The evaluation of E-business related technologies in the Railway Industry

For the purposes of this paper, e-business is defined as: "the performance, automisation and organisation of transactions, or chains of them, and the gathering and publishing of data, electronically over a communication protocol" Little research has been conducted either into how e-business technology can be successfully evaluated, or into the associated costs and benefits specifically related to the transportation and railway industries. Based upon a review of the current literature and a series of interviews held with railway operators, track managers and transportation customers from the Australian Fortune 100, the paper puts forward a framework for the evaluation of e-business investments within the railway industry. The research reported here is aimed at developing a flexible interface that enables the decision maker to assess and evaluate a wide variety of complex interacting variables. The proposed approach uses a variety of evaluation methods, as opposed to searching for a single "best" approach. Additionally, an attempt is being made to include the complex interaction between the implementation of the new technology and the changing organisational setting. A model is proposed using fuzzy logic to handle incomplete and uncertain knowledge; as well as to combine criteria within a conceptual model from which "real-worth" evaluations can be performed. This model provides a systematic approach to guide the decision maker in the deployment of e-business and emerging technologies in the industry. After discussing the main findings from a literature review on the use of evaluation frameworks in IT related projects, the paper deals with the proposed framework in detail. The use of empirical data, which was obtained transportation customers to help define the main framework factors, is also discussed. Finally, the paper summarises the main implications for rail freight of customers’s perceptions and stated needs in the e-business domain

Resilient Strategies and Sustainability in Agri-Food Supply Chains in the Face of High-Risk Events

[EN] Agri-food supply chains (AFSCs) are very vulnerable to high risks such as pandemics, causing economic and social impacts mainly on the most vulnerable population. Thus, it is a priority to implement resilient strategies that enable AFSCs to resist, respond and adapt to new market challenges. At the same time, implementing resilient strategies impact on the social, economic and environmental dimensions of sustainability. The objective of this paper is twofold: analyze resilient strategies on AFSCs in the literature and identify how these resilient strategies applied in the face of high risks affect the achievement of sustainability dimensions. The analysis of the articles is carried out in three points: consequences faced by agri-food supply chains due to high risks, strategies applicable in AFSCs, and relationship between resilient strategies and the achievement of sustainability dimensions.Authors of this publication acknowledge the contribution of the Project 691249, RUC-APS "Enhancing and implementing Knowledge based ICT solutions within high Risk and Uncertain Conditions for Agriculture Production Systems" (www.ruc-aps.eu), funded by the European Union under their funding scheme H2020-MSCA-RISE-2015.Zavala-Alcívar, A.; Verdecho Sáez, MJ.; Alfaro Saiz, JJ. (2020). Resilient Strategies and Sustainability in Agri-Food Supply Chains in the Face of High-Risk Events. IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology. 598:560-570. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-62412-5_46S560570598Gray, R.: Agriculture, transportation, and the COVID-19 crisis. Can. J. Agric. Econ. 68, 239–243 (2020)Queiroz, M.M., Ivanov, D., Dolgui, A., Fosso Wamba, S.: Impacts of epidemic outbreaks on supply chains: mapping a research agenda amid the COVID-19 pandemic through a structured literature review. Ann. Oper. Res. (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-020-03685-7Hobbs, J.: Food supply chains during the COVID-19 pandemic. Can. J. Agric. Econ. 68, 171–176 (2020)Shashi, P., Centobelli, P., Cerchione, R., Ertz, M.: Managing supply chain resilience to pursue business and environmental strategies. Bus. Strateg. Environ. 29(3), 1215–1246 (2019)Ivanov, D.: Predicting the impacts of epidemic outbreaks on global supply chains: a simulation-based analysis on the coronavirus outbreak (COVID-19/SARS-CoV-2) case. Transp. Res. Part E Logist. Transp. Rev. 136, 101922 (2020)Mamani, H., Chick, S.E., Simchi-Levi, D.: A game-theoretic model of international influenza vaccination coordination. Manage. Sci. 59(7), 1650–1670 (2013)Liu, M., Zhang, D.: A dynamic logistics model for medical resources allocation in an epidemic control with demand forecast updating. J. Oper. Res. Soc. 67, 841–852 (2016)Hessel, L.: Pandemic influenza vaccines: meeting the supply, distribution and deployment challenges. Influenza Other Respir. Viruses 3, 165–170 (2009)Orenstein, W., Schaffner, W.: Lessons learned: role of influenza vaccine production, distribution, supply, and demand—what it means for the provider. Am. J. Med. 121, S22–S27 (2008)Büyüktahtakın, I., Des-Bordes, E., Kıbış, E.: A new epidemics–logistics model: Insights into controlling the Ebola virus disease in West Africa. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 26, 1046–1063 (2018)Anparasan, A., Lejeune, M.: Analyzing the response to epidemics: concept of evidence-based Haddon matrix. J. Humanit. Logist. Supply Chain Manag. 7, 266–283 (2017)Anparasan, A.A., Lejeune, M.A.: Data laboratory for supply chain response models during epidemic outbreaks. Ann. Oper. Res. 270, 53–64 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-017-2462-yAnparasan, A., Lejeune, M.: Resource deployment and donation allocation for epidemic outbreaks. Ann. Oper. Res. 283, 9–32 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-016-2392-0Ivanov, D., Dolgui, A.: Viability of intertwined supply networks: extending the supply chain resilience angles towards survivability. A position paper motivated by COVID-19 outbreak. Int. J. Prod. Res. 58, 2904–2915 (2020)Ivanov, D.: Viable supply chain model: integrating agility, resilience and sustainability perspectives—lessons from and thinking beyond the COVID-19 pandemic. Ann. Oper. Res. (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-020-03640-6Ekici, A., Keskinocak, P., Swann, J.: Modeling influenza pandemic and planning food distribution. Manuf. Serv. Oper. Manag. 16, 11–27 (2014)Miranda, R., Schaffner, D.: Virus risk in the food supply chain. Curr. Op. Food Sci. 30, 43–48 (2019)Magalhães, A., Rossi, A., Zattar, I., Marques, M., Seleme, R.: Food traceability technologies and foodborne outbreak occurrences. Br. Food J. 121, 3362–3379 (2019)Denyer, D., Tranfield, D.: Producing a systematic review. In: Buchanan, D., Bryman, A. (eds.) The Sage Handbook of Organizational Research Methods, pp. 671–689. SAGE Publications Ltd., London (2009)Christopher, M., Peck, H.: Building the resilient supply chain. Int. J. Logist. Manag. 15, 1–14 (2004)Dolgui, A., Ivanov, D., Sokolov, B.: Ripple effect in the supply chain: an analysis and recent literature. Int. J. Prod. Res. 56, 414–430 (2018)Jüttner, U., Peck, H., Christopher, M.: Supply chain risk management: outlining an agenda for future research. Int. J. Logist. Res. 6, 197–210 (2003)Behzadi, G., O’Sullivan, M., Olsen, T., Zhang, A.: Agribusiness supply chain risk management: a review of quantitative decision models. Omega (United Kingdom) 79, 21–42 (2018)Kleindorfer, P., Saad, G.: Managing disruption risks in supply chains. Pr. Op. Man. 14, 53–68 (2005)Vishnu, C., Sridharan, R., Gunasekaran, A., Ram Kumar, P.: Strategic capabilities for managing risks in supply chains: current state and research futurities. J. Adv. Manag. Res. 17(2), 173–211 (2019)Deaton, B., Deaton, B.: Food security and Canada’s agricultural system challenged by COVID-19. Can. J. Agric. Econ. 68(2), 143–149 (2020)Richards, T., Rickard, B.: COVID-19 impact on fruit and vegetable markets. C. J. Ag. Ec. 68(2), 189–194 (2020)Larue, B.: Labor issues and COVID-19. Can. J. Agric. Econ. Can. d’agroeconomie (2020). https://doi.org/10.1111/cjag.12233Hollnagel, E.: Epilogue: RAG: the resilience analysis grid. In: Hollnagel, E., Paries, J., Woods, D., Wreathall, J. (eds.) Resilience Engineering in Practice: A Guidebook. Ashgate Pr., pp. 275–296 (2011)Ponomarov, S., Holcomb, M.: Understanding the concept of supply chain resilience. Int. J. Logist. Manag. 20, 124–143 (2009)Wu, T., Huang, S., Blackhurst, J., Zhang, X., Wang, S.: Supply chain risk management: an agent-based simulation to study the impact of retail stockouts. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag. 60, 676–686 (2013)Schmitt, A., Singh, M.: A quantitative analysis of disruption risk in a multi-echelon supply chain. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 139, 22–32 (2012)Vroegindewey, R., Hodbod, J.: Resilience of agricultural value chains in developing country contexts: a framework and assessment approach. Sustainability 10, 916 (2018)Behzadi, G., O’Sullivan, M., Olsen, T., Scrimgeour, F., Zhang, A.: Robust and resilient strategies for managing supply disruptions in an agribusiness supply chain. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 191, 207–220 (2017)Bottani, E., Murino, T., Schiavo, M., Akkerman, R.: Resilient food supply chain design: modelling framework and metaheuristic solution approach. Comput. Ind. Eng. 135, 177–198 (2019)Meuwissen, M., et al.: A framework to assess the resilience of farming systems. Agric. Syst. 176, 102656 (2019)Dutta, P., Shrivastava, H.: The design and planning of an integrated supply chain for perishable products under uncertainties: a case study in milk industry. J. Model. Manag. (2020). https://doi.org/10.1108/JM2-03-2019-0071Aboah, J., Wilson, M., Rich, M., Lyne, M.: Operationalising resilience in tropical agricultural value chains. Supply Chain Manag. 24, 271–300 (2019)Ravulakollu, A., Urciuoli, L., Rukanova, B., Tan, Y., Hakvoort, R.: Risk based framework for assessing resilience in a complex multi-actor supply chain domain. Supply Chain Forum 19, 266–281 (2018)Das, K.: Integrating lean, green, and resilience criteria in designing a sustainable food supply chain. Proc. Int. Conf. Ind. Eng. Oper. Manag. 2018, 462–473 (2018)Zhu, Q., Krikke, H.: Managing a sustainable and resilient perishable food supply chain (PFSC) after an outbreak. Sustainability 12, 5004 (2020)Rozhkov, M., Ivanov, D.: Contingency production-inventory control policy for capacity disruptions in the retail supply chain with perishable products. IFAC-PapersOnLine 51, 1448–1452 (2018)Yavari, M., Zaker, H.: Designing a resilient-green closed loop supply chain network for perishable products by considering disruption in both supply chain and power networks. Comput. Chem. Eng. 134, 106680 (2020)Ye, F., Hou, G., Li, Y., Fu, S.: Managing bioethanol supply chain resiliency: a risk-sharing model to mitigate yield uncertainty risk. Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 118, 1510–1527 (2018)Jabbarzadeh, A., Fahimnia, B., Sheu, J., Moghadam, H.: Designing a supply chain resilient to major disruptions and supply/demand interruptions. Transp. Res. Part B Methodol. 94, 121–149 (2016)O’Leary, D.: Evolving information systems and technology research issues for COVID-19 and other pandemics. J. Organ. Comput. Electron. Commer. 30, 1–8 (2020)Zavala-Alcívar, A., Verdecho, M.-J., Alfaro-Saiz, J.-J.: A conceptual framework to manage resilience and increase sustainability in the supply chain. Sustainability 12(16), 6300 (2020)Fahimni, B., Jabbarzadeh, A.: Marrying supply chain sustainability and resilience: a match made in heaven. Transp. Res. Part E Logist. Transp. Rev. 91, 306–324 (2016)Verdecho, M.-J., Alarcón-Valero, F., Pérez-Perales, D., Alfaro-Saiz, J.-J., Rodríguez-Rodríguez, R.: A methodology to select suppliers to increase sustainability within supply chains. CEJOR (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10100-019-00668-3Bai, C., Sarkis, J.: Integrating sustainability into supplier selection with grey system and rough set methodologies. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 124(1), 252–264 (2010)Bai, C., Sarkis, J.: Green supplier development: analytical evaluation using rough set theory. J. Clean. Prod. 18, 1200–1210 (2010)Valipour, S., Safaei, A., Fallah, H.: Resilient supplier selection and segmentation in grey environment. J. Clean. Prod. 207, 1123–1137 (2019)Zimmer, K., Fröhling, M., Schultmann, F.: Sustainable supplier management – a review of models supporting sustainable supplier selection, monitoring and development. Int. J. Prod. Res. 54, 1412–1442 (2016)Yang, S., Xiao, Y., Kuo, Y.: The supply chain design for perishable food with stochastic demand. Sustainability 9, 1195 (2017)Zahiri, B., Zhuang, J., Mohammadi, M.: Toward an integrated sustainable-resilient supply chain: a pharmaceutical case study. Transp. Res. Part E Logist. Transp. Rev. 103, 109–142 (2017)Duong, L., Chong, J.: Supply chain collaboration in the presence of disruptions: a literature review. Int. J. Prod. Res. 58, 3488–3507 (2020

Dynamic real-time risk analytics of uncontrollable states in complex internet of things systems, cyber risk at the edge

The Internet of Things (IoT) triggers new types of cyber risks. Therefore, the integration of new IoT devices and services requires a self-assessment of IoT cyber security posture. By security posture this article refers to the cybersecurity strength of an organisation to predict, prevent and respond to cyberthreats. At present, there is a gap in the state of the art, because there are no self-assessment methods for quantifying IoT cyber risk posture. To address this gap, an empirical analysis is performed of 12 cyber risk assessment approaches. The results and the main findings from the analysis is presented as the current and a target risk state for IoT systems, followed by conclusions and recommendations on a transformation roadmap, describing how IoT systems can achieve the target state with a new goal-oriented dependency model. By target state, we refer to the cyber security target that matches the generic security requirements of an organisation. The research paper studies and adapts four alternatives for IoT risk assessment and identifies the goal-oriented dependency modelling as a dominant approach among the risk assessment models studied. The new goal-oriented dependency model in this article enables the assessment of uncontrollable risk states in complex IoT systems and can be used for a quantitative self-assessment of IoT cyber risk posture

Methodology for Designing Decision Support Systems for Visualising and Mitigating Supply Chain Cyber Risk from IoT Technologies

This paper proposes a methodology for designing decision support systems for visualising and mitigating the Internet of Things cyber risks. Digital technologies present new cyber risk in the supply chain which are often not visible to companies participating in the supply chains. This study investigates how the Internet of Things cyber risks can be visualised and mitigated in the process of designing business and supply chain strategies. The emerging DSS methodology present new findings on how digital technologies affect business and supply chain systems. Through epistemological analysis, the article derives with a decision support system for visualising supply chain cyber risk from Internet of Things digital technologies. Such methods do not exist at present and this represents the first attempt to devise a decision support system that would enable practitioners to develop a step by step process for visualising, assessing and mitigating the emerging cyber risk from IoT technologies on shared infrastructure in legacy supply chain systems

Commercial critical systems and critical infrastructure protection : a future research agenda

Secure management of Australia&rsquo;s commercial critical infrastructure presents ongoing challenges to owners and the government. Although it is currently managed through high-level information sharing via collaboration, but does this suit the commercial sector. One of the issues facing Australia is that the majority of critical infrastructure resides under the control of the business sector and certain aspects such of the critical infrastructure such as Supply Chain Management (SCM) systems are distributed entities and not a single entity. The paper focuses upon the security issues associated with SCM systems and critical infrastructure protection.<br /

Feasibility of Warehouse Drone Adoption and Implementation

While aerial delivery drones capture headlines, the pace of adoption of drones in warehouses has shown the greatest acceleration. Warehousing constitutes 30% of the cost of logistics in the US. The rise of e-commerce, greater customer service demands of retail stores, and a shortage of skilled labor have intensified competition for efficient warehouse operations. This takes place during an era of shortening technology life cycles. This paper integrates several theoretical perspectives on technology diffusion and adoption to propose a framework to inform supply chain decision-makers on when to invest in new robotics technology

Shipbuilding 4.0 Index Approaching Supply Chain

The shipbuilding industry shows a special interest in adapting to the changes proposed by the industry 4.0. This article bets on the development of an index that indicates the current situation considering that supply chain is a key factor in any type of change, and at the same time it serves as a control tool in the implementation of improvements. The proposed indices provide a first definition of the paradigm or paradigms that best fit the supply chain in order to improve its sustainability and a second definition, regarding the key enabling technologies for Industry 4.0. The values obtained put shipbuilding on the road to industry 4.0 while suggesting categorized planning of technologies

Research Directions in Information Systems for Humanitarian Logistics

This article systematically reviews the literature on using IT (Information Technology) in humanitarian logistics focusing on disaster relief operations. We first discuss problems in humanitarian relief logistics. We then identify the stage and disaster type for each article as well as the article’s research methodology and research contribution. Finally, we identify potential future research directions

Risks associated with Logistics 4.0 and their minimization using Blockchain

Currently we are saying that we are at the dawn of the fourth revolution, which is marked by using cyber-physical systems and the Internet of Things. This is marked as Industry 4.0 (I4.0). With Industry 4.0 is also closely linked concept Logistics 4.0. The highly dynamic and uncertain logistic markets and huge logistic networks require new methods, products and services. The concept of the Internet of Things and Services (IoT&S), Big Data/Data Mining (DM), cloud computing, 3D printing, Blockchain and cyber physical system (CPS) etc. seem to be the probable technical solution for that. However, associated risks hamper its implementation and lack a comprehensive overview. In response, the paper proposes a framework of risks in the context of Logistics 4.0. They are here economic risks, that are associated e.g. with high or false investments. From a social perspective, risks the job losses, are considered too. Additionally, risks can be associated with technical risks, e.g. technical integration, information technology (IT)-related risks such as data security, and legal and political risks, such as for instance unsolved legal clarity in terms of data possession. It is therefore necessary to know the potential risks in the implementation process.Web of Science101857

National Security Space Launch

The United States Space Force’s National Security Space Launch (NSSL) program, formerly known as the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) program, was first established in 1994 by President William J. Clinton’s National Space Transportation Policy. The policy assigned the responsibility for expendable launch vehicles to the Department of Defense (DoD), with the goals of lowering launch costs and ensuring national security access to space. As such, the United States Air Force Space and Missile Systems Center (SMC) started the EELV program to acquire more affordable and reliable launch capability for valuable U.S. military satellites, such as national reconnaissance satellites that cost billions per satellite. In March 2019, the program name was changed from EELV to NSSL, which reflected several important features: 1.) The emphasis on “assured access to space,” 2.) transition from the Russian-made RD-180 rocket engine used on the Atlas V to a US-sourced engine (now scheduled to be complete by 2022), 3.) adaptation to manifest changes (such as enabling satellite swaps and return of manifest to normal operations both within 12 months of a need or an anomaly), and 4.) potential use of reusable launch vehicles. As of August 2019, Blue Origin, Northrop Grumman Innovation Systems, SpaceX, and United Launch Alliance (ULA) have all submitted proposals. From these, the U.S. Air Force will be selecting two companies to fulfill approximately 34 launches over a period of five years, beginning in 2022. This paper will therefore first examine the objectives for the NSSL as presented in the 2017 National Security Strategy, Fiscal Year 2019, Fiscal Year 2020, and Fiscal Year 2021 National Defense Authorization Acts (NDAA), and National Presidential Directive No. 40. The paper will then identify areas of potential weakness and gaps that exist in space launch programs as a whole and explore the security implications that impact the NSSL specifically. Finally, the paper will examine how the trajectory of the NSSL program could be adjusted in order to facilitate a smooth transition into new launch vehicles, while maintaining mission success, minimizing national security vulnerabilities, and clarifying the defense acquisition process.No embargoAcademic Major: EnglishAcademic Major: International Studie