Computers & Industrial Engineering 182 (2023) 109366

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Computers & Industrial Engineering

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

Maritime supply chain resilience: From concept to practice

Jiaguo Liu a, Juanjuan Wu a, Yu Gong b, *
a
School of Maritime Economics and Management, Dalian Maritime University, Dalian, China
b
Southampton Business School, University of Southampton SO17 1BJ, UK

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: In the post COVID-19 era, changed freight patterns and trade routes, intensified anti-globalization situation, and
COVID-19 deteriorating geopolitical conflicts exert great pressure on the maritime supply chain. The purpose of this paper is
Maritime supply chain to explore how to extend supply chain resilience from concept to practice in the maritime supply chain. Based on
Supply chain resilience
this development vision, this paper constructs the framework of supply chain resilience through literature re­
AHP-QFD-DEMATEL
view, which is identified according to strategic management procedure to promote the building of supply chain
resilience and deploy enterprise operational resources. The structure of resilience theoretical framework of
maritime industry includes resilience goals, resilience strategies, and resilience practices. We adopt the hybrid
AHP-QFD-DEMATEL method to analyze the most important resilience factors in each layer. It is concluded that
robustness and adaptability are the two most important resilience goals, and the resilience strategy of collabo­
ration and flexibility should be paid more attention in the post COVID-19 era. This study enables SCRES to extend
from a conceptual perspective to a practical perspective and narrows the gap between theory and practices in the
resilience study.

1. Introduction
In the era of economic globalization, maritime supply chain (MSC)
effectively facilitates the transportation and exchange of goods between
different stakeholders around the world, which increasingly plays a vital
role in global trade transportation (Wan, Yan, Zhang, Qu, & Yang,
2019). MSC connects different stakeholders and multiple transportation
modes that include sea and land modes (roadways, railways, and inland
waterways, etc.) (Garg & Kashav, 2019). At the same time, considering
the highly capital-intensive and large-scale characteristics of the mari­
time industry, any form of disruptions caused by internal or external
factors can adversely affect the normal operation of MSC (Loh, Zhou,
Thai, Wong, & Yuen, 2017). Since March 2020, the occurrence of
COVID-19 has driven global economic environment into a new scenario.
The lockdown and shutdown policy implemented in many countries
during the early COVID-19 era results in enormous labor and order gaps
in the maritime supply chain, further leading to enormous disruptions
(Rahman, Paul, Shukla, Agarwal, & Taghikhah, 2022).
In the post COVID-19 era, the impact of coronavirus has not stopped
yet. First of all, due to the continuous variation of coronavirus and the
different manifestations of anti-epidemic policies of countries with
different political systems and civilized forms, the global epidemic
situation has shown a long-term and normalization trend. Freight pat­
terns, global trade routes, and emerging technologies will constantly
adjust accordingly. Firms that have not adequately recovered from prior
disruptions need to adjust their operations continually to further adapt
to the new normal (Bathke, Münch, Heiko, & Hartmann, 2022; Jiang,
Lu, Qu, & Yang, 2021). Next, the COVID-19 pandemic has promoted the
further development of anti-globalization. Some developed countries
have increasingly shown serious protectionism, unilateralism, and
localism in their foreign economic policies. The epidemic has caused the
deconstruction or reconstruction of the global supply chain to a certain
extent. Therefore, it has made countries pay attention to building a more
resilient supply chain and promote the development of new economic
regionalism with decentralized, diversified, and short-distance overseas
supplier bases. Besides, geopolitics has undergone structural changes in
the post COVID-19 era and the epidemic has intensified the geopolitical
conflicts around the world, which post great challenges to MSC whose
development relies on multidimensional communication between
different areas and countries. To effectively deal with the barriers
caused by this series of changes, it is urgent to improve the resilience of
the MSC.
Supply chain resilience (SCRES) enables firms to anticipate probable
disruptions caused by routine or non-routine events in time and

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: Y.Gong@soton.ac.uk (Y. Gong).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2023.109366

Available online 15 June 2023

0360-8352/© 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
J. Liu et al.
effectively cope with these contingencies, recovering from them and
achieving further development (Chowdhury & Quaddus, 2017; Lam &
Bai, 2016; Pettit, Fiksel, & Croxton, 2010). Existing studies extensively
researched SCRES in various manufacturing industries, such as food,
chemical materials, electronic parts, and so on (Piya, Shamsuzzoha, &
Khadem, 2022; Zhang et al., 2021; Hosseini, Ivanov, & Dolgui, 2019),
while fewer discussed resilience in the maritime industry. According to
previous research, SCRES was the process of the supply chain to expe­
rience disruption events and thereby respond then adapt to them (Ali,
Mahfouz, & Arisha, 2017; Chowdhury & Quaddus, 2016; Tukamu­
habwa, Stevenson, Busby, & Zorzini, 2015). Researchers explained the
conception of SCRES from various aspects (Han, Chong, & Li, 2020;
Hosseini et al., 2019; Rajesh, 2017), while neglecting to construct a
structural framework that could embed in enterprises’ development
routines covering long-term, medium-term, and short-term. For the
reason that building SCRES in the firm needs full consideration and
preparation, thorough SCRES strategic planning means a lot. The issue
has grown in importance in light of recent increasingly tough competi­
tive environment for maritime enterprises in the post COVID-19 era. In
terms of research methods, assorted methods were adopted to analyze
SCRES, such as multi criteria decision making (MCDM) methods, system
simulation methods, modeling methods (mathematical, and Bayesian
network, etc.), and so on (Gu & Liu, 2023; Das, Datta, Kumar, Kazan­
coglu, & Ram, 2021; Zhang et al., 2021; Hosseini et al., 2019; Pires
Ribeiro & Barbosa-Povoa, 2018). So far, combing the methods above
with firms’ strategic management methods has been rarely applied in
prior studies (Rahman et al., 2022). Meanwhile, in the post COVID-19
era, quite a lot of constraints and changes should be considered for
maritime enterprises to effectively recover from disruptions and further
develop SCRES. However, to date, there has been little agreement on
which influencing factors are the most significant (Aslam, Khan, Rashid,
& Rehman, 2020; Adobor & McMullen, 2018).
Considering current circumstances and existing research gaps, two
questions need to be addressed. First, for realizing the vision of building
a resilient supply chain in different maritime enterprises, how to closely
embed SCRES in the strategic management procedure of maritime en­
terprises to guide practitioners, ensuring the pertinence and effective­
ness of maritime supply chain resilience (MSCRES) measures? Second,
what measures are the most significant and effective to overcome
various maritime resilience barriers and improve SCRES in the post
COVID-19 era? Therefore, the major objective of this paper is to explore
how to fulfill the vision of building SCRES and to identify and evaluate
the significant influencing factors of MSCRES in the post COVID-19 era.
In searching for influencing factors of SCRES, this paper completes the
proposed framework through systematic literature review and focus
group discussion. To analyze the importance of influencing factors, a
hybrid AHP-QFD-DEMATEL method is adopted, extending SCRES from
the theoretical level to the practical level.
The contributions of this paper include three aspects. (i) From the
theoretical perspective, this paper provides an important opportunity to
advance the understanding of SCRES in the post COVID-19 era.
Considering existing resilience barriers of the MSC, this paper constructs
a hierarchical framework of SCRES embedding in firms’ long-term
strategic planning to fulfill the development vision of building SCRES,
which extends SCRES in the maritime industry from concept to strategic
practices, and depicts the characteristics and critical influencing factors
of SCRES. (ii) From the research methodology perspective, the hybrid
AHP-QFD-DEMATEL adopted in analyzing the hierarchical framework
of SCRES innovatively combines MCDM methods with strategic
deployment method. The methodology is applied in the maritime in­
dustry for the first time, which fully considers the features of SCRES
hierarchical framework and analyzes the relationships among factors
within and between different layers. (iii) Besides, the results of this study
also offer important management insights into building SCRES in the
maritime industry during the post COVID-19 era. The findings of this
paper contribute to providing comprehensive instructions for maritime
2
Computers & Industrial Engineering 182 (2023) 109366
managers to take the most efficient measures to build a resilient MSC, by
overcoming various resilience barriers, giving full play to the advan­
tages of capital-intensive industries, and reducing unnecessary costs.
The rest of this paper is structured as follows. Section 2 gives a brief
synopsis of the relevant literature, concluding the key points of existing
research, resilience barriers in the post COVID-19 era, and the research
gaps. The hybrid research methodology in this study is elucidated in
Section 3. In Section 4, the final conceptual framework concluded using
the proposed method is presented and discussed here. Section 5 dis­
cusses the results of the analysis of the influencing factors. Finally, the
last section consists of the summary of this paper, its limitations, and
future research directions.
2. Literature review
2.1. Supply chain resilience (SCRES)
Supply chain resilience (SCRES) measures the capacity of resilience
in the supply chain context (Christopher & Peck, 2004). The establish­
ment of SCRES involves all members in the upstream and downstream of
the supply chain and requires the efforts of all stakeholders. SCRES,
according to Ponomarav and Holcomb (2009), was the capability of the
supply chain, which can help it respond to and recover from unforeseen
events and disruptions to keep supply chain operations on track by
maintaining enough connectedness and controlling its structure and
function. Kamalahmadi and Parast (2016) thought a resilient supply
chain should have the capability to reduce the probability of suffering
from unexpected disturbances, that was to anticipate the occurrence of
disruptions and prepare for them, prevent the spread of disturbances,
and recover from and respond to them by timely and effective plans to
transcend the disturbances and restore the supply chain operations to a
robust state. As has been mentioned in previous studies, SCRES is the
ability to cope with external disturbances and disruptions, which in­
cludes preparation before the changes, and recovery and adaptation
after the changes (Chowdhury & Quaddus, 2017). Earlier literature has
not only refined the concept of SCRES, but also improved its hierarchical
framework (Ali et al., 2017; Pimenta et al., 2022). While each of these
conceptual frameworks has diverse structures and elements, they share a
common point of view, that considers SCRES multidimensional and
hierarchical.
On the basis of various theories, researchers have conducted exten­
sive research to explore the influencing factors of SCRES. The theories of
resource-based view (RBV) and dynamic capabilities are most often used
as theoretical foundations. From the perspective of the RBV, various
resources are regarded as the antecedents of building and enhancing
organizational capabilities to gain competitive advantages, which quite
matters in supply chain resilience (Brandon-Jones, Squire, Autry, &
Petersen, 2014). Recent studies have justified the impact of various
dynamic capabilities on SCRES, such as integration, flexibility, innova­
tion, visibility, and so on, which could be divided into low-order capa­
bilities and high-order capabilities (Brusset & Teller, 2017; Sabahi &
Parast, 2020; Gu, Yang, & Huo, 2021). These papers indicated that the
structure of these factors is hierarchical and they are interdependent and
interact with each other in building and enhancing SCRES. Furthermore,
these two theories are important theoretical branches of strategic
management, the use of which in SCRES effectively combined enterprise
strategic management with supply chain management but failed to
embed the framework of SCRES into strategic management. Strategic
management is the management of an organization’s resources to ach­
ieve its goals and objectives, the key of which is to ensure that man­
agement rolls out the strategies across the organizations. Building
SCRES should be considered as the strategic objective of an organiza­
tion. Therefore, it is very important to take an appropriate theoretical
framework and research methodology.
Accordingly, quite a lot of methods were used to quantify various
factors assessing the timeliness and effectiveness of SCRES practices.
J. Liu et al.
Fig. 1. Resilience barriers in the maritime supply chain.
Previous studies are partially quantitative and partially qualitative, and
both of them were implemented based on the hierarchical framework of
SCRES. Chowdhury and Quaddus (2017) developed a SCRES measure­
ment scale, in which SCRES was measured by proactive capability,
reactive capability, and supply chain design quality three dimensions,
and they were further specified in 12 sub-dimensions under these three
primary dimensions, which they used partial least squares-based struc­
tural equation modeling to analyze the data collected in the quantitative
survey. Das et al. (2021) adopted Decision Making Trial and Evaluation
Laboratory (DEMATEL)-Analytic Hierarchy Process method to develop a
framework of resilient risk management strategic factors. The SCRES
Capability-Performance Metrics Framework proposed by Han et al.
(2020) not only consolidated SCRES into the dimensions of three phases:
readiness, response, and recovery, but also crystallized the performance
measurement metrics of SCRES into 11 capabilities. Through a thorough
review of previous studies, it is found that those frameworks and
methods could extend SCRES from theoretical perspective to practical
perspective, but fail to integrate SCRES into enterprise daily business
decisions and long-term planning decisions, forming a mature strategic
management routine. Furthermore, the trade-off relationship between
various factors or measures in building SCRES is still of inadequate
research.
2.2. Resilience barriers in the maritime supply chain (MSC)
Maritime supply chain (MSC) is a complex system, involving multi­
ple operation activities such as handling of freight at seaports, inland
transportation, and handling of freight in the hinterland, and partners
are from different functions even different countries with diverse regu­
lations and policies (Kashav et al., 2021). Due to the complexity of the
MSC composition and the diversity of the MSC network, building a
resilient supply chain is increasingly difficult in a constantly disturbing
society. In recent years, resilience in the MSC has been widely studied in
existing papers. Lam and Bai (2016) employed a quality function
deployment approach to link customer requirements, MSC risks, and
resilience measures, and proposed resilience solutions to enhance
resilience for shipping lines. Zavitsas, Zis, and Bell (2018) considered the
impact of environmental and security regulations on the network
3
Computers & Industrial Engineering 182 (2023) 109366
resilience performance in the MSC. Praharsi, Jami In, Suhardjito, and
Wee (2021) integrated the concept of Lean Six Sigma and SCRES in the
maritime industry during COVID-19 and provided suggestions for im­
provements to operational inefficiencies. At the same time, the chal­
lenges caused by external environmental changes further cause barriers
to improving SCRES.
The continuity of the COVID-19 pandemic and the ongoing occur­
rence of global geopolitical conflicts have exposed the MSC to many
risks and barriers (Das et al., 2021). Existing studies suggested the
barriers in the MSC came from several sources, which could be catego­
rized into economic barriers, infrastructural barriers, technological
barriers, administrative and political barriers, legal barriers, and orga­
nizational barriers (Kashav, Garg, Kumar, & Sharma, 2022). Further­
more, since the outbreak of COVID-19, the challenges faced by the MSC
are quite diverse. Uncertainty of demand, inconsistency of supply, delay
in delivery, and scarcity of labor are the main challenges caused by
COVID-19 disruptions, which will also affect the development of the
MSC in the era of post-pandemic (Raj, Mukherjee, de Sousa Jabbour, &
Srivastava, 2022). These barriers and challenges make it more difficult
to build resilience in the MSC. Referring to all kinds of activities and
partners involved in the MSC, this paper proposes the main resilience
barriers and challenges arising from the uncertainty of pandemic
outbreak and geopolitical conflicts during the post COVID-19 era, which
can be categorized into economic barriers, social barriers, infra­
structural and technological barriers, and organizational barriers as
shown in Fig. 1. Then, we interpret those barriers explicitly as below
according to reviewing existing studies and interviewing firms’ man­
agers, which can be seen in Table 1. The method we used is the focus
group discussion, and the group is mainly composed of experts from
academic and industrial fields. Detailed information on the interview
process and participants is shown in the Appendix. And in the research,
we set these resilience barriers as different evaluation scenarios.
2.3. Research gaps
By reviewing papers related to this study, the research gaps were
mainly laid in three aspects. Firstly, although existing studies of SCRES
have been quite complete, the embedding of the concept of SCRES into
J. Liu et al. Computers & Industrial Engineering 182 (2023) 109366

Table 1 Table 1 (continued )

Resilience barriers and their manifestations. Resilience barriers External References
Resilience barriers External References in the MSCs manifestations
in the MSCs manifestations
and handling facilities
Scenario Uncertainty of Irregularity and Nenavani & Jain, used at ports and road
1 transportation backlog in orders 2021; Raj et al., freight transportation.
needs occurred due to the 2022; Okorie et al., Scenario Lack of Poor integration Kashav et al., 2022;
large-scale lockdown 2020 7 organizational among supply chain Nenavani & Jain,
caused by the outbreak integration in the members is manifested 2021; Li, Pedrielli,
of the COVID-19 MSCs in a lack of Lee, & Chew, 2017
pandemic and geo- transparency of
political conflicts, operational
trade disputes, and information, high
maritime security transaction costs, long
problems, which has a coordination time, and
significant impact on slow supply chain
producers in various response.
industries and their Scenario Lack of availability Existing contingency Das et al., 2021;
downstream logistic 8 and quality in plans lack of Remko, 2020
providers. contingency plan applicability to coping
Scenario Higher industry- The increase in railway Kashav et al., 2022; with the COVID-19
2 wide haulage charges, Das et al., 2021; pandemic and the
transportation hinterland Swink & Schoenherr, feasibility to respond
costs transportation costs, 2015 to the emergency,
port tariffs, fuel costs, which leads to frequent
and so on leads to occurrences of large-
higher industry-wide scale disruptions.
transportation costs in
the MSCs, which exerts
great pressure on firms’ strategic management routines in the maritime industry is not
building resilience. sufficient, ignoring constructing a hierarchical framework of SCRES to
Scenario Lack of Unsupportive laws, Kashav et al., 2022;
fully extend it from concept to practice. Secondly, according to the
3 government regulations, and Raj et al., 2022
support government policies, analysis of papers about resilience and SCRES above, it is found that
an imperfect previous research didn’t fully consider the features of disruptions and
supervision system, resilience to specify the characteristics, or in other words, crucial goals
and a strained of building a resilient supply chain under uncertainty. Thirdly, there is
relationship between
the government and
less research on resilience in the MSC, and it does not fully take account
firms make it difficult of the dilemmas of the MSC during the post COVID-19. To fill these gaps,
to avoid the occurrence this paper constructed a comprehensive hierarchical framework of
of corruption and maritime supply chain resilience (MSCRES) to extend resilience goals to
bribery and to
resilience strategies and further to resilience practices, by thoroughly
guarantee activities in
the MSCs. reviewing the previous literature and considering the post COVID-19
Scenario Scarcity of labor Lack of skilled labor, Kashav et al., 2022; and international conflicts dilemmas. Besides, this paper adopted a
4 qualified managerial Raj et al., 2022 hybrid AHP-QFD-DEMATEL to analyze the importance of hierarchical
personnel, and factors, which could effectively transfer resilience goals into enterprise
adequate high-quality
innovative talents
resilience strategies and then to resilience practices of firms and is rarely
result in the ineffective used in existing MSC studies.
organization to deal
with port congestion, 3. Research methodology
inefficient operational
performance, and
digitalization 3.1. The hybrid AHP-QFD-DEMATEL method
dilemma.
Scenario Poor infrastructure Insufficient Kashav, Garg, This paper constructs a hierarchical framework of supply chain
5 along the MSCs infrastructure of port, Kumar, & Sharma, resilience (SCRES) to delineate the concept of SCRES from the strategic
insufficient area of 2022; Kumar,
warehouses, poor Rahman, & Chan,
management perspective, which is designed to be deployable at
freight transportation 2017; Panahi, different operational levels and consists of three layers: resilience goals
infrastructure, and lack Sadeghi Gargari, (RGs), resilience strategies (RSs), and resilience practices (RPs). To
of availability and Lau, & Ng, 2022 identify the most effective factors in each layer of the proposed con­
quality of
ceptual framework for maritime supply chain resilience (MSCRES), this
transshipment
infrastructure for port- study adopts a hybrid decision-making approach to analyze it, that
to-port and port-to- combines Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP), Quality Function
inland, and obsolete Deployment (QFD), and Decision-Making Trial and Evaluation Labora­
transport and handling tory (DEMATEL). Meanwhile, given the varying challenges and barriers
equipment and
vehicles.
faced by MSC firms, the importance and priority of each resilience factor
Scenario Insufficient and Poor digitalization Kashav et al., 2022; should be correspondingly different so that firms could better focus their
6 outdated system, logistics Raj et al., 2022; efforts and resources on the factors that matter most. Therefore, 8 sce­
technology used in information processing Ensslin, Dezem, narios are set up based on the resilience barriers in the maritime supply
the MSCs technology, and Dutra, Ensslin, &
chain (MSC), and maritime experts including practitioners and aca­
automation transport Somensi, 2018
demics are invited to evaluate the importance of each layer based on
them, respectively.

4
J. Liu et al.
Fig. 2. The basic structure of the two-phase QFD approach (Ref: Lam & Bai, 2016).
Due to the resilience barriers existing in the post COVID-19 era, the
interrelationships among resilience factors and their importance show
differential features. This paper applies AHP and DEMATEL to evaluate
the importance of resilience factors in each layer of the framework. AHP,
a mathematical method to solve multi-dimensional problems through
pairwise comparison, is applied to calculate the absolute weight (AW) of
each RG based on the assumption that there is less interdependence
among various attributes (Das et al., 2021). As both resilience strategies
(RSs) and resilience practices (RPs) are interconnected, this study em­
ploys the DEMATEL method to determine the influence of each on the
other, obtaining the AW of RSs and RPs respectively. DEMATEL quan­
titatively expresses the mutual logic relationship between different
factors in matrix form to determine the causal relationship between
factors and the position of each factor in the system.
Besides, all layers of the framework, including RGs, RSs, and RPs, are
interrelated with each lower layer serving as the supportive factors and
specific deployment measures of its upper layer. Therefore, the QFD
method is employed to investigate these interrelationships and the two-
phase QFD method is used to evaluate the supportive impact of RSs on
RGs, and RPs on RSs respectively. Initially, Quality Function Deploy­
ment (QFD) is a method used in the field of strategic management for
product or service development, brand marketing, and product man­
agement (Celik, Cebi, Kahraman, & Er, 2009). It could transform
customer demand information into specific information directly used by
the design, production, and sales department. This paper embeds the
concept of SCRES in strategic management procedures, transforms it
into operational practices, and explains the interrelationships within the
structural framework.
3.2. Two-Phase quality function deployment (QFD)
The overall research structure is based on a two-phase QFD that
consists of two HoQs, the first of which links the first and the second
layer of the hierarchical framework, that is resilience goals (RGs) and
resilience strategies (RSs). The second HoQ relates the third layer of the
hierarchical framework to its second layer, which is resilience practices
(RPs) and resilience strategies (RSs). The identification of all of the
5
Computers & Industrial Engineering 182 (2023) 109366
resilience factors is based on the literature and experts’ experience,
which will be shown in the next Section. The first HoQ is “strategy
transition” that aims at deploying the theory of SCRES to the strategic
level, in which RGs appear as “whats” and RSs appear as “hows”. In the
first HoQ, we identify the relative weight of RSs in the hierarchical
framework according to RGs with obtained weights and then calculate
the comprehensive weight of RSs. According to obtained comprehensive
weights of RSs, the relative weight of RPs is obtained in the second HoQ
which is called “practice transition”, where RSs/RPs are defined and
presented as “whats/hows”. The absolute weight of resilience factors in
the different layers is calculated based on other methods, which will be
discussed in the next subsection. Accordingly, the basic structure of the
two-phase QFD approach is shown in Fig. 2.
3.3. The decision algorithm of AHP-QFD-DEMATEL
The data is collected from the multi-expert judgement through face-
to-face interviews based on academics’ knowledge and practitioners’
experience, which fully considers the development circumstances and
the resilience barriers in the MSC. The decision algorithm for the hybrid
AHP-QFD-DEMATEL method consists of several steps as below.
Step 1. According to the hierarchical framework of MSCRES, identify
each part of the HoQ of two-phase QFD, and the specific structure can be
seen in Fig. 2.
Step 2. Conduct pair-wise comparisons of RGs under different sce­
narios of coping with various resilience barriers assuming that there is
no dependence among the RGs, using a ratio scale of 1 to 9 to compare
any two goals, with 9 representing the highest importance of a particular
goal comparing the other. Then calculate the consistency ratio (CR) of
the pair-wise comparison matrix using the equation (1) and (2).
CI
CR = (1)
RI
λmax − n
CI = (2)
n− 1
Where CI is the consistency index, RI is the random index, and n
represents the size of the matrix. If CR is greater than 0.1, it means the
J. Liu et al. Computers & Industrial Engineering 182 (2023) 109366

Fig. 3. The relation between the phases of disruptions, the phases of resilience and resilience goals.

comparison is inconsistent and should revise the pair-wise comparisons. 4. Results

Otherwise, the AW of RGs can be obtained. Then, integrate experts’
evaluation under different scenarios using their arithmetic mean to 4.1. The structure of SCRES hierarchical framework
obtain the final AW of RGs.
Step 3. Use DEMATEL to compare the causal relationships of RSs in With the formation of the new normal of economic development in
pairs, which is measured on a 1 to 5 scale, with 1 signifying no direct the post COVID-19 era, improving maritime supply chain resilience
[ ]i=1,2,...,6
influence, and 5 signifying very high direct influence. A = aij j=1,2,...,6 is (MSCRES) has been determined as the development vision of many
maritime enterprises. How to deploy the concept of supply chain resil­
the direct relation matrix, that is obtained through transforming the
ience (SCRES) in enterprises’ strategic management with full consider­
evaluation of five maritime seasoned experts into crisp values, in which
ation of enterprises’ capabilities and resources is quite important.
aij is the influence degree of RSi on RSj. The matrix A is normalized using
Therefore, based on the results of research network visualization and
equation (3)
literature review, combing with the concept of SCRES, dynamic capa­
[ ]
A ∑6 ∑6 bilities theory, and strategic management procedure, this paper pro­
X = , in which δ = Min Max i=1 aij , Max j=1 aij (3) poses a three-level framework of maritime supply chain resilience
δ
(MSCRES), consisting of resilience goals (RGs), resilience strategies
1 (RSs), and resilience practices (RPs). The factors in the hierarchical
T = X(1 − X)−
framework have been iterated multiply according to the data collected
∑
n ∑
n by the focus group discussion. RGs, which are derived from various
Dj = tij , Ri = tij i, j = 1, 2, …, 6 (4) studies and the concept of SCRES (Cohen & Kouvelis, 2021; Adobor &
i=1 j=1 McMullen, 2018; Ali et al., 2017; Pettit, Croxton, & Fiksel, 2013), are the
Then according to equation (5) to obtain AW of each RS factor. conceptual decomposed objectives of SCRES and denote the specific
characteristics of the resilient supply chain that differentiate a resilient
Di *Ri supply chain from others. They are also the basic required ability cor­
AW i = ∑n , i = 1, 2, ..., 6 (5)
i=1 Di *Ri responding with each phase of resilience and are the first-level mani­
festation of the vision of building SCRES. Differing from RGs, RSs, and
Step 4. Determine the degree of interdependency of the RSs with respect RPs are more concrete manifestations of SCRES in the supply chain
to the RGs under different scenarios of coping with various resilience operation area, which could be considered as the deployment of SCRES
barriers. Then integrate experts’ evaluations under various scenarios to in the level of strategy and practice (Cohen et al., 2022; Cohen & Kou­
[ ]j=1,2,...,6
obtain the interdependency matrix M = mij i=1,2,...,4 , with ratio scale 1 velis, 2021; Sabahi & Parast, 2020; Tukamuhabwa et al., 2015). RSs are
to 7, in which 1 represents there is no relationship between specific RS the long-range coherent set of planning, that cope with resilience bar­
and RG, and 7 represents there is a very strong relationship between riers for building SCRES in the MSC in the post COVID-19 era (Altıok,
specific RS and RG. Then, based on matrix M, considering the impor­ 2011), covering analyses, concepts, policies, arguments, and actions,
tance of RGs and using the absolute weight of RGs, apply QFD to and they are the second layer of the framework. RPs are the most out­
calculate the relative weight (RW) of RSs compared to RGs. ward layer of the framework and are specific actions to build SCRES,
Step 5. Using equation (6) to calculate the comprehensive weight which contribute to the work of RSs and provide practical instructions
(CW) of RSs. for managers.

AW i *RW i 4.1.1. Resilience goals (RGs)

CW i = ∑6
i=1 AW i *RW i
Step 6. Use a similar process in step 3 to attain the AW of RPs.
Step 7. Using the CW of RSs obtained from the first-phase QFD in the
second-phase QFD, repeat a similar process in step 4 to calculate the RW
of RPs.
Step 8. Repeat the process in step 5 to obtain the CW of RPs.
(6)
In this paper, through reviewing existing research we propose agility,
robustness, adaptability, and responsiveness are four pivotal goals that
characterize a resilient supply chain in the post COVID-19 era (Adobor &
McMullen, 2018; Ali et al., 2017; Pettit et al., 2013; Wieland & Wal­
lenburg, 2013). According to the Tukamuhabwa et al. (2015) research,
this paper divides the phases of SCRES as prepare, respond, recover, and
grow, which is proposed based on pre-disruptions, under-disruptions,
and post-disruptions three phases of disruptions. In this paper, we
consider that for each phase, agility, robustness, adaptability, and
responsiveness are the key characteristic that corresponds to it

6
J. Liu et al.
Table 2
Resilience strategies and their roles played in the MSCRES.
Resilience Roles played in the MSCRES
Strategies
Visibility Visibility refers to ensuring the
transparency and veracity of
information about supply chain
members and changing
situations with the help of
intelligent shipping systems,
information technology, and so
on, contributing to better
agility and responsiveness and
further giving rise to a resilient
supply chain.
Collaboration Collaboration includes the
collaborative activities between
different maritime entities for
mutual benefits and joint
activities between different
functional departments within
each maritime organization.
Through joint planning, cross-
functional coordination and so
on, maritime supply chain
members could fully exchange
information, and share
resources, ideas, and costs to
collect full strength
withstanding risks and
disruptions.
Integration Integration involves the
alignment of different business
functions or processes, and the
combination of various systems
and technology, including
various logistics information
platforms, blockchain systems,
IoT devices, and so on, which
contributes to the seamless flow
of information, goods, and
services, and the effective
orchestration of resources and
competencies across the supply
chain.
Innovation Innovation is an important
capability for maritime supply
chain members to respond to
disruptions and adapt to
changes, including designing
new service processes, adopting
new technology (artificial
intelligence, big data, and
automation, etc.),
implementing sustainable
practices (green shipping,
circular logistics, and eco-
design, etc.), and adjusting
operational routines among
maritime stakeholders.
Flexibility Flexibility is defined as the
ability to adjust operational
practices with timely and low-
cost efforts to withstand
changes, which pertains to agile
responses and positively affects
SCRES. It can be achieved by
creating procurement, and
logistics flexibility through
multi-model transportation,
capacity management,
inventory management, and so
on.
Security Security is considered a crucial
part of MSCRES and it is
essential to prevent the supply
chain from not only traditional
References
Kamalahmadi & Parast, 2016;
Pettit et al., 2013; Francis,
2008
Poberschnigg et al., 2020;
Williams, Roh, Tokar, &
Swink, 2013; Schoenherr &
Swink, 2012
Kamal et al., 2021; Siagian
et al., 2021; Chunsheng et al.,
2019;
Siagian et al., 2021; Sabahi &
Parast, 2020; Kwak, Seo, &
Mason, 2018
Han et al., 2020; Chunsheng
et al., 2019; Dubey et al.,
2019; Hosseini et al., 2019;
Christopher & Holweg, 2011
Piya et al., 2022; Ali et al.,
2017; Urciuoli & Hintsa, 2016
7
Computers & Industrial Engineering 182 (2023) 109366
Table 2 (continued )
Resilience Roles played in the MSCRES References
Strategies
attacks, such as theft, safety
incidents, delayed process,
smuggling, cyber-attacks, and
crime, but also complex trading
and financial strikes caused by
uncertain circumstances.
respectively, and they are the crucial qualities and goals of building
SCRES in each phase. The role they play in the phases of SCRES is shown
in Fig. 3.
Agility refers to the ability to sense short-term and temporary
changes, opportunities, and threats in time and rapidly and emphasizes
adapting to changing states by slightly adjusting tactics and operations
without changing the existing structural configuration of the supply
chain (Kamalahmadi & Parast, 2016; Eckstein, Goellner, Blome, &
Henke, 2015; Wieland & Wallenburg, 2013). According to the defini­
tion, in the “prepare” phase of resilience, agility is quite important,
which enables firms to detect small signs of disruptions or changes and
to quickly prepare for them in advance.
Robustness is defined as the ability to withstand disruptions to
maintain the initial or planned performance (Simchi-Levi, Wang, & Wei,
2018; Nair & Vidal, 2011) and is considered as a proactive strategy to
cope with disruptions (Ivanov, 2021; Tan, Zhang, & Cai, 2019; Bode &
Macdonald, 2017). When disruptions occur, robustness ensures firms
respond to them steadily, which is the critical point in the “respond”
phase of resilience. Robustness emphasizes resisting the impact of dis­
ruptions and maintaining operations, the characteristic of which plays a
more important role in coping with short-term and low-impact disrup­
tions (Brandon-Jones et al., 2014; Wieland & Wallenburg, 2012).
Compared with agility, adaptability is the ability to sense funda­
mental changes and to make profound adjustments to supply chain (e.g.
adjusting supply chain’s design) in order to cope with structural changes
in the market and supply chain (Patrucco & Kähkönen, 2021; Dubey
et al., 2018). The most important goal in the “recover” phase of resil­
ience is to strengthen adaptability. Aiming at various disruptions and
suspensions caused by the aftermath of COVID-19, it is quite important
for supply chain members to narrow the gap between prior operational
modes and changed circumstances.
Responsiveness, the ability to react purposefully to disruptions and
changes in the supply chain within an appropriate time scale (Nenavani
& Jain, 2021), can be attained through the efforts of the company itself,
its supply chain partners, and their collective actions (Kim & Lee, 2010).
Responsiveness is used to measure the effectiveness of adaptation ac­
tivities and emphasizes ensuring the efficiency of a resilience strategy
for further growth. Moreover, responding accurately, rapidly, and cost-
effectively is the key to responsiveness, and so it’s the crucial goal in the
“grow” phase of resilience (Qrunfleh & Tarafdar, 2013).
4.1.2. Resilience strategies (RSs)
In previous studies of SCRES, capabilities are a series of collective
activities and strategic routines, through which an organization can
achieve sustained competitive advantages, and they also contribute to a
firm building a resilient supply chain (Ali et al., 2017; Brusset & Teller,
2017; Teece & Pisano, 1997). Resilience strategies (RSs) are long-range
coherent planning based on capabilities to build a resilient supply chain
(Cohen et al., 2022; Han et al., 2020; Altıok, 2011). Differentiating from
RGs that denote the crucial qualities and characteristics of SCRES in the
post COVID-19 era overall, RSs are more operable, which could support
the achievement of RGs and are developed through carrying out a series
of RPs. In this paper, we consider these RSs as the second hierarchy of
the conceptual framework for building SCRES. Visibility, collaboration,
integration, flexibility, innovation, and security these six strategies are
discussed in this paper, as shown in Table 2.
J. Liu et al. Computers & Industrial Engineering 182 (2023) 109366

Table 3
Resilience practices and their roles played in the MSCRES.
Resilience practices Roles played in the MSCRES Reference

RP1 Supply chain alertness Supply chain alertness enables supply chain members to detect changes in the Queiroz, Fosso Wamba, Chiappetta Jabbour, &
external environment and know more clearly about the circumstances of assets, Machado, 2022
material, and operational activities in the supply chain in time, which can
enhance visibility and produce a better response.
RP2 Supply chain digitalization Supply chain digitalization is the digital transformation of supply chain areas, Ye et al., 2022; Spieske & Birkel, 2021; Zouari, Ruel, &
which covers shipping data, resources, business collaboration, and so on. It can Viale, 2020
enhance visibility, traceability, and forecasting accuracy, contributing to
building SCRES.
RP3 Information sharing Sufficient information sharing among supply chain members facilitates firms in Zouari et al., 2020; Li et al., 2017; Tukamuhabwa
the supply chain to know clearly about the supply–demand situation, supply et al., 2015;
chain capacity, and resource reserves in order to respond to disruptions quickly
and efficiently.
RP4 Leadership support With the support of leaders and top managers, firms in the supply chain can Poberschnigg et al., 2020; Kamalahmadi & Parast,
effectively execute operational strategies, which facilitates supply chain 2016
members’ further integration and quick, adequate response to the changes inside
and outside.
RP5 Cross-functional coordination Cross-functional coordination refers to the process of working collaboratively Poberschnigg et al., 2020; Swink & Schoenherr, 2015
across different maritime functional departments through formal and informal
mechanisms, which is proven that it can break down silos among logistics,
operations, finance, and security, enhance visibility, collaboration, and internal
agility, and further contributes to SCRES.
RP6 Shipping industry Shipping companies and ports expand their services through mergers and Siagian et al., 2021
consolidation acquisitions to include freight forwarding, logistics, and inland transportation,
which effectively aims for greater control over supply chains and greater
resilience.
RP7 Partnership management Adequate partnership management, building and keeping long-term, and Nenavani & Jain, 2021; Liu et al., 2021
strategic relationships with suppliers, manufacturers, and other service
providers, can enhance trust and positively reduce market uncertainty and
facilitate effective adaptation.
RP8 Joint planning Joint planning among supply chain members enables members to get more Liu et al., 2021; Poberschnigg et al., 2020; Rajesh,
accurate information about operations and finances within a dynamic 2017
environment and helps them forecast, and adapt to future changes effectively,
which has been widely discussed in SCRES literature.
RP9 Resource reconfiguration Resource reconfiguration, actions to reconfigure, rearrange, and restructure Queiroz et al., 2022; Parker & Ameen, 2018;
resources over supply chain to respond to the changes, is considered a critical Ambulkar, Blackhurst, & Grawe, 2015
element that plays a supporting role of building resilience in disruptive scenarios.
RP10 Human resource management Effective human resource management not only refers to reasonably developing Das et al., 2021; Ali et al., 2017
human resource structure, but also includes recruitment, education, and training
of a highly qualified, multi-skilled workforce to ensure enough and well-educated
workforce to cope with disruptions, which plays a significant role in enhancing
supply chain adaptability and building resilience.
RP11 Knowledge management Knowledge management refers to the process of acquiring, organizing, recording, Shin & Park, 2019; Scholten, Sharkey Scott, & Fynes,
and updating knowledge existing in technologies, routines, and coping with 2019; Ali et al., 2017; Scholten, Sharkey Scott, &
disruption, which promotes developing better strategies for disruptions and Fynes, 2014
achieving recovery.
RP12 Adoption of emerging Emerging technology, including the Internet of Things, blockchain, robotics, Chatterjee, Chaudhuri, & Vrontis, 2021; Ivanov,
technology artificial intelligence, energy-efficient technologies, and so on, can effectively Dolgui, & Sokolov, 2019
eliminate obstacles to supply chain operations.
RP13 Risk management Risk management consists of systematic routines that enable supply chain El Baz & Ruel, 2021; Um & Han, 2020; Kwak et al.,
members to identify and assess contingency in advance, and then address 2018
circumstances caused by disruptions impacts, which is highly related to building
supply chain robustness and resilience.
RP14 Maritime capacity Maritime capacity redundancy is defined as keeping adequate excess capacity for Ali & Gölgeci, 2019; Ali et al., 2017
redundancy maritime transportation, port handling facilities, overland transshipment, and so
on, to reduce the impact of sudden disruptions and increase adaptability and
responsiveness.
RP15 Maritime network Maritime network diversification refers to supply chain members diversifying Liu, Xi, & Wang, 2023; Lin, Fan, Shi, & Fu, 2021; Tan
diversification choices to enhance its flexibility when facing disruptions through multiple et al., 2019; Hasani & Khosrojerdi, 2016
sourcing, geographical dispersion, outsourcing to external providers, setting
redundant plants, backup transportation, backup transshipment nodes, and so
on.
RP16 Business-government Highly business-government collaboration that includes supportive policies and Ayyildiz, 2021; Das et al., 2021; Kashav et al., 2021
collaboration regulations enacted by governments on trade, and finance, collectively
developing trade facilitation procedures, such as maritime single window, and
establishing a joint committee, could effectively enhance trade facilitation.
RP17 Maritime infrastructure Implementing infrastructure improvement and automation through upgrading Kashav et al., 2022; Hasani & Khosrojerdi, 2016
improvement and automation port infrastructure, developing automated customs, building the port collection
and distribution systems, and so on, can effectively improve supply chain
operation efficiency, ensure MSC security and enhance SCRES.
RP18 Financial stability Financial stability is a decisive factor in building a resilient supply chain. Pimenta et al., 2022; Ayyildiz, 2021
Effective management of costs and operating margins can ensure supply chain
members with enough cash flow and assets to maintain operations without
disruptions.

8
J. Liu et al. Computers & Industrial Engineering 182 (2023) 109366

Table 4
The pairwise comparison matrix of expert 1 in Scenario1 and the absolute weight of resilience goals (RGs).
Agility Robustness Adaptability Responsiveness Absolute Weight

Agility 1 2 1/5 3 0.2262

Robustness 1/2 1 1/3 2 0.2653
Adaptability 5 3 1 4 0.3198
Responsiveness 1/3 1/2 1/4 1 0.1887

building resilience in the post COVID-19 era.

Table 5 Step 4 is to explore the degree of interdependency between RGs and
The values of D and R and the absolute weight of resilience strategies (RSs). RSs. In this step, the “strategy transition” is constructed to link RGs with
Resilience strategies D R Absolute weight (AW) of resilience RSs, in which the supportive impact of RSS on RGs under eight scenarios
(RSs) strategies (RSs) of coping with resilience barriers is respectively compared. Meanwhile,
Visibility 7.9470 6.5404 0.1795 using the AW of RGs, apply QFD to calculate the relative weight (RW) of
Collaboration 7.4189 7.3189 0.1876 RGs. The integrated “strategy transition” can be seen in Table 6. Then
Integration 7.4082 6.4725 0.1656
following Step 5, finally, the comprehensive weight (CW) of RSs is also
Innovation 7.0472 6.0991 0.1485
Flexibility 6.0536 7.8545 0.1643 computed and listed in Table 6. As listed, collaboration and flexibility
Security 5.9401 7.5294 0.1545 are two of the most important RSs, with similar CW of 0.1952, and
0.1760, followed by integration, visibility, and security, whose CW are
0.1717, 0.1660, and 0.1580, respectively. Compared to other RSs,
4.1.3. Resilience practices (RPs) innovation is less significant compared with a CW of 0.1331.
To enhance SCRES in the maritime industry, the hierarchy of RSs is Similar to Step 3, Step 6 is to determine the AW of resilience practices
further extended to specific operational measures scale. By implement­ (RPs) through DEMATEL. The direct relation matrix of RPs is shown in
ing RPs, it can be more effective to develop various RSs, build a resilient the Appendix and Table 7 shows the values of D and R, and the AW of
supply chain, and cope with challenges caused by changing environment RPs.
in the post COVID-19 era. In this paper, there are 18 corresponding RPs In Step 7 and Step 8, the second-phase QFD is applied to construct the
proposed. The meaning of these measures and their roles played in “practice deployment” linking resilience strategies (RSs) and resilience
MSCRES can be seen in Table 3. practices (RPs). In the “practice deployment”, the RW and CW of RPs are
computed, which can be seen in Table 8. Taking the supportive impact of
4.2. AHP-QFD-DEMATEL analysis RPs on RSs into account, the CW of RPs is attained, showing RP3 in­
formation sharing, RP5 cross-functional coordination, RP13 risk man­
This paper collects data from five experts that have profound agement, RP17 maritime infrastructure improvement and automation,
knowledge and practice experience about maritime in academic and RP8 joint planning, RP7 partnership management, and RP9 resource
industrial fields, whose average years of experience are more than 8. reconfiguration are top 7 crucial RPs, with the total weight of them over
Referring to Section 3, after constructing the first “house of quality”, that 50% comparing to the whole.
is “strategy transition”, proceed to Step 2. In AHP, the pairwise com­
parison matrix of expert 1 to cope with the uncertainty and the absolute 5. Discussion and conclusion
weight (AW) of RGs obtained by the final calculation are shown in
Table 4. To accurately acquire the priority of achieving RGs in the MSC, 5.1. Discussion
experts compare RGs considering two critical circumstances, including
different scenarios of resilience barriers, and the assumption that the Due to the large number of countries involved in the maritime supply
RGs are independent in building MSCRES. It is calculated that adapt­ chain (MSC), as well as the continuous occurrence of COVID-19 in each
ability is the most important within four RGs, with a score of 0.3198, country around the world, the blockade measures and epidemic pre­
followed by robustness, agility, and responsiveness, at 0.2653, 0.2262, vention policies implemented by various countries have an increasingly
and 0.1887, respectively. profound impact on the global MSC. The repeated occurrence of the
In Step 3, DEMATEL is employed to gain the AW of resilience stra­ epidemic has put the finance, material, and human resources of the MSC
tegies (RSs) due to the consideration of the interdependency of RSs. under great pressure, which indicates that building resilience in the MSC
Results of pairwise comparisons of RSs are shown in the Appendix, is imperative (Gu & Liu, 2023; Bathke et al., 2022; Praharsi et al., 2021;
which is the direct relation matrix of RSs. Then, this paper calculates the Lam & Bai, 2016). According to the result of AHP-QFD-DEMATEL
D and R values indicating the degree of influencing and being influ­ analysis, adaptability is the crucial goal in building post COVID-19
enced. According to equation (5), the AW of RSs is listed in Table 5. As maritime supply chain resilience (MSCRES). The COVID-19 pandemic
listed in the table below, in terms of the interrelationship of RSs them­ has caused adjustments in the MSC network structure, increased
selves, collaboration and visibility are the most important ones for

Table 6
The “strategy transition” linking resilience goals (RGs) and resilience strategies (RSs).
RGs AWRA Visibility Collaboration Integration Innovation Flexibility Security

Agility 0.2262 5.3750 4.7500 4.7500 4.2500 4.7500 4.5000

Robustness 0.2653 4.3750 5.3750 5.2500 4.6250 5.2500 5.7500
Adaptability 0.3198 4.7500 5.8750 5.6250 4.8750 6.2500 5.3750
Responsiveness 0.1887 4.7500 5.3750 5.8750 4.7500 5.7500 5.5000
Relative Importance 4.7918 5.3936 5.3748 4.6437 5.5511 5.3002
RWRC 0.1543 0.1737 0.1731 0.1495 0.1787 0.1707
AWRC 0.1795 0.1876 0.1656 0.1485 0.1643 0.1545
CWRC 0.1660 0.1952 0.1717 0.1331 0.1760 0.1580
Rank 4 1 3 6 2 5

9
J. Liu et al. Computers & Industrial Engineering 182 (2023) 109366

Table 7 post COVID-19 era, increased uncertainty urges supply chain members
The values of D and R and the absolute weight (AW) of resilience practices (RPs). to enhance comprehensive strength from the internal and external
Resilience practices (RPs) D R Absolute weight (AW) of through collaboration and integration, and create more agile options to
resilience practices (RPs) withstand abrupt disruptions and sustain normal operations (Junaid,
Supply chain alertness 3.8610 4.7163 0.0508 Xue, Syed, Li, & Ziaullah, 2020; Sawyerr & Harrison, 2019; Rajesh,
Supply chain digitalization 5.4445 3.1003 0.0471 2017; Pettit et al., 2013). Better collaboration could give full play to the
Information sharing 5.2835 5.0325 0.0741 capacity of various functional departments in the supply chain,
Leadership support 4.7750 2.2730 0.0303 enhancing pricing capabilities, providing more options for post­
Cross-functional coordination 5.1923 4.8868 0.0708
Shipping industry consolidation 3.7555 4.6652 0.0489
ponements, and facilitating the quick and effective response of shipping
Partnership management 4.5566 4.8917 0.0622 lines, shippers, and ports to unexpected disruptions (Nenavani & Jain,
Joint planning 4.6394 5.2908 0.0685 2021; Rajesh, 2017). Through enhancing flexibility in the aspects of
Resource reconfiguration 3.6718 5.8119 0.0595 operation, process, and transportation, such as adopting multiple
Human resource management 4.0836 3.4535 0.0393
sourcing, and equipping with multipurpose and universal machinery,
Knowledge management 4.7730 4.0376 0.0537
Adoption of emerging 4.2352 3.1936 0.0377 supply chain members can handle abrupt changes with little damage,
technology less time and low cost, and produce good performance (Chunsheng,
Risk management 4.5627 6.0720 0.0773 Wong, Yang, Shang, & Lirn, 2019; Dubey et al., 2019). Integration builds
Maritime capacity redundancy 3.7823 4.3087 0.0454 functional and decision-making unions by consolidation in processes,
Maritime network 4.2742 5.6590 0.0675
diversification
systems, and industries, which could improve the efficiency of resource
Business-government 4.1972 3.8301 0.0448 allocation and coordination efficiency among supply chain members,
collaboration and further enable greater agility, responsibility, and supply chain
Maritime infrastructure 4.3568 4.8060 0.0584 resilience (Siagian, Tarigan, & Jie, 2021; Poberschnigg, Pimenta, &
improvement and automation
Hilletofth, 2020; Chunsheng et al., 2019).
Financial stability 5.0803 4.4959 0.0637
In building MSCRES, operational practices directly influence the
efficiency of overcoming a series of deficiencies and barriers existing in
uncertainty in sea freight pricing and service plans, and changes in de­ the turbulent environment of post COVID-19 era. This paper discussed
mand patterns and transportation modes. Adaptability enables firms in the supportive impacts of 18 proposed resilience practices (RPs) on
the supply chain to incrementally adjust and modify their operational MSCRES, concluding that information sharing (RP3), cross-functional
measures to effectively cope with these changes in the post COVID-19 coordination (RP5), risk management (RP13), and maritime infrastruc­
era (Patrucco & Kähkönen, 2021; Pettit et al., 2013). It can help ture improvement and automation (RP17), are the top 4 of the most
reduce operational costs of coping with challenges and disruptions, effective resilience practices. Information sharing is the crucial element
enhance SCRES, and further improve supply chain performance (Liu, of building SCRES, which has been widely approved in prior studies
Dou, & Yang, 2021; Dubey et al., 2018). Meanwhile, robustness is (Piya et al., 2022; Dubey et al., 2019; Kamalahmadi & Parast, 2016;
ranked as the second crucial goal for supply chain members to achieve in
building MSCRES. Through enhancing robustness, supply chain mem­
bers could resist sudden disturbance to sustain their function and Table A1
Characteristics of Experts in the Workshop.
cushion external and internal turbulence to return to the planned situ­
ation (Brandon-Jones et al., 2014; Wieland & Wallenburg, 2013), which Experts Position Age Years of working experience in MSC
is quite important for MSC business continuity and SCRES (Piya et al., Expert 1 Professor 43 12
2022; Liu et al., 2021; Stone & Rahimifard, 2018). Expert 2 Professor 46 19
As far as the importance of resilience strategies (RSs), it is found that Expert 3 Associate professor 32 6
Expert 4 Manager 35 6
collaboration, flexibility, and integration are ranked in the top 3. In the
Expert 5 Manager 36 5

Table 8
The “practice deployment” linking resilience strategies (RSs) and resilience practices (RPs).
RS CWRC RP1 RP2 RP3 RP4 RP5 RP6 RP7 RP8 RP9

Visibility 0.1660 4.75 5.5 6.125 3.75 4.5 2.5 4 4.125 2.75
Collaboration 0.1952 3 4.125 5.375 4.625 6.125 4 3.75 3.875 4.125
Integration 0.1717 2.75 4.75 5.5 4.375 4.75 5.25 6.125 6 5.125
Innovation 0.1331 2 3.125 4 3.5 3.375 3.125 2.75 3 3.625
Flexibility 0.1760 3.625 4.75 5.375 3.875 5.125 4.75 4.5 4.375 5.375
Security 0.1580 2.625 4 3.75 2.875 3.75 3.5 3.5 2.875 4.125
Relative Importance 3.1652 4.4177 5.0812 3.8786 4.7019 3.9022 4.1587 4.0949 4.2219
RWRM 0.0421 0.0618 0.0711 0.0543 0.0658 0.0546 0.0582 0.0573 0.0591
AWRM 0.0508 0.0471 0.0741 0.0303 0.0708 0.0489 0.0622 0.0685 0.0595
CWRM 0.0365 0.0497 0.0899 0.0281 0.0795 0.0455 0.0617 0.0670 0.0600
Rank 17 11 1 18 2 13 6 5 7
RS CWRC RP10 RP11 RP12 RP13 RP14 RP15 RP16 RP17 RP18
Visibility 0.1851 2.2 2.8 3.2 3.2 2.8 1.8 2.4 5.6 1.8
Collaboration 0.1849 3.8 2.2 2.2 4 3.8 2.4 2.6 5.4 2.6
Integration 0.1602 3.4 3.4 2.4 4 4 2.6 3.4 6.4 2.6
Innovation 0.1751 6.8 7 5.2 2.4 2.2 1.2 3.4 4.6 5
Flexibility 0.1565 3.8 3 2.6 6.4 6.2 6.8 4.8 6 5.2
Security 0.1382 4 4.2 2.2 6.4 6.6 6.4 6 6.4 6.6
Relative Importance 4.4957 3.9650 4.2650 4.0672 4.3233 3.3736 3.8247 5.2934 3.9417
RWRM 0.0629 0.0555 0.0597 0.0569 0.0605 0.0472 0.0535 0.0741 0.0552
AWRM 0.0393 0.0537 0.0377 0.0773 0.0454 0.0675 0.0448 0.0584 0.0637
CWRM 0.0422 0.0508 0.0384 0.0750 0.0469 0.0544 0.0409 0.0738 0.0599
Rank 14 10 16 3 12 9 15 4 8

10
J. Liu et al. Computers & Industrial Engineering 182 (2023) 109366

Fig. A1. The process of identifying resilience barriers and the hierarchical framework using the focus group method.

Fig. B1. The results of literature visualization using the VOS viewer.

Pettit et al., 2013). It not only enables supply chain members to fully
grasp the situations inside and outside the supply chain, but also
smooths the way for firms’ quick and effective response to the changes.
Meanwhile, previous studies have already proven that cross-functional
coordination (RP5) could support the achievement of resilience strate­
gies (Siagian et al., 2021; Poberschnigg et al., 2020). The coordination
between functional departments could synchronize the supply chain
flow, contributing to better collaboration and integration among supply
chain members, and creating greater flexibility. Comparatively
speaking, risk management (RP13) is equally appropriate for sustaining
supply chain security and stability in responding to unexpected
situations and emergencies like COVID-19 (El Baz & Ruel, 2021; Dubey
et al., 2019). Complete and mature risk management (RP13) strategies
help the supply chain act effectively and promptly to any disruptive
event, attaining business stability and continuity (Piya et al., 2022; Liu,
Shang, Lirn, Lai, & Lun, 2018). Ranking the fourth important resilience
measure is maritime infrastructure improvement and automation
(RP17). Since the highly collaborative work process between different
supply chain partners to deal with disturbances places higher demands
on data collection and work efficiency, digitalized and automated
infrastructure is required to share information efficiently and complete
work promptly (Piya et al., 2022; Kashav et al., 2022; Remko, 2020).

11
J. Liu et al. Computers & Industrial Engineering 182 (2023) 109366

Table C1
The direct relation matrix of resilience strategies (RSs).
Visibility Collaboration Integration Innovation Flexibility Security

Visibility 1.0000 3.8000 3.6000 2.4000 3.2000 3.4000

Collaboration 3.6000 1.0000 2.2000 2.6000 3.2000 3.6000
Integration 3.0000 3.0000 1.0000 2.4000 3.6000 3.2000
Innovation 3.0000 3.0000 2.6000 1.0000 3.0000 2.6000
Flexibility 1.8000 2.6000 2.2000 2.8000 1.0000 2.6000
Security 1.8000 2.6000 2.4000 1.8000 3.2000 1.0000

Table C2
The direct relation matrix of resilience practices (RPs).
RP1 RP2 RP3 RP4 RP5 RP6 RP7 RP8 RP9 RM10 RP11 RP12 RP13 RP14 RP15 RP16 RP17 RP18

RP1 1 2 2.6 1 2.6 2 2.8 3 2.4 1.8 2 1.6 3.4 2.4 2.8 2.2 2.4 2.8
RP2 4.6 1 4.8 1.2 3.8 3.6 3.2 3.8 4.2 2.6 3.6 3 4 2.6 3.8 1.6 3.6 3.2
RP3 4.4 1.6 1 1.8 4.4 3.8 4.4 4.4 4.4 2.8 3.2 1.8 4.4 2 4 2.8 2.6 3
RP4 2.6 3 3.6 1 4 4.2 3.6 3.4 2.8 2.2 2.6 2.2 3.4 2.6 2.8 2.4 1.8 2.4
RP5 3.4 2.2 4.4 1 1 3.6 4 4.8 4.4 3 3.2 1.6 4.2 3.6 3.2 2 3.8 2.4
RP6 1.8 1.8 3.4 1 1.8 1 2.8 3 4.2 2 2.4 1.2 2 1.8 2.6 3.4 2 1.8
RP7 3.4 1 3.8 1.2 2.6 3.4 1 4.8 4 1.6 1.4 1.2 4.2 2.2 4.2 2.8 2.4 3.6
RP8 3.2 1.4 4 1 2.8 2.8 2.8 1 4.6 1.4 3 1.6 4 3.4 4.6 2.2 3.2 2.8
RP9 1 1 1.6 1 2.2 2.8 1.4 1.6 1 2 2.4 1.8 4.2 2.4 4.2 2.4 3.4 2.8
RP10 2.4 1.8 2.6 1.8 4.4 2.2 3.2 2.6 1.8 1 3.6 1.4 2.8 3.2 2 2 2 2.2
RP11 2.6 2.2 3.8 1.4 3.4 1.6 3.4 3.8 4 2 1 2.8 3.8 2.4 2.8 2.4 4 3.2
RP12 1.8 3 3 1.6 2.8 1.8 1.6 2.6 3.6 2.2 2 1 3 2.6 3.4 1.8 4 3
RP13 4.6 1.6 2.2 1.8 3.4 1.6 3.4 3.2 3.4 2 2.8 1.6 1 3 3.8 2.8 3 3.6
RP14 2.6 1.4 3.2 1 3.2 1.8 2.8 3.2 2.6 2 1.4 1.2 4 1 3.4 1.2 2.2 1.8
RP15 2.2 1.6 2 1.8 3 2.2 3.6 3.4 3.6 2.4 2.4 1.8 4.4 2.8 1 2.4 2.4 2.6
RP16 2.8 1.4 2.6 2.4 2.4 4.2 2.8 2.6 2.8 1 1.6 1.2 3.6 2 3 1 4 3.4
RP17 3.4 3.4 3.6 1 2.2 3.2 2 2.2 3.6 1.6 1.6 3.8 3.4 2.8 4.2 1.6 1 2
RP18 2.2 2.4 2.6 1.2 3 4.6 3.4 3.2 4.2 3 2.8 3.4 4.8 2.8 3.8 3 3.4 1

5.2. Conclusion
During the post COVID-19 era, the international situation has
remained extremely volatile, exerting great pressure on the MSC and
urging firms to build a resilient supply chain. Through a broad literature
review and collected experts’ opinions, based on resource-based view,
and dynamic capabilities theory, this paper constructed a conceptual
framework of MSCRES. The framework explained the MSCRES from the
perspective of resilience goals, resilience strategies, and resilience
practices. Then, adopting the AHP-QFD-DEMATEL, the significance of
resilience factors in each layer of the hierarchical framework was
analyzed, as well as taking into account that successfully surmounting
resilience barriers occurred in the post COVID-19 era. The results
showed that adaptability and robustness were the two most important
resilience goals (RGs). In the analysis of resilience strategies (RSs),
combing the interrelationships between RSs and the effect of RGs on
them, it was discovered that the priority relationship among RSs was,
collaboration (0.1952) > flexibility (0.1760) > integration (0.1717) >
visibility (0.1660) > security (0.1580) > innovation (0.1331). As far as
critical resilience practices (RPs), results revealed that information
sharing (RP3), cross-functional coordination (RP5), risk management
(RP13), and maritime infrastructure improvement and automation
(RP17), were the top 4 most effective RPs.
This paper provides abundant theoretical and managerial implica­
tions in academia and industry. In terms of theoretical implications,
prior studies mostly focus on resilience phases and capabilities, while
few clearly describe the characteristics of a resilient supply chain and
extend it from concept to practice in industry, which leads to the diffi­
culty of its evaluation. However, this paper concluded the characteristics
of SCRES in each development phase of resilience, integrated the defi­
nition of SCRES with dynamic capabilities, and embedded SCRES in
maritime strategic management procedure, which contributed to its
quantification and makes SCRES more clear. Meanwhile, the findings
also suggest specific courses of action for industrial managers. In the
post COVID-19 era, maritime enterprise managers should focus on
improving the adaptability and robustness of the supply chain, pooling
resources in enhancing collaboration, flexibility, integration, and so on
by adopting a series of most effective resilience practices. For example,
(i) Establishing shipping alliance, signing long-term cooperation con­
tracts, and achieving shipping industry consolidation through cross
shareholding, and merger and acquisition to maintain the stability of
partnership, reduce operation costs, maximize the transportation utili­
zation rate, and increase competitiveness in the shipping industry; (ii)
Developing digital platforms, equipping with automated mechanical
equipment in the transportation process, and adopting single order
system for maritime transportation to enhance the transparency, trace­
ability, and visibility of supply chain, and improve the efficiency of lo­
gistics and transportation; (iii) Establishing a risk early warning system,
improving the level of redundancy in transportation facilities and ca­
pacities, and diversifying the sourcing channels and transportation
modes to heighten the awareness of disruptions, and strengthen firm’s
flexibility when coping with disturbances.
Besides, the proposed hybrid method has some limitations that
should be overcome in future studies. Firstly, the proposed framework is
mainly based on literature review and revised according to some expe­
rienced experts’ opinions, while rarely taking firms’ practical operation
strategy into account. Therefore, in future studies more data could be
collected in maritime firms to include more considerations, such as
technical and financial feasibility, impact on the continuity of the
operation of the MSC, and so on. Secondly, the experts’ opinions are
mainly collected from experts in China, and in future studies, more ex­
perts’ opinions from other countries should also be collected. Thirdly,
the construction of the framework has neglected interpreting the sys­
tematic relationships among various resilience factors to build the hi­
erarchical structure using the semi-quantitative method. Future studies
could combine experts’ opinions and systematic relationships among
resilience factors to construct the hierarchical framework of MSCRES.
Finally, during analyzing the resilience factors, this paper adopts a
hybrid MCDM method of AHP-QFD-DEMATEL that relies more on ex­
perts’ evaluation, which could cause experts’ subjective evaluation

12
J. Liu et al.
errors. Future studies could combine fuzzy, gray, and neutrosophic
theory with MCDM method to reduce the influence of subjectivity.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Jiaguo Liu: Conceptualization, Methodology, Supervision, Writing –
original draft. Juanjuan Wu: Data curation, Writing – original draft,
Writing – review & editing. Yu Gong: Supervision, Writing – review &
editing.
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.
Data availability
Data will be made available on request.
Acknowledgment
This research was supported by the Natural Science Foundation of
China (71774019, 71402038), and the Fundamental Research Funds for
the Central Universities (3132022608).
Appendix A. . The process of the focus group discussion and the
information of the Workshop
Table A1. Fig. A4.
Appendix B. . The results of the research visualization using VOS
viewer
Fig. B5.
Appendix C. . The results of the AHP-QFD-DEMATEL analysis
Table C1. Table C2.
References
Adobor, H., & McMullen, R. S. (2018). Supply chain resilience: A dynamic and
multidimensional approach. The International Journal of Logistics Management, 29(4),
1451–1471. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJLM-04-2017-0093
Ali, A., Mahfouz, A., & Arisha, A. (2017). Analysing supply chain resilience: Integrating
the constructs in a concept mapping framework via a systematic literature review.
Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 22(1), 16–39. https://doi.org/
10.1108/SCM-06-2016-0197
Ali, I., & Gölgeci, I. (2019). Where is supply chain resilience research heading? A
systematic and co-occurrence analysis. International Journal of Physical Distribution &
Logistics Management, 49(8), 793–815. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPDLM-02-2019-
0038
Altıok, P. (2011). Applicable vision, mission and the effects of strategic management on
crisis resolve. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 24, 61–71. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.09.057
Ambulkar, S., Blackhurst, J., & Grawe, S. (2015). Firm’s resilience to supply chain
disruptions: Scale development and empirical examination. Journal of Operations
Management, 33–34(1), 111–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2014.11.002
Aslam, H., Khan, A. Q., Rashid, K., & Rehman, S. (2020). Achieving supply chain
resilience: The role of supply chain ambidexterity and supply chain agility. Journal of
Manufacturing Technology Management, 31(6), 1185–1204. https://doi.org/10.1108/
JMTM-07-2019-0263
Ayyildiz, E. (2021). Interval valued intuitionistic fuzzy analytic hierarchy process-based
green supply chain resilience evaluation methodology in post COVID-19 era.
Environmental Science and Pollution Research. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-
16972-y
Bathke, H., Münch, C., Heiko, A., & Hartmann, E. (2022). Building resilience through
foresight: The case of maritime container shipping firms. IEEE Transactions on
Engineering Management, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1109/TEM.2021.3137009
Bode, C., & Macdonald, J. R. (2017). Stages of supply chain disruption response: Direct,
constraining, and mediating factors for impact mitigation. Decision Sciences, 48(5),
836–874. https://doi.org/10.1111/deci.12245
13
Computers & Industrial Engineering 182 (2023) 109366
Brandon-Jones, E., Squire, B., Autry, C. W., & Petersen, K. J. (2014). A contingent
resource-based perspective of supply chain resilience and robustness. Journal of
Supply Chain Management, 50(3), 55–73. https://doi.org/10.1111/jscm.12050
Brusset, X., & Teller, C. (2017). Supply chain capabilities, risks, and resilience.
International Journal of Production Economics, 184, 59–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijpe.2016.09.008
Celik, M., Cebi, S., Kahraman, C., & Er, I. D. (2009). An integrated fuzzy QFD model
proposal on routing of shipping investment decisions in crude oil tanker market.
Expert Systems with Applications, 36(3), 6227–6235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
eswa.2008.07.031
Chatterjee, S., Chaudhuri, R., & Vrontis, D. (2021). Examining the impact of adoption of
emerging technology and supply chain resilience on firm performance: Moderating
role of absorptive capacity and leadership support. IEEE Transactions on Engineering
Management, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1109/TEM.2021.3134188
Chowdhury, M. M. H., & Quaddus, M. (2016). Supply chain readiness, response and
recovery for resilience. Supply Chain Management-An International Journal, 21(6),
709–731. https://doi.org/10.1108/SCM-12-2015-0463
Chowdhury, M. M. H., & Quaddus, M. (2017). Supply chain resilience: Conceptualization
and scale development using dynamic capability theory. International Journal of
Production Economics, 188, 185–204. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2017.03.020
Christopher, M., & Holweg, M. (2011). “Supply Chain 2.0”: Managing supply chains in
the era of turbulence. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics
Management, 41(1), 63–82. https://doi.org/10.1108/09600031111101439
Christopher, M., & Peck, H. (2004). Building the resilient supply chain. The International
Journal of Logistics Management, 15(2), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1108/
09574090410700275
Chunsheng, L., Wong, C. W. Y., Yang, C., Shang, K., & Lirn, T. (2019). Value of supply
chain resilience: Roles of culture, flexibility, and integration. International Journal of
Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 50(1), 80–100. https://doi.org/
10.1108/IJPDLM-02-2019-0041
Cohen, M. A., & Kouvelis, P. (2021). Revisit of AAA excellence of global value chains:
Robustness, resilience, and realignment. Production and Operations Management, 30
(3), 633–643. https://doi.org/10.1111/poms.13305
Cohen, M., Cui, S., Doetsch, S., Ernst, R., Huchzermeier, A., Kouvelis, P., … Tsay, A. A.
(2022). Bespoke supply-chain resilience: The gap between theory and practice.
Journal of Operations Management, 68(5), 515–531. https://doi.org/10.1002/
joom.1184
Das, D., Datta, A., Kumar, P., Kazancoglu, Y., & Ram, M. (2021). Building supply chain
resilience in the era of COVID-19: An AHP-DEMATEL approach. Operations
Management Research. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12063-021-00200-4
Dubey, R., Altay, N., Gunasekaran, A., Blome, C., Papadopoulos, T., & Childe, S. J.
(2018). Supply chain agility, adaptability and alignment. International Journal of
Operations & Production Management, 38(1), 129–148. https://doi.org/10.1108/
IJOPM-04-2016-0173
Dubey, R., Gunasekaran, A., Childe, S. J., Fosso Wamba, S., Roubaud, D., & Foropon, C.
(2019). Empirical investigation of data analytics capability and organizational
flexibility as complements to supply chain resilience. International Journal of
Production Research, 59(1), 110–128. https://doi.org/10.1080/
00207543.2019.1582820
Eckstein, D., Goellner, M., Blome, C., & Henke, M. (2015). The performance impact of
supply chain agility and supply chain adaptability: The moderating effect of product
complexity. International Journal of Production Research, 53(10), 3028–3046. https://
doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2014.970707
El Baz, J., & Ruel, S. (2021). Can supply chain risk management practices mitigate the
disruption impacts on supply chains’ resilience and robustness? Evidence from an
empirical survey in a COVID-19 outbreak era. International Journal of Production
Economics, 233, Article 107972. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2020.107972
Ensslin, L., Dezem, V., Dutra, A., Ensslin, S. R., & Somensi, K. (2018). Seaport-
performance tools: An analysis of the international literature. Maritime Economics &
Logistics, 20(4), 587–602. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41278-017-0083-7
Francis, V. (2008). Supply chain visibility: Lost in translation? Supply Chain Management:
An International Journal, 13(3), 180–184. https://doi.org/10.1108/
13598540810871226
Garg, C. P., & Kashav, V. (2019). Evaluating value creating factors in greening the
transportation of Global Maritime Supply Chains (GMSCs) of containerized freight.
Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 73, 162–186. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.trd.2019.06.011
Gu, B., & Liu, J. (2023). A systematic review of resilience in the maritime transport.
International Journal of Logistics Research and Applications, 1–22. https://doi.org/
10.1080/13675567.2023.2165051
Gu, M., Yang, L., & Huo, B. (2021). The impact of information technology usage on
supply chain resilience and performance: An ambidexterous view. International
Journal of Production Economics, 232, Article 107956. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijpe.2020.107956
Han, Y., Chong, W. K., & Li, D. (2020). A systematic literature review of the capabilities
and performance metrics of supply chain resilience. International Journal of
Production Research, 58(15), 4541–4566. https://doi.org/10.1080/
00207543.2020.1785034
Hasani, A., & Khosrojerdi, A. (2016). Robust global supply chain network design under
disruption and uncertainty considering resilience strategies: A parallel memetic
algorithm for a real-life case study. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and
Transportation Review, 87, 20–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2015.12.009
Hosseini, S., Ivanov, D., & Dolgui, A. (2019). Review of quantitative methods for supply
chain resilience analysis. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation
Review, 125, 285–307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2019.03.001
J. Liu et al.
Ivanov, D. (2021). Introduction to supply chain resilience: Management, modelling,
technology. Springer Nature.
Ivanov, D., Dolgui, A., & Sokolov, B. (2019). The impact of digital technology and
Industry 4.0 on the ripple effect and supply chain risk analytics. International Journal
of Production Research, 57(3), 829–846. https://doi.org/10.1080/
00207543.2018.1488086
Jiang, M. Z., Lu, J., Qu, Z. H., & Yang, Z. L. (2021). Port vulnerability assessment from a
supply chain perspective. Ocean & Coastal Management, 213. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2021.105851
Junaid, M., Xue, Y., Syed, M. W., Li, J. Z., & Ziaullah, M. (2020). A neutrosophic AHP and
TOPSIS framework for supply chain risk assessment in automotive industry of
Pakistan. Sustainability, 12(1). https://doi.org/10.3390/su12010154
Kamal, A., Azfar, R. W., Salah, B., Saleem, W., Abas, M., Khan, R., & Pruncu, C. I. (2021).
Quantitative analysis of sustainable use of construction materials for supply chain
integration and construction industry performance through structural equation
modeling (SEM). Sustainability, 13(2), 522. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13020522
Kamalahmadi, M., & 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, 171, 116–133. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2015.10.023
Kashav, V., Garg, C. P., & Kumar, R. (2021). Ranking the strategies to overcome the
barriers of the maritime supply chain (MSC) of containerized freight under fuzzy
environment. Annals of Operations Research. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-02
1-04371-y.
Kashav, V., Garg, C. P., Kumar, R., & Sharma, A. (2022). Management and analysis of
barriers in the maritime supply chains (MSCs) of containerized freight under fuzzy
environment. Research in Transportation Business & Management, 100793. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.rtbm.2022.100793
Kim, D., & Lee, R. P. (2010). Systems collaboration and strategic collaboration: Their
impacts on supply chain responsiveness and market performance. DECISION
SCIENCES, 41(4), 955–981. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5915.2010.00289.x
Kumar, D., Rahman, Z., & Chan, F. T. S. (2017). A fuzzy AHP and fuzzy multi-objective
linear programming model for order allocation in a sustainable supply chain: A case
study. International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing, 30(6), 535–551.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0951192X.2016.1145813
Kwak, D., Seo, Y., & Mason, R. (2018). Investigating the relationship between supply
chain innovation, risk management capabilities and competitive advantage in global
supply chains. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 38(1),
2–21. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOPM-06-2015-0390
Lam, J. S. L., & Bai, X. (2016). A quality function deployment approach to improve
maritime supply chain resilience. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and
Transportation Review, 92, 16–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2016.01.012
Li, H., Pedrielli, G., Lee, L. H., & Chew, E. P. (2017). Enhancement of supply chain
resilience through inter-echelon information sharing. Flexible Services and
Manufacturing Journal, 29(2), 260–285. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10696-016-9249-
3 chain - closing the gap between research findings and industry practice. International
Lin, Y., Fan, D., Shi, X., & Fu, M. (2021). The effects of supply chain diversification
during the COVID-19 crisis: Evidence from Chinese manufacturers. Transportation
Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 155, Article 102493. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.tre.2021.102493
Liu, C., Shang, K., Lirn, T., Lai, K., & Lun, Y. H. V. (2018). Supply chain resilience, firm
performance, and management policies in the liner shipping industry. Transportation
Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 110, 202–219. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
tra.2017.02.004
Liu, J., Xi, Y., & Wang, J. (2023). Resilience strategies for sustainable supply chains
under budget constraints in the post COVID-19 era. Frontiers of Engineering
Management, 10(1), 143–157. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42524-022-0236-y
Liu, X., Dou, Z., & Yang, W. (2021). Research on influencing factors of cross border E-
Commerce supply chain resilience based on integrated fuzzy DEMATEL-ISM. IEEE
Access, 9, 36140–36153. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3059867
Loh, H. S., Zhou, Q. J., Thai, V. V., Wong, Y. D., & Yuen, K. F. (2017). Fuzzy
comprehensive evaluation of port-centric supply chain disruption threats. Ocean &
Coastal Management, 148, 53–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ocecoaman.2017.07.017
Nair, A., & Vidal, J. M. (2011). Supply network topology and robustness against
disruptions - an investigation using multi-agent model. International Journal of
Production Research, 49(5), 1391–1404. https://doi.org/10.1080/
00207543.2010.518744
Nenavani, J., & Jain, R. K. (2021). Examining the impact of strategic supplier
partnership, customer relationship and supply chain responsiveness on operational
performance: The moderating effect of demand uncertainty. Journal of Business &
Industrial Marketing, 37(5), 995–1011. https://doi.org/10.1108/JBIM-10-2020-0461
Okorie, O., Subramoniam, R., Charnley, F., Patsavellas, J., Widdifield, D., & Salonitis, K.
(2020). Manufacturing in the time of COVID-19: An assessment of barriers and
enablers. IEEE Engineering Management Review, 48(3), 167–175. https://doi.org/
10.1109/EMR.2020.3012112
Panahi, R., Sadeghi Gargari, N., Lau, Y., & Ng, A. K. Y. (2022). Developing a resilience
assessment model for critical infrastructures: The case of port in tackling the impacts
posed by the Covid-19 pandemic. Ocean & Coastal Management, 226, Article 106240.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2022.106240
Parker, H., & Ameen, K. (2018). The role of resilience capabilities in shaping how firms
respond to disruptions. Journal of Business Research, 88, 535–541. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.12.022
Patrucco, A. S., & Kähkönen, A. (2021). Agility, adaptability, and alignment: New
capabilities for PSM in a post-pandemic world. Journal of Purchasing and Supply
Management, 27(4), Article 100719. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pursup.2021.100719
14
Computers & Industrial Engineering 182 (2023) 109366
Pettit, T. J., Croxton, K. L., & Fiksel, J. (2013). Ensuring supply chain resilience:
Development and implementation of an assessment tool. Journal of Business Logistics,
34(1), 46–76. https://doi.org/10.1111/jbl.12009
Pettit, T. J., Fiksel, J., & Croxton, K. L. (2010). Ensuring supply chain resilience:
Development of a conceptual framework. Journal of Business Logistics, 31(1), 1–21.
https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2158-1592.2010.tb00125.x
Pimenta, M. L., Cezarino, L. O., Piato, E. L., Da Silva, Oliveira, B. G., & Liboni, L. B.
(2022). Supply chain resilience in a Covid-19 scenario: Mapping capabilities in a
systemic framework. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 29, 649–656.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2021.10.012.
Pires Ribeiro, J., & Barbosa-Povoa, A. (2018). Supply Chain Resilience: Definitions and
quantitative modelling approaches-A literature review. Computers & Industrial
Engineering, 115, 109–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2017.11.006
Piya, S., Shamsuzzoha, A., & Khadem, M. (2022). Analysis of supply chain resilience
drivers in oil and gas industries during the COVID-19 pandemic using an integrated
approach. Applied Soft Computing, 121, Article 108756. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
asoc.2022.108756
Poberschnigg, T. F. D. S., Pimenta, M. L., & Hilletofth, P. (2020). How can cross-
functional integration support the development of resilience capabilities? The case of
collaboration in the automotive industry. Supply Chain Management: An International
Journal, 25(6), 789–801. https://doi.org/10.1108/SCM-10-2019-0390
Praharsi, Y., Jami In, M. A., Suhardjito, G., & Wee, H. M. (2021). The application of Lean
Six Sigma and supply chain resilience in maritime industry during the era of COVID-
19. International Journal of Lean Six Sigma, 12(4), 800–834. https://doi.org/10.1108/
IJLSS-11-2020-0196
Qrunfleh, S., & Tarafdar, M. (2013). Lean and agile supply chain strategies and supply
chain responsiveness: The role of strategic supplier partnership and postponement.
Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 18(6), 571–582. https://doi.org/
10.1108/SCM-01-2013-0015
Queiroz, M. M., Fosso Wamba, S., Chiappetta Jabbour, C. J., & Machado, M. C. (2022).
Supply chain resilience in the UK during the coronavirus pandemic: A resource
orchestration perspective. International Journal of Production Economics, 245, Article
108405. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2021.108405
Rahman, T., Paul, S. K., Shukla, N., Agarwal, R., & Taghikhah, F. (2022). Supply chain
resilience initiatives and strategies: A systematic review. Computers & Industrial
Engineering, 170, Article 108317. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2022.108317
Raj, A., Mukherjee, A. A., de Sousa Jabbour, A. B. L., & Srivastava, S. K. (2022). Supply
chain management during and post-COVID-19 pandemic: Mitigation strategies and
practical lessons learned. Journal of Business Research, 142, 1125–1139. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.01.037
Rajesh, R. (2017). Technological capabilities and supply chain resilience of firms: A
relational analysis using Total Interpretive Structural Modeling (TISM). Technological
Forecasting and Social Change, 118, 161–169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
techfore.2017.02.017
Remko, V. H. (2020). Research opportunities for a more resilient post-COVID-19 supply
Journal of Operations & Production Management, 40(4), 341–355. https://doi.org/
10.1108/IJOPM-03-2020-0165
Sabahi, S., & Parast, M. M. (2020). Firm innovation and supply chain resilience: A
dynamic capability perspective. International journal of logistics, 23(3), 254–269.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13675567.2019.1683522
Sawyerr, E., & Harrison, C. (2019). Developing resilient supply chains: Lessons from
high-reliability organisations. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 25
(1), 77–100. https://doi.org/10.1108/SCM-09-2018-0329
Schoenherr, T., & Swink, M. (2012). Revisiting the arcs of integration: Cross-validations
and extensions. Journal of Operations Management, 30(1), 99–115. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jom.2011.09.001
Scholten, K., Sharkey Scott, P., & Fynes, B. (2014). Mitigation processes-antecedents for
building supply chain resilience. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal,
19(2), 211–228. https://doi.org/10.1108/SCM-06-2013-0191
Scholten, K., Sharkey Scott, P., & Fynes, B. (2019). Building routines for non-routine
events: Supply chain resilience learning mechanisms and their antecedents. Supply
Chain Management: An International Journal, 24(3), 430–442. https://doi.org/
10.1108/SCM-05-2018-0186
Shin, N., & Park, S. (2019). Evidence-based resilience management for supply chain
sustainability: An Interpretive Structural Modelling Approach. Sustainability, 11(2),
484. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11020484
Siagian, H., Tarigan, Z. J. H., & Jie, F. (2021). Supply chain integration enables
resilience, flexibility, and innovation to improve business performance in COVID-19
era. Sustainability, 13(9), 4669. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13094669
Simchi-Levi, D., Wang, H., & Wei, Y. (2018). Increasing supply chain robustness through
process flexibility and inventory. Production and Operations Management, 27(8),
1476–1491. https://doi.org/10.1111/poms.12887
Spieske, A., & Birkel, H. (2021). Improving supply chain resilience through industry 4.0:
A systematic literature review under the impressions of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Computers & Industrial Engineering, 158, Article 107452. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
cie.2021.107452
Stone, J., & Rahimifard, S. (2018). Resilience in agri-food supply chains: A critical
analysis of the literature and synthesis of a novel framework. Supply Chain
Management-An International Journal, 23(3), 207–238. https://doi.org/10.1108/
SCM-06-2017-0201
Swink, M., & Schoenherr, T. (2015). The effects of cross-functional integration on
profitability, process efficiency, and asset productivity. Journal of Business Logistics,
36(1), 69–87. https://doi.org/10.1111/jbl.12070
J. Liu et al.
Tan, W. J., Zhang, A. N., & Cai, W. (2019). A graph-based model to measure structural
redundancy for supply chain resilience. International Journal of Production Research,
57(20), 6385–6404. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2019.1566666
Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic
management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509–533. https://doi.org/
10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199708)18:7<509::AID-SMJ882>3.0.CO;2-Z
Tukamuhabwa, B. R., Stevenson, M., Busby, J., & Zorzini, M. (2015). Supply chain
resilience: Definition, review and theoretical foundations for further study.
International Journal of Production Research, 53(18), 5592–5623. https://doi.org/
10.1080/00207543.2015.1037934
Um, J., & Han, N. (2020). Understanding the relationships between global supply chain
risk and supply chain resilience: The role of mitigating strategies. Supply Chain
Management: An International Journal, 26(2), 240–255. https://doi.org/10.1108/
SCM-06-2020-0248
Urciuoli, L., & Hintsa, J. (2016). Adapting supply chain management strategies to
security – an analysis of existing gaps and recommendations for improvement.
International Journal of Logistics Research and Applications. https://doi.org/10.1080/
13675567.2016.1219703
Wan, C., Yan, X., Zhang, D., Qu, Z., & Yang, Z. (2019). An advanced fuzzy Bayesian-based
FMEA approach for assessing maritime supply chain risks. Transportation Research
Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 125, 222–240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
tre.2019.03.011
15
Computers & Industrial Engineering 182 (2023) 109366
Wieland, A., & Wallenburg, C. M. (2012). Dealing with supply chain risks. International
Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 42(10), 887–905. https://doi.
org/10.1108/09600031211281411
Wieland, A., & Wallenburg, C. M. (2013). The influence of relational competencies on
supply chain resilience: A relational view. International Journal of Physical Distribution
& Logistics Management, 43(4), 300–320. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPDLM-08-2012-
0243
Williams, B. D., Roh, J., Tokar, T., & Swink, M. (2013). Leveraging supply chain visibility
for responsiveness: The moderating role of internal integration. Journal of Operations
Management, 31(7–8), 543–554. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2013.09.003
Ye, F., Liu, K., Li, L., Lai, K., Zhan, Y., & Kumar, A. (2022). Digital supply chain
management in the COVID-19 crisis: An asset orchestration perspective. International
Journal of Production Economics, 245, Article 108396. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijpe.2021.108396
Zavitsas, K., Zis, T., & Bell, M. G. H. (2018). The impact of flexible environmental policy
on maritime supply chain resilience. Transport Policy, 72, 116–128. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.tranpol.2018.09.020
Zhang, Z.(J)., Srivastava, P.R., Eachempati, P. and Yu, Y. (2021), “An intelligent
framework for analyzing supply chain resilience of firms in China: a hybrid
multicriteria approach”, The International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol.
ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJLM-11-2020-0452.
Zouari, D., Ruel, S., & Viale, L. (2020). Does digitalising the supply chain contribute to its
resilience? International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 51(2),
149–180. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPDLM-01-2020-0038