Supply Chain Agility: Review of Situations
Selmen Boubaker
1
, Zied Jemaï
2
, Evren Sahin
1
and Yves Dallery
1
1
LGI, Laboratoire Génie Industriel, Centralesupelec, Paris, France
2
OASIS-ENIT University of Tunis El Manar, Tunisia
Keywords: Supply Chain Agility, Situations Needing Agility, Agility Drivers.
Abstract: Supply chains are often exposed to internal and external disturbances, events and changes, i.e. situations that
harm their performance and present a serious threat to their subsistence. Agility, which is often presented as
the ability to cope rapidly and effectively with changes become a competitive advantage for supply chains
and is of vital competence. Different Authors mentioned external pressures that motivate supply chains to
acquire agile capabilities. However, a well-structured study of external and internal situations needing agility
was not found. The aim of our study is to review the existing literature on supply chain agility to better
understand this concept and propose an overview of situations requiring supply chain agility, based on
academic and industrial work.
1 INTRODUCTION
In the last decade, the economic environment
witnessed a period of growing challenges and risks.
Globalization opened doors for a greater competition
between companies to win greater market shares.
Innovation and fast technological development lead
to larger assortments and shortened product life
cycles. Customer behavior become more unpredicted
due to the growing impact of media and social
networks. In this volatile and hostile economic
landscape of now a day, any disruption or inability to
cope rapidly with changes can have risky
consequences. Therefore, the agility, defined as the
ability to rapidly respond to changes in market and
customer demands (Sharp et al., 1999, Christopher
and Towill, 2001, Christopher, 2000), become a
highly-recommended competency for supply chains.
The literature related to supply chain agility has been
largely increased in the two last decades. Starting by
defining the concept and its relation with supply chain
performance (van Hoek, 2001, Yusuf et al., 2004),
researchers defined the characteristics of agile supply
chains (Giachetti et al., 2003, Christopher, 2000). The
first step to reach an agile supply chain is to study
supply chain internal and external environment and
identify circumstances that can lower its performance
(Lin, 2006, Yusuf et al., 1999). Starting from a good
understanding of such factors would enable to design
appropriate technological and managerial tools and
techniques that would allow supply chains to be agile.
We define situations needing agility (SNA) as the
sudden external and internal disturbances and
changes that can lower the supply chain
performances, temporary or sustainably, and
consequently, require an agile response. To be able to
propose new tools and approaches for SC agility, we
first need to better understand why the supply chain
needs agility, i.e. what are the potential situations that
require agility. Therefore, the aim of this paper is to
review the situations mentioned by different authors
in the context of supply chain agility and supply chain
risks.
2 SUPPLY CHAIN AGILITY
Agility can be defined as the continual readiness of an
entity to rapidly or inherently, proactively or
reactively, embrace change, through high quality,
simplistic, economic components and relationships
with its environment (Conboy and Fitzgerald, 2004).
In fact, the need for agility in supply chains and
manufacturing systems comes from the inability to
predict the future and its changes. Despite the
progress in forecasting and business intelligence,
companies still suffer from internal and external
sudden events that can harm their productivity and
their position in market if they don’t react rapidly and
effectively. Thus, Sudden changes may be a harmful
incident for a company and could be an opportunity
for others (Sharifi and Zhang, 1999).
270
Boubaker, S., Jemaï, Z., Sahin, E. and Dallery, Y.
Supply Chain Agility: Review of Situations.
DOI: 10.5220/0007351602700276
In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Operations Research and Enterprise Systems (ICORES 2019), pages 270-276
ISBN: 978-989-758-352-0
Copyright
c
 2019 by SCITEPRESS – Science and Technology Publications, Lda. All rights reserved

(Sharifi and Zhang, 1999) used the word drivers,
which means factors that causes a particular
phenomenon to happen or develop (2018b), to
describe internal and external pressures challenging
to improve competitiveness and overall business
performance. Those drivers were used for the supply
chain context by (Lin, 2006) (Sharifi and Zhang,
1999). They identified five main agility drivers:
Customer requirement, Competition criteria, market,
technological innovation and social factors. (Sharifi
and Zhang, 1999) presented a detailed list of changes
as sub-items of those general drivers. A list that was
updated later by (Zhang, 2011) Table 1 :
Table 1: Supply chain agility drivers (Zhang, 2011).
Change in market
place
Growth of niche market
Open new market
Close of market
Increasing rate of product models
Product lifetime shrinkage
Decreasing cost of entering niche market
Change in
competition basis
Rapidly changing markets
Increasing pressure on cost /profitability
Innovation rate increasing
Increasing pressure of global competition
Decreasing new product time to market
Responsiveness of competitors to
changes
Effectiveness of competitors’ strategy,
marketing, distribution, service...
Change in
customer
requirements
Individualizing products and service
Quicker delivery time and time to market
Quicker expectation increase
Increasing value of information/services
Change in
technology
Faster pace of development of product
technology
Faster pace of development in process
technology
Faster development of ICT technology
Change in social
factors
Environmental pressure
Workforce/workplace expectation
Legal/political pressure
Social contract change
The word driver or context used by most of
researches describe sources of changes and
fluctuations and not specific events that supply chains
can face and need to be responded quickly and
effectively. We prefer to use the word situation which
means the set of things that are happening and
conditions that exist at a particular time and place
(2018a). Variability in demand and supply is an
inevitable characteristic of economic systems. Yet,
agility is considered by many authors as the ability to
cope with unexpected changes (Li, 2015, Verma et
al., 2012, Arteta and Giachetti, 2004). Thus, situation
needing agility are characterized by their suddenness
and present a higher impact on supply chain
performances than recurrent operational variations.
Therefore, we define situations needing agility in the
context of supply chain as the external and internal
sudden disturbances and changes that can lower
supply chain performances, temporary or sustainably,
and consequently, require an agile response. This
definition includes both risks and opportunities. We
consider that a non-taken opportunity affect the
competitive performances of a supply chain.
Agility drivers were used in fact to justify the need
for agility and describe the economic and
manufacturing environment pushing supply chains to
acquire agile abilities. (Zhang and Sharifi, 2000) (Lin,
2006) (Tseng and Lin, 2011) used agility drivers as a
starting point to identify agile providers or enablers,
defined by (Gunasekaran, 1998) as technological
(e.g., information integration) and structural tools
(e.g., Customer/marketing sensitivity) and techniques
needed so that the system can be able to adapt to
changing market conditions. Few works on SCA tried
to assess quantitatively drivers and their impacts on
supply chain. (Zhang and Sharifi, 2000) proposed a
scoring model assessing impacts of supply chain
drivers on the supply chain performance (Low,
medium or high effect) in order to evaluate agility
needs and identify the importance of required
providers and (Tseng and Lin, 2011) used fuzzy logic
to evaluate agility drivers in order to give weights to
related providers to assess the overall supply chain
agility.
Most of supply chain agility works (Lin, 2006,
Iskanius, 2006, Jain et al., 2008, Agarwal et al., 2007)
were based on findings in the context of
manufacturing agility and enterprise agility (Sharifi
and Zhang, 1999), rather than supply chain and they
focused more on external pressures and changes (e.g.
Market, Customers, technology…). In fact, Supply
chains have a more complex configuration and are
also exposed to many internal factors that need
agility. Many risks are linked to supply chain internal
operations like transportation, manufacturing and
holding. A disruption in any of those operations can
lead to a whole supply chain disturbance.
Furthermore, Change factors related to supply chain
partners, suppliers and sub-contractors, were also
missing in the list presented by (Zhang, 2011). Yet, it
is evident that suppliers and sub-contractors play an
important role in the maintenance and prosperity of
supply chains.
Consequently, we consider that we need a more
detailed, exhaustive and well-structured list of internal
and external disturbances that supply chain managers
deal with.
Supply Chain Agility: Review of Situations
271

3 SITUATIONS NEEDING
AGILITY
To prepare a list of common situations requiring agility
in the supply chain context, we conducted a research
on situations mentioned in works on supply chain
agility, supply chain risk papers and industrial
reports.(Sharifi and Zhang, 1999) recognize that, due
to the complexity of the manufacturing environment,
an exhaustive general list could not be easily
determined and every manufacturing system has his
challenges, risks and opportunities that push to adopt
agile capabilities. We present first different
categorizations used by authors to classify situations
and risks in the context of supply chain. Second, we
propose a list of situations needing agility based on the
supply chain main activities: Demand, process and
supply.
3.1 Classification
Many classifications of situations affecting supply
chains were found in the supply chain risks literature
Table 2. Some propositions focus on characteristics of
the situation. First, normal or operational situations
resulting from breakdowns in internal procedures,
people and systems. Second, abnormal accidents
resulting from exogenous factors (e.g. Natural
disasters, terrorist attacks, financial crashes...) (Mitroff
and Alpaslan, 2003, Kleindorfer and Saad, 2005).
(Gaonkar and Viswanadham, 2004) suggested to
categorize situations depending on the parameter
affected by the variation (i.e. demand, supply,
procurement, production and logistic costs or
transportation and production lead-times) while others
classify situations under the dimension of the
parameter affected (i.e. Volume, quantity or time)
(Baker, 2008). (Li and Li, 2010, Khayyam and Herrou,
2017, Li et al., 2013) Suggested a classification based
on supply chain activities (demand, supply and
process). Most of these works are from supply chain
risk literature and they used these categorizations to
evaluate supply chain risks from different perspectives.
The aim of our study is to prepare a structured list of
situations in order to identify the proper agility
enabling levers. Therefore, we choose for this paper the
categorization used by (Khayyam and Herrou, 2017, Li
et al., 2013). We classify situations depending on the
functional areas affected (i.e. Demand, Process,
Supply). Demand situations are to identify and to study
in cooperation with marketing, customer services,
distribution, business intelligence or sales departments.
Process situations affect mostly production, logistics
and inventory activities. Finally, we study situations
linked to suppliers and sub-contractors.
Table 2: Situations categorizations.
Categorization
Source
Normal accidents
Economic crises
Physical crises
Personnel Crises
Abnormal accidents
Criminal crises
Information crises
Reputation crises
Natural accidents
(Mitroff and
Alpaslan, 2003)
Operational risk
Disruption risks (abnormal events)
(Kleindorfer and
Saad, 2005)
Variations in demand
Variations in supply
Variations in procurement, production and
logistic costs
Variations in transportation and production
lead-times
(Gaonkar and
Viswanadham,
2004)
Volume variance
Time variance.
Quantity variance
(Baker, 2008)
External
Nature
Political system
Competitor and market
Internal
Capacity
Internal operation
Information system
(L. and Desheng,
2010) (Bochao,
2010)
Customer risk:
Supplier risks
Manufacturer risks
Distributor risk
(Zhang et al.,
2016)
Supply risks
Process risks
Demand risks
(Khayyam and
Herrou, 2017, Li
et al., 2013)
Financial risks
Strategic risks
Operational risks;
Compliance risks.
High
Medium
Low
level
(Boscal et al.,
2010)
Environmental factors
Industry factors
Organizational factors
Problem specific factors
Decision-maker factors
(Rao and
Goldsby,
2009)
Supplier
Intern
Customer
Consumer
Competitor
Macro environment
(Linder, 2013)
Change in market place
Change in competition basis
Change in customer requirements
Change in technology
Social factors
(Zhang, 2011,
Sharifi and
Zhang, 1999)
ICORES 2019 - 8th International Conference on Operations Research and Enterprise Systems
272

3.2 Demand Related Situations
Variation in demand is the situation mentioned in
almost all the supply chain agility and the supply
chain risk literature. The market interest for a product
can show many variations over the time in response
to changing economic conditions and consumer
spending patterns. Orders can change in quantity but
also in time, composition, cost and delivery place
(Baramichai, 2007; Tseng, 2011). Supply chains
managers should take into account changes in
customer’s requirements, behavior, and business
strategy (Khayyam and Herrou, 2017). Competition
is an important factor of demand fluctuation. Agility
in needed in response to the entrance of a new
competitor, a new product or a new technology
(Linder, 2013). Supply chains should respond rapidly
to threats but also opportunities like the opening of
new markets and new distribution channels (Linder,
2013). Exogenous factors like exchange rate and
changes in regulations can affect international
markets. Table 3 shows a number of demand
situations found in the literature.
Table 3: Demand situations.
Demand Situations
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Demand Variation
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Order cancellation
X
X
Late order
X
X
X
Change of customer
requirements
X
X
X
Product substitution
X
X
Packaging change
X
X
Forecast error
X
X
Product failure
X
Customer loss
X
X
Change of customer
business strategy
X
Laws and regulations
change
X
X
X
New product introduction
X
X
X
Price changes /
promotions
X
Exchange rate change
X
X
New competitor entering
X
X
New distribution
channels
X
New markets
X
Change of delivery time
X
X
New technology
X
X
3.3 Process Related Situations
Supply chain process includes manufacturing,
holding and transportation operations. Managing
situations linked to these operations is vital to
maintain or improve supply chain performances.
Many sudden changes are linked to these activities.
Manufacturing managers are asked to deal
continuously with capacity problems, forecast errors,
changes in production planning and variations in lead
times. Such problems can lead to delivery delays and
market opportunity loss. Many incidents can be
source of manufacturing and transport break downs
(e.g. Labor accidents, strikes, equipment failures,
quality problems, terrorist attacks and natural
disasters). Risks liked to Information and
telecommunications systems become, now a day, a
serious factor of supply chain disruption. In fact,
(BCI, 2015) reported that top three causes of
disruptions, according to a large number of supply
chain managers, are Unplanned IT outage, Cyber-
attacks and adverse weather. We show in Table 4
situations needing agility linked to supply chain
process found in the literature.
Table 4: Process situations.
Process situations
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Capacity Problem
X
X
X
X
X
Forecast error
X
X
X
Labor problems(strike)
X
X
X
X
X
Loss of talent
X
Change in delivery time
X
Manufacturing breakdowns
X
X
X
X
IT breakdown
X
X
X
X
X
Cyber attacks
X
X
Product quality problems
X
X
Inventory shortage
X
X
Shortage of resources
X
Human /process error
X
Planning change/Delays
X
X
Equipment failure
X
Product failure
X
Accidents/Fire
X
X
X
Quality problem
X
X
X
Technology change
X
Change of regulations and
laws
X
Product design change
X
Acceleration of product
lifetime
X
Production cost change
X
Production lead time
variation
X
Natural disasters
X
X
Transport disruption
X
X
Change of holding costs
X
[1](L. and Desheng, 2010) ;[2] (Li et al., 2013);[3] (Khayyam
and Herrou, 2017) [4] (Tseng, 2011) [5] (S.C.Chopra and
M.S.Sodhi, 2004); [6] (Gaonkar and Viswanadham, 2004);
(BCI, 2015)
Supply Chain Agility: Review of Situations
273

3.4 Supply and Outsourcing Related
Situations
Suppliers and subcontractors can represent high risk
in supply chain. A delivery delay or disruption can
obviously lead to a total supply chain failure. Supply
chains need to be agile in response to supplier’s
delays, quality problems, raw material unavailability,
change in suppliers pricing, design, strategy and
financial situation. Table 5 shows different situations
linked to supply and outsourcing.
Table 5: Supply situations.
Supply /outsourcing
situations
1
2
3
4
5
Supply disruption
X
Supplier delay
X
X
X
X
RM unavailability
X
X
X
Supplier bankruptcy
X
X
Quality problems
X
X
X
Capacity decrease
X
Pricing change
X
Transport disruption
X
Transportation lead time
change
X
X
Product redesign
X
Out of business supplier
X
Supplier strategy change
X
Outsourcer failure
X
Fraud/ Corruption
X
Forecast errors
X
[1] (Gaonkar and Viswanadham, 2004) ;[2] (Li et al.,
2013);[3] (Khayyam and Herrou, 2017) [4] (BCI, 2015)
[5](Raj Sinha et al., 2004)
We remind that situations needing agility are sudden,
and with an important effect on supply chain
performances. Yet, we underline that some situations
mentioned previously may be frequent and tolerable
in supply chain management (Inventory shortage,
forecast errors, charge / capacity problems, quality
problems, supply delays…). To distinguish agility
form the day-to-day management, we consider that a
situation is in need for agility if its occurrence is
unpredicted in time and its impact is significant.
Situations mentioned in this work are generic and
may take place in different sectors. However, to study
agility in a specific supply chain, a more detailed
study should be done. Situations like customer or
supplier strategy change, or change in laws, still
ambiguous and should be analyzed in the context of
the supply chain studied.
4 CONCLUSIONS
With complex and dynamic markets, increasing
competition and the rapid change of the economic and
geopolitics environment, supply chains are often
asked to deal with sudden external and internal
pressures. Thus, the agility, defined as the ability of a
system to respond effectively to unplanned situations,
become a competitive advantage and a strategic axis.
To achieve a better level of agility within supply
chains, one should better identify in circumstances
supply chains require agility. Hence, the objective of
the paper is to review the situations mentioned by
different authors in the context of supply chain agility
and supply chain risks.
Situations needing agility, SNA, are defined as
“external and internal disturbances and changes that
can lower supply chain performances, temporary or
sustainably, and consequently, require an agile
response”. Our paper reviewed papers on supply
chain agility as well as supply chain risk
management. We proposed a list of situations that
need agility, based on a first classification that refers
to the supply chain activity affected (Supply, process,
demand). Hence, earlier works that mention each
agility situation is identified
Due to the complexity of supply chains and the
diversity of industrial sectors, such a list needs
feedback from professionals in supply chain,
marketing, production, distribution, sales and
purchasing departments. We currently started this
work with 4 companies in various sectors such as:
retail, luxury, aeronautics and pharmaceuticals.
Situations are presented and illustrative examples
coming from the companies are discussed. The aim
of the work is to twofold: i) identify the criticality
of each situation, ii) identify levers that enable to
tackle SNA. Criticality of situations is assessed by
the traditional (frequency which the situation is
observed)*(gravity of the impact of the situation).
Therefore, the work developed in this paper
represents a starting point for further studies on SC
agility.
REFERENCES
2018a. Cambridge Dictionary. In: PRESS, C. U. (ed.)
Cambridge Dictionary.
2018b. The oxford english dictionary. In: PRESS, O. U.
(ed.).
ICORES 2019 - 8th International Conference on Operations Research and Enterprise Systems
274

Agarwal, A., Shankar, R. and Tiwari, M. K. 2007.
Modeling agility of supply chain. Industrial Marketing
Management, 36, 443-457.
Arteta, B. M. and Giachetti, R. E. 2004. A measure of
agility as the complexity of the enterprise system.
Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing, 20,
495-503.
Baker, P. 2008. The design and operation of distribution
centres within agile supply chains. International Journal
of Production Economics, 111, 27-41.
Baramichai, M. Z., Emory W.; Marangos, Charalambos A.
2007. Agile supply chain transformation matrix: an
integrated tool for creating an agile enterprise. Supply
Chain Management: An International Journal, 12, 334-
348.
BCI 2015. SUPPLY CHAIN RESILIENCE REPORT.
Blos, M. F., Hoeflich, S. L., Dias, E. M. and Wee, H.-M.
2016. A note on supply chain risk classification:
discussion and proposal. International Journal of
Production Research, 54, 1568-1569.
Bochao, L. Supply Chain Risk Assessment Based on AHP
and Fuzzy Comprehensive Evaluation. 2010
International Conference on Management of e-
Commerce and e-Government, 23-24 Oct. 2010 2010.
317-322.
Boscal, K. H. Y., Ivan, K. W. L. and Stephen, K. C. C.
Supply chain risk management model - ERM approach.
2010 8th International Conference on Supply Chain
Management and Information, 6-9 Oct. 2010 2010. 1-
7.
Christopher, M. 2000. The Agile Supply Chain: Competing
in Volatile Markets. Industrial Marketing Management,
29, 37-44.
Christopher, M. and Towill, D. 2001. An integrated model
for the design of agile supply chains. International
Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics
Management, 31, 235-246.
Conboy, K. and Fitzgerald, B. 2004. Toward a conceptual
framework of agile methods. Extreme Programming
and Agile Methods - Xp/ Agile Universe 2004,
Proceedings, 3134, 105-116.
Gaonkar, R. and Viswanadham, N. A conceptual and
analytical framework for the management of risk in
supply chains. IEEE International Conference on
Robotics and Automation, 2004. Proceedings. ICRA
'04. 2004, 26 April-1 May 2004 2004. 2699-2704 Vol.3.
Giachetti, R. E., Martinez, L. D., Saenz, O. A. and Chen, C.
S. 2003. Analysis of the structural measures of
flexibility and agility using a measurement theoretical
framework. International Journal of Production
Economics, 86, 47-62.
Gunasekaran, A. 1998. Agile manufacturing: Enablers and
an implementation framework. International Journal of
Production Research, 36, 1223-1247.
Iskanius, P. 2006. An agile supply chain for a project-
oriented steel product network. University of Oulu.
Jain, V., Benyoucef, L. and Deshmukh, S. G. 2008. A new
approach for evaluating agility in supply chains using
Fuzzy Association Rules Mining. Engineering
Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 21, 367-385.
Khayyam, Y. E. and Herrou, B. Risk assessment of the
supply chain: Approach based on analytic hierarchy
process and group decision-making. 2017
International Colloquium on Logistics and Supply
Chain Management (LOGISTIQUA), 27-28 April
2017 2017. 135-141.
Kleindorfer, P. R. and Saad, G. H. 2005. Managing
Disruption Risks in Supply Chains. Production and
Operations Management, 14, 53-68.
L., O. D. and Desheng, D. W. 2010. A review of enterprise
risk management in supply chain. Kybernetes, 39, 694-
706.
Li, X. W., Qun; Holsapple, Clyde W. 2015. Best-value
supply chains and firms’ competitive performance:
empirical studies of their linkage. International Journal
of Operations and Production Management, 35, 1688-
1709.
Li, Y. and Li, H. X. Mitigating Supply Chain Risks
Using Flexibility Theory. 2010 International
Conference on Management and Service Science, 24-
26 Aug. 2010 2010. 1-4.
Li, Z. P., Yee, Q. M. G., Tan, P. S. and Lee, S. G. An
extended risk matrix approach for supply chain risk
assessment. 2013 IEEE International Conference on
Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management,
10-13 Dec. 2013 2013. 1699-1704.
Lin, C. T. C., H.; Chu, P. Y. 2006. Agility index in the
supply chain. International Journal of Production
Economics, 100, 285-299.
Linder, T. 2013. Global Information Services and Supply
Chain Management. BASF SE, GSS/PO. University of
Würzburg, June, 20st, 2013.
Mitroff, I. I. and ALPASLAN, M. C. 2003. Preparing for
evil., Harvard Business School Pub.
Raj Sinha, P., Whitman, L. E. and Malzahn, D. 2004.
Methodology to mitigate supplier risk in an aerospace
supply chain. Supply Chain Management: An
International Journal, 9, 154-168.
Rao, S. and Goldsby, T. J. 2009. Supply chain risks: a
review and typology. The International Journal of
Logistics Management, 20, 97-123.
S.C.Chopra and M.S.Sodhi 2004. Managing Risk to Avoid
Supply-Chain Breakdown. MIT Sloan Manage.,
1,no.46, 53–61.
Sharifi, H. and Zhang, Z. 1999. A methodology for
achieving agility in manufacturing organisations: An
introduction. International Journal of Production
Economics, 62, 7-22.
Sharp, J. M., Irani, Z. and Desai, S. 1999. Working towards
agile manufacturing in the UK industry. International
Journal of Production Economics, 62, 155-169.
Tseng, Y. H. and Lin, C. T. 2011. Enhancing enterprise
agility by deploying agile drivers, capabilities and
providers. Information Sciences, 181, 3693-3708.
Tseng, Y. H. L., C. T. 2011. Enhancing enterprise agility by
deploying agile drivers, capabilities and providers.
Information Sciences, 181, 3693-3708.
Van Hoek, R. I. H., A.; Christopher, M. 2001. Measuring
agile capabilities in the supply chain. International
Supply Chain Agility: Review of Situations
275

Journal of Operations & Production Management, 21,
126-147.
Verma, S., Jain, V. and Majumdar, A. Modeling an Agile
Supply Chain: Research Challenges and Future
Directions. 2012 India. Springer India, 277-285.
Yusuf, Y. Y., Gunasekaran, A., Adeleye, E. O. and
Sivayoganathan, K. 2004. Agile supply chain
capabilities: Determinants of competitive objectives.
European Journal of Operational Research, 159, 379-
392.
Yusuf, Y. Y., Sarhadi, M. and Gunasekaran, A. 1999. Agile
manufacturing: The drivers, concepts and attributes.
International Journal of Production Economics, 62, 33-
43.
Zhang, D. Z. 2011. Towards theory building in agile
manufacturing strategies-Case studies of an agility
taxonomy. International Journal of Production
Economics, 131, 303-312.
Zhang, J., GUO, Z. and Chen, X. Evaluation of automotive
supply chain risks: An empirical research. 2016 13th
International Conference on Service Systems and
Service Management (ICSSSM), 24-26 June 2016
2016. 1-6.
Zhang, Z. and Sharifi, H. 2000. A methodology for
achieving agility in manufacturing organisations.
International Journal of Operations and Production
Management, 20, 496-513.
ICORES 2019 - 8th International Conference on Operations Research and Enterprise Systems
276