Repurposing Food Supply Chain Management for Viability During COVID-19: A Systematic Review

Purpose: The purpose of this study is to examine existing studies on recycled food supply chain management during the COVID-19 epidemic.   Theoretical framework:  The theoretical framework of the study includes research areas, research agendas, and implications for the viability during the crisis.   Design/Methodology/Approach: Mendeley Desktop Software retrieved articles from ScienceDirect.com and Google Scholar. This review included 63 full papers published in 2019–2021.   Findings: This review covers food waste management, food safety, insecurity, crises, wellness, food supply chains and chain management, impact on alternative and local food systems, consumption, evaluation of alternative food provision systems, scaling and food policies, proposed business models, strategies, and mechanisms, logistics, economics, and resilience building. The research agendas include refusing, reducing, reusing, repurposing, recycling, and rescaling abandoned or outmoded goods, and rescaling. Implications include food supply chain management, food network viability, impact evaluation, and nutrition risk management.   Research, practical, and social implications: This study presents research themes and agendas for adaptive management to ensure viability throughout the COVID-19 outbreak and its long-term impacts. It provides insights into food waste management, food safety, security, insecurity, wellness, food supply networks, chain management, etc. Socially, it offers future studies on outbreak viability, food network vitality, effect evaluation, and nutrition risk management.   Originality/Value: In view of the current COVID-19 situation, this study revises food supply chain management. Food supply chain management on a worldwide scale has been impacted by this outbreak. This situation calls for an out-of-the-box solution

Towards a resilient networked service system

Large service systems today are of highly network structures. In this thesis, these large service systems are called networked service systems. The network nature of these systems has no doubt brought mass customized services but has also created challenges in the management of their safety. The safety of service systems is an important issue due to their critical influences on the functioning of society. Traditional safety engineering methods focus on maintaining service systems in a safe state, in particular aiming to maintain systems to be reliable and robust. However, resilience cannot be absent from safety out of many recent disasters that occur in society. The goal of this thesis is to improve the resilience of networked service systems. Four major works have been performed to achieve this goal. First, a unified definition of service systems was proposed and its relationship to other system concepts was unfolded. Upon the new definition, a domain model of service systems was established by a FCBPSS framework, followed by developing a computational model. Second, a definition of resilience for service systems was proposed, based on which the relationship among three safety properties (i.e., reliability, robustness and resilience) was clarified, followed by developing a framework for resilience analysis. Third, a methodology of resilience measurement for service systems was proposed by four measurement axioms along with corresponding mathematical models. The methodology focused on the potential ability of a service system to create optimal rebalancing solutions. Two typical service systems, transportation system and enterprise information system, were employed to validate the methodology. Fourth, a methodology of enhancing resilience for service systems was proposed by integrating three types of reconfigurations of systems, namely design, planning and management, along with the corresponding mathematical model. This methodology was validated by an example of transportation system. Several conclusions can be drawn from the work above: (1) a service system has a unique characteristic that it meets humans' demand directly, and its safety relies on the balance between the supplies and demands; (2) different from reliability and robustness, the resilience of a service system focuses on the rebalancing ability from imbalanced situations; (3) it makes sense to measure the resilience of a service system only for a particular imbalanced situation and based on evaluation of rebalancing solutions; and (4) integration of design, planning and management is an effective approach for improvement of the resilience for a service system. The contributions of this thesis can be summarized. Scientifically, this thesis work has improved our understanding of service systems and their resilience property; furthermore, this work has advanced the state of knowledge of safety science in particular having successfully responded to two questions: is a service system safe and how to make a service system safer? Technologically or methodologically, the work has advanced the knowledge for modeling and optimization of networked service systems in particular with multiple layer models along with the algorithms for integrated decision making on design, planning, and management

A Conceptual Framework to Manage Resilience and Increase Sustainability in the Supply Chain

[EN] The challenges of global economies foster supply chains to have to increase their processes of collaboration and dependence between their nodes, generating an increase in the level of vulnerability to possible impacts and interruptions in their operations that may affect their sustainability. This has developed an emerging area of interest in supply chain management, considering resilience management as a strategic capability of companies, and causing an increase in this area of research. Additionally, supply chains should deal with the three dimensions of sustainability (economic, environmental, and social dimensions) by incorporating the three types of objectives in their strategy. Thus, there is a need to integrate both resilience and sustainability in supply chain management to increase competitiveness. In this paper, a systematic literature review is undertaken to analyze resilience management and its connection to increase supply chain sustainability. In the review, 232 articles published from 2000 to February 2020 in peer-reviewed journals in the Scopus and ScienceDirect databases are analyzed, classified, and synthesized. With the results, this paper develops a conceptual framework that integrates the fundamental elements for analyzing, measuring, and managing resilience to increase sustainability in the supply chain. Finally, conclusions, limitations, and future research lines are exposed.This study was supported by the Valencian Government in Spain (Project AEST/2019/019).Zavala-Alcívar, A.; Verdecho Sáez, MJ.; Alfaro Saiz, JJ. (2020). A Conceptual Framework to Manage Resilience and Increase Sustainability in the Supply Chain. Sustainability. 12(16):1-38. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12166300S1381216Roberta Pereira, C., Christopher, M., & Lago Da Silva, A. (2014). Achieving supply chain resilience: the role of procurement. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 19(5/6), 626-642. doi:10.1108/scm-09-2013-0346Pettit, 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. doi:10.1002/j.2158-1592.2010.tb00125.xPettit, 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. doi:10.1111/jbl.12009Ponis, S. T., & Koronis, E. (2012). Supply Chain Resilience: Definition Of Concept And Its Formative Elements. Journal of Applied Business Research (JABR), 28(5), 921. doi:10.19030/jabr.v28i5.7234Seuring, S., & Müller, M. (2008). From a literature review to a conceptual framework for sustainable supply chain management. Journal of Cleaner Production, 16(15), 1699-1710. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2008.04.020Qorri, A., Mujkić, Z., & Kraslawski, A. (2018). A conceptual framework for measuring sustainability performance of supply chains. Journal of Cleaner Production, 189, 570-584. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.04.073Verdecho, M.-J., Alarcón-Valero, F., Pérez-Perales, D., Alfaro-Saiz, J.-J., & Rodríguez-Rodríguez, R. (2020). A methodology to select suppliers to increase sustainability within supply chains. Central European Journal of Operations Research, 29(4), 1231-1251. doi:10.1007/s10100-019-00668-3Edgeman, R., & Wu, Z. (2016). Supply chain criticality in sustainable and resilient enterprises. Journal of Modelling in Management, 11(4), 869-888. doi:10.1108/jm2-10-2014-0078Marchese, D., Reynolds, E., Bates, M. E., Morgan, H., Clark, S. S., & Linkov, I. (2018). Resilience and sustainability: Similarities and differences in environmental management applications. Science of The Total Environment, 613-614, 1275-1283. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.09.086Ahern, J. (2012). Urban landscape sustainability and resilience: the promise and challenges of integrating ecology with urban planning and design. Landscape Ecology, 28(6), 1203-1212. doi:10.1007/s10980-012-9799-zRamezankhani, M. J., Torabi, S. A., & Vahidi, F. (2018). Supply chain performance measurement and evaluation: A mixed sustainability and resilience approach. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 126, 531-548. doi:10.1016/j.cie.2018.09.054Shashi, Centobelli, P., Cerchione, R., & Ertz, M. (2019). Managing supply chain resilience to pursue business and environmental strategies. Business Strategy and the Environment, 29(3), 1215-1246. doi:10.1002/bse.2428Ivanov, D. (2017). Revealing interfaces of supply chain resilience and sustainability: a simulation study. International Journal of Production Research, 56(10), 3507-3523. doi:10.1080/00207543.2017.1343507Fahimnia, B., & Jabbarzadeh, A. (2016). Marrying supply chain sustainability and resilience: A match made in heaven. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 91, 306-324. doi:10.1016/j.tre.2016.02.007Ruiz-Benitez, R., López, C., & Real, J. C. (2019). Achieving sustainability through the lean and resilient management of the supply chain. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 49(2), 122-155. doi:10.1108/ijpdlm-10-2017-0320Pavlov, A., Ivanov, D., Pavlov, D., & Slinko, A. (2019). Optimization of network redundancy and contingency planning in sustainable and resilient supply chain resource management under conditions of structural dynamics. Annals of Operations Research. doi:10.1007/s10479-019-03182-6Khot, S. B., & Thiagarajan, S. (2019). Resilience and sustainability of supply chain management in the Indian automobile industry. International Journal of Data and Network Science, 339-348. doi:10.5267/j.ijdns.2019.4.002Roostaie, S., Nawari, N., & Kibert, C. J. (2019). Sustainability and resilience: A review of definitions, relationships, and their integration into a combined building assessment framework. Building and Environment, 154, 132-144. doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2019.02.042Davoudabadi, R., Mousavi, S. M., & Sharifi, E. (2020). An integrated weighting and ranking model based on entropy, DEA and PCA considering two aggregation approaches for resilient supplier selection problem. Journal of Computational Science, 40, 101074. doi:10.1016/j.jocs.2019.101074Carvalho, H., Duarte, S., & Cruz Machado, V. (2011). Lean, agile, resilient and green: divergencies and synergies. International Journal of Lean Six Sigma, 2(2), 151-179. doi:10.1108/20401461111135037Wang, Z., & Zhang, J. (2019). Agent-based evaluation of humanitarian relief goods supply capability. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 36, 101105. doi:10.1016/j.ijdrr.2019.101105Alikhani, R., Torabi, S. A., & Altay, N. (2019). Strategic supplier selection under sustainability and risk criteria. International Journal of Production Economics, 208, 69-82. doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2018.11.018Zahiri, B., Zhuang, J., & Mohammadi, M. (2017). Toward an integrated sustainable-resilient supply chain: A pharmaceutical case study. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 103, 109-142. doi:10.1016/j.tre.2017.04.009Aboah, J., Wilson, M. M. J., Rich, K. M., & Lyne, M. C. (2019). Operationalising resilience in tropical agricultural value chains. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 24(2), 271-300. doi:10.1108/scm-05-2018-0204Statsenko, L., & Corral de Zubielqui, G. (2020). Customer collaboration, service firms’ diversification and innovation performance. Industrial Marketing Management, 85, 180-196. doi:10.1016/j.indmarman.2019.09.013Duong, L. N. K., & Chong, J. (2020). Supply chain collaboration in the presence of disruptions: a literature review. International Journal of Production Research, 58(11), 3488-3507. doi:10.1080/00207543.2020.1712491Bhamra, R., Dani, S., & Burnard, K. (2011). Resilience: the concept, a literature review and future directions. International Journal of Production Research, 49(18), 5375-5393. doi:10.1080/00207543.2011.563826Heckmann, I., Comes, T., & Nickel, S. (2015). A critical review on supply chain risk – Definition, measure and modeling. Omega, 52, 119-132. doi:10.1016/j.omega.2014.10.004Hohenstein, N.-O., Feisel, E., Hartmann, E., & Giunipero, L. (2015). Research on the phenomenon of supply chain resilience. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 45(1/2), 90-117. doi:10.1108/ijpdlm-05-2013-0128Kamalahmadi, 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. doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2015.10.023Ali, 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. doi:10.1108/scm-06-2016-0197Umar, M., Wilson, M., & Heyl, J. (2017). Food Network Resilience Against Natural Disasters: A Conceptual Framework. SAGE Open, 7(3), 215824401771757. doi:10.1177/2158244017717570Stone, 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. doi:10.1108/scm-06-2017-0201Colicchia, C., Creazza, A., Noè, C., & Strozzi, F. (2019). Information sharing in supply chains: a review of risks and opportunities using the systematic literature network analysis (SLNA). Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 24(1), 5-21. doi:10.1108/scm-01-2018-0003Annarelli, A., & Nonino, F. (2016). Strategic and operational management of organizational resilience: Current state of research and future directions. Omega, 62, 1-18. doi:10.1016/j.omega.2015.08.004Behzadi, G., O’Sullivan, M. J., Olsen, T. L., & Zhang, A. (2018). Agribusiness supply chain risk management: A review of quantitative decision models. Omega, 79, 21-42. doi:10.1016/j.omega.2017.07.005Kochan, C. G., & Nowicki, D. R. (2018). Supply chain resilience: a systematic literature review and typological framework. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 48(8), 842-865. doi:10.1108/ijpdlm-02-2017-0099Hosseini, 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. doi:10.1016/j.tre.2019.03.001Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., & Smart, P. (2003). Towards a Methodology for Developing Evidence-Informed Management Knowledge by Means of Systematic Review. British Journal of Management, 14(3), 207-222. doi:10.1111/1467-8551.00375Rousseau, D. M., Manning, J., & Denyer, D. (2008). 11 Evidence in Management and Organizational Science: Assembling the Field’s Full Weight of Scientific Knowledge Through Syntheses. Academy of Management Annals, 2(1), 475-515. doi:10.5465/19416520802211651Zimmer, K., Fröhling, M., & Schultmann, F. (2015). Sustainable supplier management – a review of models supporting sustainable supplier selection, monitoring and development. International Journal of Production Research, 54(5), 1412-1442. doi:10.1080/00207543.2015.1079340Natarajarathinam, M., Capar, I., & Narayanan, A. (2009). Managing supply chains in times of crisis: a review of literature and insights. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 39(7), 535-573. doi:10.1108/09600030910996251Tang, C., & Tomlin, B. (2008). The power of flexibility for mitigating supply chain risks. International Journal of Production Economics, 116(1), 12-27. doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2008.07.008Kleindorfer, P. R., & Saad, G. H. (2009). Managing Disruption Risks in Supply Chains. Production and Operations Management, 14(1), 53-68. doi:10.1111/j.1937-5956.2005.tb00009.xChristopher, M., & Peck, H. (2004). Building the Resilient Supply Chain. The International Journal of Logistics Management, 15(2), 1-14. doi:10.1108/09574090410700275Wu, T., Huang, S., Blackhurst, J., Zhang, X., & Wang, S. (2013). Supply Chain Risk Management: An Agent-Based Simulation to Study the Impact of Retail Stockouts. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 60(4), 676-686. doi:10.1109/tem.2012.2190986Fang, H., & Xiao, R. (2013). Resilient closed-loop supply chain network design based on patent protection. International Journal of Computer Applications in Technology, 48(1), 49. doi:10.1504/ijcat.2013.055566Gong, J., Mitchell, J. E., Krishnamurthy, A., & Wallace, W. A. (2014). An interdependent layered network model for a resilient supply chain. Omega, 46, 104-116. doi:10.1016/j.omega.2013.08.002Mari, S., Lee, Y., & Memon, M. (2014). Sustainable and Resilient Supply Chain Network Design under Disruption Risks. Sustainability, 6(10), 6666-6686. doi:10.3390/su6106666Bueno-Solano, A., & Cedillo-Campos, M. G. (2014). Dynamic impact on global supply chains performance of disruptions propagation produced by terrorist acts. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 61, 1-12. doi:10.1016/j.tre.2013.09.005Costantino, F., Gravio, G. D., Shaban, A., & Tronci, M. (2014). Replenishment policy based on information sharing to mitigate the severity of supply chain disruption. International Journal of Logistics Systems and Management, 18(1), 3. doi:10.1504/ijlsm.2014.062119Kristianto, Y., Gunasekaran, A., Helo, P., & Hao, Y. (2014). A model of resilient supply chain network design: A two-stage programming with fuzzy shortest path. Expert Systems with Applications, 41(1), 39-49. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2013.07.009Raj, R., Wang, J. W., Nayak, A., Tiwari, M. K., Han, B., Liu, C. L., & Zhang, W. J. (2015). Measuring the Resilience of Supply Chain Systems Using a Survival Model. IEEE Systems Journal, 9(2), 377-381. doi:10.1109/jsyst.2014.2339552LOH, H. S., & THAI, V. V. (2015). Cost Consequences of a Port-Related Supply Chain Disruption. The Asian Journal of Shipping and Logistics, 31(3), 319-340. doi:10.1016/j.ajsl.2015.09.001Torabi, S. A., Baghersad, M., & Mansouri, S. A. (2015). Resilient supplier selection and order allocation under operational and disruption risks. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 79, 22-48. doi:10.1016/j.tre.2015.03.005Cardoso, S. R., Paula Barbosa-Póvoa, A., Relvas, S., & Novais, A. Q. (2015). Resilience metrics in the assessment of complex supply-chains performance operating under demand uncertainty. Omega, 56, 53-73. doi:10.1016/j.omega.2015.03.008Salehi Sadghiani, N., Torabi, S. A., & Sahebjamnia, N. (2015). Retail supply chain network design under operational and disruption risks. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 75, 95-114. doi:10.1016/j.tre.2014.12.015Dixit, V., Seshadrinath, N., & Tiwari, M. K. (2016). Performance measures based optimization of supply chain network resilience: A NSGA-II + Co-Kriging approach. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 93, 205-214. doi:10.1016/j.cie.2015.12.029Liu, F., Song, J.-S., & Tong, J. D. (2016). Building Supply Chain Resilience through Virtual Stockpile Pooling. Production and Operations Management, 25(10), 1745-1762. doi:10.1111/poms.12573Fahimnia, B., Jabbarzadeh, A., & Sarkis, J. (2018). Greening versus resilience: A supply chain design perspective. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 119, 129-148. doi:10.1016/j.tre.2018.09.005Hasani, 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. doi:10.1016/j.tre.2015.12.009Azhmyakov, V., Fernández-Gutiérrez, J. P., Gadi, S. K., & Pickl, S. (2016). A Novel Numerical Approach to the MCLP Based Resilent Supply Chain Optimization. IFAC-PapersOnLine, 49(31), 137-142. doi:10.1016/j.ifacol.2016.12.175Ivanov, D., Sokolov, B., Solovyeva, I., Dolgui, A., & Jie, F. (2016). Dynamic recovery policies for time-critical supply chains under conditions of ripple effect. International Journal of Production Research, 54(23), 7245-7258. doi:10.1080/00207543.2016.1161253Jabbarzadeh, A., Fahimnia, B., Sheu, J.-B., & Moghadam, H. S. (2016). Designing a supply chain resilient to major disruptions and supply/demand interruptions. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, 94, 121-149. doi:10.1016/j.trb.2016.09.004Babich, V., Burnetas, A. N., & Ritchken, P. H. (2007). Competition and Diversification Effects in Supply Chains with Supplier Default Risk. Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, 9(2), 123-146. doi:10.1287/msom.1060.0122Bogataj, D., Aver, B., & Bogataj, M. (2016). Supply chain risk at simultaneous robust perturbations. International Journal of Production Economics, 181, 68-78. doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2015.09.009Wang, X., Herty, M., & Zhao, L. (2015). Contingent rerouting for enhancing supply chain resilience from supplier behavior perspective. International Transactions in Operational Research, 23(4), 775-796. doi:10.1111/itor.12151Zeng, B., & Yen, B. P.-C. (2017). Rethinking the role of partnerships in global supply chains: A risk-based perspective. International Journal of Production Economics, 185, 52-62. doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2016.12.004Lücker, F., & Seifert, R. W. (2017). Building up Resilience in a Pharmaceutical Supply Chain through Inventory, Dual Sourcing and Agility Capacity. Omega, 73, 114-124. doi:10.1016/j.omega.2017.01.001Fattahi, M., Govindan, K., & Keyvanshokooh, E. (2017). Responsive and resilient supply chain network design under operational and disruption risks with delivery lead-time sensitive customers. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 101, 176-200. doi:10.1016/j.tre.2017.02.004Kırılmaz, O., & Erol, S. (2017). A proactive approach to supply chain risk management: Shifting orders among suppliers to mitigate the supply side risks. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, 23(1), 54-65. doi:10.1016/j.pursup.2016.04.002Li, H., Pedrielli, G., Lee, L. H., & Chew, E. P. (2016). Enhancement of supply chain resilience through inter-echelon information sharing. Flexible Services and Manufacturing Journal, 29(2), 260-285. doi:10.1007/s10696-016-9249-3Otto, C., Willner, S. N., Wenz, L., Frieler, K., & Levermann, A. (2017). Modeling loss-propagation in the global supply network: The dynamic agent-based model acclimate. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 83, 232-269. doi:10.1016/j.jedc.2017.08.001Rezapour, S., Farahani, R. Z., & Pourakbar, M. (2017). Resilient supply chain network design under competition: A case study. European Journal of Operational Research, 259(3), 1017-1035. doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2016.11.041Ledwoch, A., Yasarcan, H., & Brintrup, A. (2018). The moderating impact of supply network topology on the effectiveness of risk management. International Journal of Production Economics, 197, 13-26. doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2017.12.013Al-Othman, W. B. E., Lababidi, H. M. S., Alatiqi, I. M., & Al-Shayji, K. (2008). Supply chain optimization of petroleum organization under uncertainty in market demands and prices. European Journal of Operational Research, 189(3), 822-840. doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2006.06.081Ivanov, D., Dolgui, A., & Sokolov, B. (2017). Scheduling of recovery actions in the supply chain with resilience analysis considerations. International Journal of Production Research, 56(19), 6473-6490. doi:10.1080/00207543.2017.1401747Das, K. (2019). Integrating Lean, Green, and Resilience Criteria in a Sustainable Food Supply Chain Planning Model. International Journal of Mathematical, Engineering and Management Sciences, 4(2), 259-275. doi:10.33889/ijmems.2019.4.2-022Das, K. (2018). Integrating resilience in a supply chain planning model. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 35(3), 570-595. doi:10.1108/ijqrm-08-2016-0136Arora, V., & Ventresca, M. (2018). Modeling topologically resilient supply chain networks. Applied Network Science, 3(1). doi:10.1007/s41109-018-0070-7Almeida, J. F. de F., Conceição, S. V., Pinto, L. R., de Camargo, R. S., & Júnior, G. de M. (2018). Flexibility evaluation of multiechelon supply chains. PLOS ONE, 13(3), e0194050. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0194050Mancheri, N. A., Sprecher, B., Deetman, S., Young, S. B., Bleischwitz, R., Dong, L., … Tukker, A. (2018). Resilience in the tantalum supply chain. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 129, 56-69. doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.10.018Namdar, J., Li, X., Sawhney, R., & Pradhan, N. (2017). Supply chain resilience for single and multiple sourcing in the presence of disruption risks. International Journal of Production Research, 56(6), 2339-2360. doi:10.1080/00207543.2017.1370149Rozhkov, M., & Ivanov, D. (2018). CONTINGENCY PRODUCTION-INVENTORY CONTROL POLICY FOR CAPACITY DISRUPTIONS IN THE RETAIL SUPPLY CHAIN WITH PERISHABLE PRODUCTS. IFAC-PapersOnLine, 51(11), 1448-1452. doi:10.1016/j.ifacol.2018.08.311Sabouhi, F., Pishvaee, M. S., & Jabalameli, M. S. (2018). Resilient supply chain design under operational and disruption risks considering quantity discount: A case study of pharmaceutical supply chain. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 126, 657-672. doi:10.1016/j.cie.2018.10.001Zavitsas, K., Zis, T., & Bell, M. G. H. (2018). The impact of flexible environmental policy on maritime supply chain resilience. Transport Policy, 72, 116-128. doi:10.1016/j.tranpol.2018.09.020Mitra, K., Gudi, R. D., Patwardhan, S. C., & Sardar, G. (2009). Towards resilient supply chains: Uncertainty analysis using fuzzy mathematical programming. Chemical Engineering Research and Design, 87(7), 967-981. doi:10.1016/j.cherd.2008.12.025Lücker, F., Seifert, R. W., & Biçer, I. (2018). Roles of inventory and reserve capacity in mitigating supply chain disruption risk. International Journal of Production Research, 57(4), 1238-1249. doi:10.1080/00207543.2018.15041

A flexible network architecture for 5G systems

In this paper, we define a flexible, adaptable, and programmable architecture for 5G mobile networks, taking into consideration the requirements, KPIs, and the current gaps in the literature, based on three design fundamentals: (i) split of user and control plane, (ii) service-based architecture within the core network (in line with recent industry and standard consensus), and (iii) fully flexible support of E2E slicing via per-domain and cross-domain optimisation, devising inter-slice control and management functions, and refining the behavioural models via experiment-driven optimisation. The proposed architecture model further facilitates the realisation of slices providing specific functionality, such as network resilience, security functions, and network elasticity. The proposed architecture consists of four different layers identified as network layer, controller layer, management and orchestration layer, and service layer. A key contribution of this paper is the definition of the role of each layer, the relationship between layers, and the identification of the required internal modules within each of the layers. In particular, the proposed architecture extends the reference architectures proposed in the Standards Developing Organisations like 3GPP and ETSI, by building on these while addressing several gaps identified within the corresponding baseline models. We additionally present findings, the design guidelines, and evaluation studies on a selected set of key concepts identified to enable flexible cloudification of the protocol stack, adaptive network slicing, and inter-slice control and management.This work has been performed in the framework of the H2020 project 5G-MoNArch co-funded by the E

Intrusion Tolerant Routing Protocols for Wireless Sensor Networks

This MSc thesis is focused in the study, solution proposal and experimental evaluation of security solutions for Wireless Sensor Networks (WSNs). The objectives are centered on intrusion tolerant routing services, adapted for the characteristics and requirements of WSN nodes and operation behavior. The main contribution addresses the establishment of pro-active intrusion tolerance properties at the network level, as security mechanisms for the proposal of a reliable and secure routing protocol. Those properties and mechanisms will augment a secure communication base layer supported by light-weigh cryptography methods, to improve the global network resilience capabilities against possible intrusion-attacks on the WSN nodes. Adapting to WSN characteristics, the design of the intended security services also pushes complexity away from resource-poor sensor nodes towards resource-rich and trustable base stations. The devised solution will construct, securely and efficiently, a secure tree-structured routing service for data-dissemination in large scale deployed WSNs. The purpose is to tolerate the damage caused by adversaries modeled according with the Dolev-Yao threat model and ISO X.800 attack typology and framework, or intruders that can compromise maliciously the deployed sensor nodes, injecting, modifying, or blocking packets, jeopardizing the correct behavior of internal network routing processing and topology management. The proposed enhanced mechanisms, as well as the design and implementation of a new intrusiontolerant routing protocol for a large scale WSN are evaluated by simulation. For this purpose, the evaluation is based on a rich simulation environment, modeling networks from hundreds to tens of thousands of wireless sensors, analyzing different dimensions: connectivity conditions, degree-distribution patterns, latency and average short-paths, clustering, reliability metrics and energy cost

Pathways to Coastal Resiliency: the Adaptive Gradients Framework

Current and future climate-related coastal impacts such as catastrophic and repetitive flooding, hurricane intensity, and sea level rise necessitate a new approach to developing and managing coastal infrastructure. Traditional “hard” or “grey” engineering solutions are proving both expensive and inflexible in the face of a rapidly changing coastal environment. Hybrid solutions that incorporate natural, nature-based, structural, and non-structural features may better achieve a broad set of goals such as ecological enhancement, long-term adaptation, and social benefits, but broad consideration and uptake of these approaches has been slow. One barrier to the widespread implementation of hybrid solutions is the lack of a relatively quick but holistic evaluation framework that places these broader environmental and societal goals on equal footing with the more traditional goal of exposure reduction. To respond to this need, the Adaptive Gradients Framework was developed and pilot-tested as a qualitative, flexible, and collaborative process guide for organizations to understand, evaluate, and potentially select more diverse kinds of infrastructural responses. These responses would ideally include natural, nature-based, and regulatory/cultural approaches, as well as hybrid designs combining multiple approaches. It enables rapid expert review of project designs based on eight metrics called “gradients”, which include exposure reduction, cost efficiency, institutional capacity, ecological enhancement, adaptation over time, greenhouse gas reduction, participatory process, and social benefits. The framework was conceptualized and developed in three phases: relevant factors and barriers were collected from practitioners and experts by survey; these factors were ranked by importance and used to develop the initial framework; several case studies were iteratively evaluated using this technique; and the framework was finalized for implementation. The article presents the framework and a pilot test of its application, along with resources that would enable wider application of the framework by practitioners and theorists