The DOI matches its Crossref record; 71 of the 71 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Distinguishing between the concepts of supply chain agility and resilience: A multidisciplinary literature review
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to add clarity to the multidimensional concepts of agility and resilience. In addition, this paper seeks to clarify the differences and similarities between the two concepts by integrating the distinct bodies of knowledge on agility and resilience. Design/methodology/approach: A multidisciplinary systematic literature review is conducted. The concept of agility is explored through a review of the sports science, manufacturing, organizational, information systems and information systems development and supply chain literature bases. The concept of resilience is investigated through a review of the psychological and psychopathological, ecological, economic, organizational and supply chain literature bases. Findings: Examining the complex relationship between the two constructs led to the emergence of six major dimensions to capture the concept of agility (i.e. ability to quickly change direction, speed/accelerate operations, scan the environment/anticipate, empower the customer/customize, adjust tactics and operations (flexibility), and integrate processes within and across firms). Similarly, six dimensions were uncovered for resilience (i.e. ability to resist/survive disruptions, avoid the shock altogether, recover/return to original form following disruption, speed/accelerate operations, adjust tactics and operations (flexibility) and scan the environment/anticipate). Agility and resilience were found to share three common dimensions (i.e. ability to adjust tactics and operations (flexibility), speed/accelerate operations and scan the environment/anticipate). Practical implications: The identification of the common characteristics of agility and resilience carries important managerial implications from a resource allocation perspective. Allocating resources to the development of the common characteristics of agility and resilience can help firms maximize the impact of such investments. That is, by investing in the common characteristics of both they can improve supply chain agility and supply chain resilience. If firms approach the development or improvement of supply chain agility or resilience independent from one another, without an awareness of the common characteristics, they could be duplicating their investments resulting in supply chain redundancies and inefficiencies. Originality/value: Not having a clear and comprehensive understanding of the similarities and differences between agility and resilience is problematic from a theoretical perspective. A clear understanding of what each construct represents provides a platform for building generalizable theory by helping researchers operationalize these constructs in a consistent manner. Further, providing a generalizable, comprehensive and multidisciplinary perspective on agility and resilience within supply chain management literature can help increase the visibility of the field of supply chain management across other disciplines as scholars outside the field of supply chain management can utilize the results of this research effort.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Resilience and Stability of Ecological Systems
Holling, C. S. (1973) · Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics · doi:10.1146/annurev.es.04.110173.000245 · Cited by 18,995
Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., & Smart, P. (2003) · British Journal of Management · doi:10.1111/1467-8551.00375 · Cited by 15,386
Resilience, Adaptability and Transformability in Social–ecological Systems
Walker, B., Holling, C. S., Carpenter, S. R., & Kinzig, A. P. (2004) · Ecology and Society · doi:10.5751/es-00650-090205 · Cited by 7,821
Building the Resilient Supply Chain
Christopher, M., & Peck, H. (2004) · The International Journal of Logistics Management · doi:10.1108/09574090410700275 · Cited by 3,664
From Metaphor to Measurement: Resilience of What to What?
Carpenter, S., Walker, B., Anderies, J. M., & Abel, N. (2001) · Ecosystems · doi:10.1007/s10021-001-0045-9 · Cited by 3,496
Sambamurthy, V., Bharadwaj, A., & Grover, V. (2003) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/30036530 · Cited by 3,228
Navigating Social-Ecological Systems: Building Resilience for Complexity and Change
Berkes, F., Colding, J., & Folke, C. (2008) · Cited by 2,793
Understanding the concept of supply chain resilience
Ponomarov, S. Y., & Holcomb, M. C. (2009) · The International Journal of Logistics Management · doi:10.1108/09574090910954873 · Cited by 2,530
Self-citationManaging Disruption Risks in Supply Chains
Kleindorfer, P. R., & Saad, G. H. (2005) · Production and Operations Management · doi:10.1111/j.1937-5956.2005.tb00009.x · Cited by 2,088
(2009) · Cited by 2,062
Cited by
Dey, P. K., Chowdhury, S., Abadie, A., Vann Yaroson, E., & Sarkar, S. (2024) · International Journal of Production Research · doi:10.1080/00207543.2023.2179859 · Cited by 330
Miceli, A., Hagen, B., Riccardi, M. P., Sotti, F., & Settembre-Blundo, D. (2021) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su13042052 · Cited by 319
Metadata
- Authors
- Gligor, D., Gligor, N., Holcomb, M., & Bozkurt, S.
- Venue
- The International Journal of Logistics Management
- Publisher
- Emerald
- Published
- 2019-05-13
- Volume
- 30
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 467-487
- ISSN
- 0957-4093 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2939461023
- Cited by
- 267
- References
- 71
- FWCI
- 40.56
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Distinguishing between the concepts of supply chain agility and resilience: A multidisciplinary literature review. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1108/ijlm-10-2017-0259
- The paper
- Gligor, D., Gligor, N., Holcomb, M., & Bozkurt, S. (2019). Distinguishing between the concepts of supply chain agility and resilience: A multidisciplinary literature review. The International Journal of Logistics Management. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijlm-10-2017-0259
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.