[11] Billion-Dollar Weather and Climate Disasters: Events. National Centers For Environ-
mental Information, NOAA. Retrieved from https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/billions/
events
[12] R.N. Boute, M. Udenio, AI in Logistics and Supply Chain Management, 2021 Avail-
able at SSRN 3862541, doi:10.2139/ssrn.3862541.
[13] M. Brüning, J. Bendul, Relational view on collaborative supply chain disruption re-
coveries. In Digitalization in Supply Chain Management and Logistics: Smart and
Digital Solutions for an Industry 4.0 Environment, in: Proceedings of the Ham-
burg International Conference of Logistics (HICL), 23, epubli GmbH, Berlin, 2017,
pp. 449–466. http://hdl.handle.net/10419/209321.
[14] Burke, Rick, et al. The smart factory. Responsive, adaptive, connected man-
ufacturing. Retrieved from https://www2.deloitte.com/us/en/insights/focus/
industry- 4- 0/smart- factory- connected- manufacturing.html.
[15] H. Cao, M. Wachowicz, S. Cha, Developing an edge computing platform for real-time
descriptive analytics, in: 2017 IEEE International Conference on Big Data (Big Data),
IEEE, 2017, pp. 4546–4554, doi:10.1109/BigData.2017.8258497.
[16] M.M.H. Chowdhury, M. Quaddus, Supply chain resilience: Conceptualization and
scale development using dynamic capability theory, International Journal of Pro-
duction Economics 188 (2017) 185–204, doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2017.03.020.
[17] Christopher, M., & Peck, H. (2004). Building the resilient supply chain.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09574090410700275
[18] M. Christopher, Logistics & supply chain management, 2016 Pearson UK.
[19] Y. Cissokho, S. Fadel, R. Millson, R. Pourhasan, P. Boily, Anomaly Detection and
Outlier Analysis, 2020 Data Science Report Series.
[20] J.M. Corbin, A. Strauss, Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons, and evalua-
tive criteria, Qualitative sociology 13 (1) (1990) 3–21.
[21] C.W. Craighead, J. Blackhurst, M.J. Rungtusanatham, R.B. Handfield, The severity of
supply chain disruptions: design characteristics and mitigation capabilities, Decision
Sciences 38 (1) (2007) 131–156, doi:10.1111/j.1540-5915.2007.00151.x.
[22] R. Dash, M. McMurtrey, C. Rebman, U.K. Kar, Application of artificial intelligence
in automation of supply chain management, Journal of Strategic Innovation and
Sustainability 14 (3) (2019) 43–53.
[23] D. Das, A. Datta, P. Kumar, Y. Kazancoglu, M. Ram, Building supply chain resilience
in the era of COVID-19: An AHP-DEMATEL approach, Operations Management Re-
search (2021) 1–19, doi:10.1007/s12063- 021- 00200- 4.
[24] A. Dolgui, D. Ivanov, 5G in digital supply chain and operations management: fos-
tering flexibility, end-to-end connectivity and real-time visibility through internet-
of-everything, International Journal of Production Research 60 (2) (2022) 442–451,
doi:10.1080/00207543.2021.2002969.
[25] R. Dobrescu, S. Mocanu, O. Chenaru, M. Nicolae, G. Florea, Versatile edge gateway
for improving manufacturing supply chain management via collaborative networks,
International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing 34 (4) (2021) 407–421,
doi:10.1080/0951192X.2021.1879401.
[26] R. Dubey, A. Gunasekaran, S.J. Childe, T. Papadopoulos, Z. Luo, S.F. Wamba,
D. Roubaud, Can big data and predictive analytics improve social and environmental
sustainability? Technological Forecasting and Social Change 144 (2019) 534–545,
doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2017.06.020.
[27] C.L. Garay-Rondero, J.L. Martinez-Flores, N.R. Smith, S.O.C. Morales, A. Aldrette-
Malacara, Digital supply chain model in Industry 4.0, Journal of Manufacturing
Technology Management (2020), doi:10.1108/JMTM- 08- 2018- 0280.
[28] H. Haße, B. Li, N. Weißenberg, J. Cirullies, B. Otto, Digital twin for real-time data
processing in logistics, in: Artificial Intelligence and Digital Transformation in Sup-
ply Chain Management: Innovative Approaches for Supply Chains. Proceedings of
12
Sustainable Manufacturing and Service Economics 2 (2023) 100008
the Hamburg International Conference of Logistics (HICL), 27, epubli GmbH, Berlin,
2019, pp. 4–28.
[29] N. Hassan, K.L.A. Yau, C. Wu, Edge computing in 5G: A review, IEEE Access 7 (2019)
127276–127289, doi:10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2938534.
[30] G. Hamel, L. Valikangas, To be resilient, an organization must dramatically reduce
the time it takes to go from ‘that can’t be true’to ‘we must face the world as it is,
Harvard Business Review (2003).
[31] D. Ivanov, A. Dolgui, A digital supply chain twin for managing the disruption risks
and resilience in the era of Industry 4.0, Production Planning & Control (2020) 1–14,
doi:10.1080/09537287.2020.1768450.
[32] D. Ivanov, B. Sokolov, A. Dolgui, The Ripple effect in supply chains: trade-off
‘efficiency-flexibility-resilience in disruption management, International Journal
of Production Research 52 (7) (2014) 2154–2172, doi:10.1080/00207543.2013.
858836.
[33] D. Ivanov, A. Dolgui, A. Das, B. Sokolov, Digital supply chain twins: Managing the
ripple effect, resilience, and disruption risks by data-driven optimization, simulation,
and visibility, Handbook of ripple effects in the supply chain, Springer, Cham, 2019,
pp. 309–332, doi:10.1007/978- 3- 030- 14302- 2_15.
[34] K. Katsaliaki, P. Galetsi, S. Kumar, Supply chain disruptions and resilience: a major
review and future research agenda, Annals of Operations Research (2021), doi:10.
1007/s10479- 020- 03912- 1.
[35] I. Lee, K. Lee, The Internet of Things (IoT): Applications, investments, and challenges
for enterprises, Business Horizons 58 (4) (2015) 431–440, doi:10.1016/j.bushor.
2015.03.008.
[36] J. Leveling, M. Edelbrock, B. Otto, Big data analytics for supply chain management,
in: 2014 IEEE International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Engineering
Management, IEEE, 2014, pp. 918–922, doi:10.1109/IEEM.2014.7058772.
[37] Y. Levy, T.J. Ellis, Towards a framework of literature review process in support of
information systems research, in: Proceedings of the 2006 Informing Science and IT
Education Joint Conference, 26, 2006.
[38] S. Marir, F. Belala, N. Hameurlain, A Strategy-Based Formal Approach for Fog Sys-
tems Analysis, Future Internet 14 (2) (2022) 52, doi:10.3390/fi14020052.
[39] C. Matt, Fog computing, Business & information systems engineering 60 (4) (2018)
351–355, doi:10.1007/s12599- 018- 0540- 6.
[40] Z. Milosevic, W. Chen, A. Berry, F.A. Rabhi, Real-time analytics, Big Data: Principles
and Paradigms (2016) 39–61.
[41] J. Namdar, X. Li, R. Sawhney, N. Pradhan, Supply chain resilience for single and
multiple sourcing in the presence of disruption risks, International Journal of Pro-
duction Research 56 (6) (2018) 2339–2360, doi:10.1080/00207543.2017.1370149.
[42] A. Ometov, O.L. Molua, M. Komarov, J. Nurmi, A Survey of Security in Cloud, Edge,
and Fog Computing, Sensors 22 (3) (2022) 927, doi:10.3390/s22030927.
[43] T. Papadopoulos, A. Gunasekaran, R. Dubey, N. Altay, S.J. Childe, S. Fosso-Wamba,
The role of Big Data in explaining disaster resilience in supply chains for sustain-
ability, Journal of Cleaner Production 142 (2017) 1108–1118, doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.
2016.03.059.
[44] N. Paudel, R.C. Neupane, A general architecture for a real-time monitoring system
based on the internet of things, Internet of Things 14 (2021) 100367, doi:10.1016/
j.iot.2021.100367.
[45] T.J. Pettit, J. Fiksel, K.L. Croxton, Ensuring supply chain resilience: development of
a conceptual framework, Journal of business logistics 31 (1) (2010) 1–21, doi:10.
1002/j.2158-1592.2010.tb00125.x.
[46] K. Peffers, T. Tuunanen, M.A. Rothenberger, S. Chatterjee, A design science research
methodology for information systems research, Journal of management information
systems 24 (3) (2007) 45–77, doi:10.2753/MIS0742-1222240302.
[47] S.Y. Ponomarov, M.C. Holcomb, Understanding the concept of supply chain re-
silience, The international journal of logistics management (2009), doi:10.1108/
09574090910954873.
[48] Rai, R., Tiwari, M. K., Ivanov, D., & Dolgui, A. (2021). Ma-
chine learning in manufacturing and industry 4.0 applications.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2021.1956675
[49] Y. Jabareen, Building a conceptual framework: philosophy, definitions, and proce-
dure, International Journal of Qualitative Methods 8 (4) (2009) 49–62, doi:10.1177/
160940690900800406.
[50] M. Satyanarayanan, The emergence of edge computing, Computer 50 (1) (2017)
30–39.
[51] D.W. Turner III, Qualitative interview design: A practical guide for novice investi-
gators, The qualitative report 15 (3) (2010) 754.
[52] Y. Sheffi, Preparing for disruptions through early detection, MIT Sloan Management
Review 57 (1) (2015) 31 http://mitsmr.com/1OV6aJu.
[53] Y. Sheffi, J.B. Rice Jr, A supply chain view of the resilient enterprise, MIT Sloan
management review 47 (1) (2005) 41.
[54] K.P. Scheibe, J. Blackhurst, Supply chain disruption propagation: systemic risk and
normal accident theory perspective, International Journal of Production Research
56 (1-2) (2018) 43–59, doi:10.1080/00207543.2017.1355123.
[55] Kirstin Scholten, Sanne Schilder, The role of collaboration in supply chain re-
silience, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal (2015), doi:10.1108/
SCM- 11- 2014- 0386.
[56] C.S. Singh, G. Soni, G.K. Badhotiya, Performance indicators for supply chain re-
silience: review and conceptual framework, Journal of Industrial Engineering Inter-
national 15 (1) (2019) 105–117, doi:10.1007/s40092- 019- 00322- 2.
[57] H. Snyder, Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines,
Journal of business research 104 (2019) 333–339, doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.07.
039.
[58] Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research techniques.
[59] N.A. Sulieman, L. Ricciardi Celsi, W. Li, A. Zomaya, M. Villari, Edge-Oriented
S. Dey
Computing: A Survey on Research and Use Cases, Energies 15 (2) (2022) 452,
doi:10.3390/en15020452.
[60] T. Taleb, K. Samdanis, B. Mada, H. Flinck, S. Dutta, D. Sabella, On multi-access
edge computing: A survey of the emerging 5G network edge cloud architecture and
orchestration, IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials 19 (3) (2017) 1657–1681,
doi:10.1109/COMST.2017.2705720.
[61] D. Tranfield, D. Denyer, P. Smart, Towards a methodology for developing evidence-
informed management knowledge by means of systematic review, British journal of
management 14 (3) (2003) 207–222, doi:10.1111/1467-8551.00375.
[62] A. Trzuskawska-Grzesińska, Control towers in supply chain management–past and
future, Journal of Economics & Management 27 (2017) 114–133.
[63] R.J. Torraco, Writing integrative literature reviews: Guidelines and examples,
Human resource development review 4 (3) (2005) 356–367, doi:10.1177/
1534484305278283.
[64] Waller, M. A., & Fawcett, S. E. (2013). Data science, predictive analytics, and
big data: a revolution that will transform supply chain design and management.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jbl.12010
[65] J. Webster, R.T. Watson, Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: Writing a
literature review, MIS quarterly (2002) xiii–xxiii.
[66] D. Ivanov, A. Dolgui, B. Sokolov, M. Ivanova, Literature review on disruption recov-
ery in the supply chain, International Journal of Production Research 55 (20) (2017)
6158–6174, doi:10.1080/00207543.2017.1330572.
[67] J. Adams, F.C. Hillier-Brown, H.J. Moore, et al., Searching and synthesising ‘grey
literature’ and ‘grey information’ in public health: critical reflections on three case
studies, Syst Rev 5 (2016) 164, doi:10.1186/s13643- 016- 0337- y.
[68] J. Randolph, A guide to writing the dissertation literature review, Practical Assess-
ment, Research, and Evaluation, 14 (1) (2009) 13, doi:10.7275/b0az-8t74.
13
Sustainable Manufacturing and Service Economics 2 (2023) 100008
[69] J. Wang, M.K. Lim, C. Wang, M.L. Tseng, The evolution of the Internet of Things
(IoT) over the past 20 years, Computers & Industrial Engineering 155 (2021) 107174,
doi:10.1016/j.cie.2021.107174.
[70] D. Ivanov, A. Dolgui, B. Sokolov, The impact of digital technology and Industry 4.0
on the ripple effect and supply chain risk analytics, International Journal of Produc-
tion Research 57 (3) (2019) 829–846, doi:10.1080/00207543.2018.1488086.
[71] D. Denyer, D. Tranfield, J.E. Van Aken, Developing design propositions through re-
search synthesis, Organization studies 29 (3) (2008) 393–413.
[72] N. Levina, J.W. Ross, From the vendor’s perspective: Exploring the value proposition
in information technology outsourcing, MIS quarterly (2003) 331–364.
[73] W.J. Orlikowski, C.S. Iacono, Research commentary: Desperately seeking the “IT”
in IT research—A call to theorizing the IT artifact, Information systems research 12
(2) (2001) 121–134.
[74] K.M. Eisenhardt, Building theories from case study research, Academy of manage-
ment review 14 (4) (1989) 532–550.
[75] S. Seidel, J. Recker, J. Vom Brocke, Sensemaking and sustainable practicing: func-
tional affordances of information systems in green transformations, MIS quarterly
(2013) 1275–1299.
[76] L. Dubé, G. Paré, Rigor in information systems positivist case research: current prac-
tices, trends, and recommendations, MIS Quarterly (2003) 597–636.
[77] D.F. Polit, C.T. Beck, Essentials of nursing research: Appraising evidence for nursing
practice, Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2009.
[78] L.S. Whiting, Semi-structured interviews: guidance for novice researchers, Nursing
Standard 22 (23) (2008) 35 through 2013.
[79] S.E. Krauss, A. Hamzah, Z. Omar, T. Suandi, I.A. Ismail, M.Z. Zahari, Z.M. Nor, Pre-
liminary investigation and interview guide development for studying how Malaysian
farmers’ form their mental models of farming, The Qualitative Report 14 (2) (2009)
245.