1 Introduction

Supply chain resilience (SCR) plays an important role in supply chains facing challenging situations that do not occur often but could have enormous impacts (El Baz et al. 2023; Herold and Marzantowicz 2023; Michel et al. 2023). SCR, which represents the supply chain’s ability to survive and flourish through disruptions, has become vital for any supply chain to sustainably succeed in the constantly changing business environment (Brandon-Jones et al. 2014; Chen and Wen 2023; Kamalahmadi and Parast 2016; Sabahi and Parast 2019; Sawyerr and Harrison 2020; Sezer et al. 2023). Therefore, the tasks of developing and improving the supply chain resilience (SCR) model have received attention from scholars and decision-makers in operations and supply chain management.

Despite the importance of SCR, no consensus has yet been reached regarding this concept and its definition (Kochan and Nowicki 2018; Sawyerr and Harrison 2020; Tukamuhabwa et al. 2015). Many supply chain decision-makers assume that being resilient is a good characteristic, although they lack a clear understanding of resilience (Wieland and Durach 2021). SCR should be a systematic and dynamic concept that includes multiple stages and involves different strategies in various situations (Melnyk et al. 2014; Sabahi and Parast 2019; Teece et al. 1997).

In terms of the aforementioned multiple stages, the authors of previous studies held different options and failed to reach consensus. Kamalahmadi and Parast (2016) identified three stages/phases of supply chain resilience: anticipation (anticipation and preparedness), resistance (maintaining control and deactivating perturbation), and recovery and response (a return to predisruption status or an even higher level). The research framework developed by Ponomarov and Holcomb (2009) used the notions of “event readiness”, “efficient response”, “recovery”, and “organizational learning” to discuss supply chain resilience. Essuman et al. (2020) emphasized the advantages of output-based perspectives over input-based perspectives, and these authors defined resilience by reference to the notions of “absorption” and “recoverability”. Sawyerr and Harrison (2020) claimed that the definition of SCR should include monitoring, mitigating, responding, recovering, and learning from disruptions. More recently, from the social-ecological system perspective, Wieland et al. (2023) highlighted adaptation and transformation beyond the mere persistence of SCR. In their discussion, these authors emphasized the learning and improvement stage but not the preparation stage.

Beyond the inconsistency of these various definitions of SCR and the corresponding scopes of this term, there is a call for different SCR strategies in various situations. Tukamuhabwa et al. (2015) identified four stages of SCR based on a literature review and noted that a supply chain needs the latent ability to use different strategies to respond to different threats based on the nature of the threats that the supply chain faces. These authors divided SCR strategies into the categories of ‘proactive’ and ‘reactive’ but did not discuss the implementation of these strategies at each of the four stages in further detail. They thus explicitly called for future researchers to develop a more elaborate categorization of SCR strategies, which could be valuable and critical for decision-makers. In addition, Wieland and Durach (2021) discussed two perspectives on SCR: the engineering perspective and the social-ecological perspective. The engineering perspective assumes limited boundaries, controllable variables, and the goal of returning to normality. In contrast, the social-ecological perspective views the supply chain as a dynamic and complex system that is adaptive to the new environment. Although the importance of the social-ecological perspective was emphasized, these authors indicated that both perspectives are valuable regarding SCR, and they called for future research on SCR to be conducted in different contexts and situations.

To address these research gaps and respond to the calls from both academics and practitioners, this study aims to provide a comprehensive definition of SCR, highlighting its continuous and self-adaptive nature, and then to propose a dynamic model of the SCR cycle, featuring corresponding management strategies for each stage of the cycle. This research will not only contribute the academic literature on SCR but also equip supply chain decision-makers with a systematic understanding of SCR and an action plan for implementing SCR strategies in various situations. Accordingly, we pose the following two research questions:

  1. 1)

    How can supply chain resilience be defined across different stages of the supply chain disruptions life cycle?

  2. 2)

    What management strategies should supply chain decision-makers adopt at each stage of the life cycle?

To answer these research questions, we provide our own definition of SCR based on an analysis of existing definitions in the literature, following which we develop an SCR cycle model by performing concept mapping using the Cynefin framework. The rest of the paper is organized as follows: in Sect. 2, we review and analyze existing definitions of SCR with the goal of identifying the various scopes and evolving characteristics that have been attributed to this concept and then define SCR in terms of the life cycle of supply chain disruptions (thereby answering research question 1). Based on our definition of SCR, a comprehensive SCR cycle model is developed in Sect. 3 by employing a concept mapping approach based on the Cynefin framework. The proposed model includes corresponding management strategies for each stage of the SCR cycle (thereby answering research question 2). Section 4 contains further discussion of this topic and the conclusions of this research.

2 Define supply chain resilience through the life cycle of disruptions

Following our research questions, we will start by reviewing and summarizing the literature on SCR, with a focus on its definitions and scopes. Based on the review and summary, our definition of SCR will be developed through the life cycle of supply chain disruptions.

2.1 Definitions and scopes of supply chain resilience in literature

Resilience is the term first studied in academia by Holling (1973) to describe the characteristics of an ecological system. The notion of resilience has been applied to many other fields, such as urban planning, psychology, economics, and sociology (Melnyk et al. 2014; Ponomarov and Holcomb 2009). Since first being studied in the supply chain context by Rice and Caniato (2003a); Christopher and Peck (2004), SCR has drawn much attention from both academia and industry in the field of operations and supply chain management.

To build the foundation for our model development and to better compare the scopes of different definitions in the literature, we summarize the definitions of SCR and indicate their scopes in terms of the different stages. Building on previous research (Ali et al. 2017; Kamalahmadi and Parast 2016; Rahman et al. 2022; Tukamuhabwa et al. 2015), this summary focuses on the scopes of the definitions, which were not fully discussed in the literature. With this focus, we select the definitions that clearly indicate the stages of disruptions and exclude those general and broad definitions, such as “the ability of a supply chain to cope with change” (Wieland and Wallenburg 2013, p. 301). The results are presented in Table 1.

Table 1 Definitions of SCR and their Scopes
Full size table

The summary in Table 1 indicates that the definition of SCR has evolved from merely the ability to respond and recover from disruptions (Christopher and Peck 2004; Rice and Caniato 2003a) into a more comprehensive system, which includes identification, mitigation, response, recovery, and learning from the disruptions (Ali et al. 2017; Hohenstein et al. 2015; Sawyerr and Harrison 2020). Additionally, Table 1 clearly illustrates the lack of consensus regarding the definitions and scopes of SCR. Therefore, we will further analyze those definitions and develop our own definition of SCR from the perspective of a disruption life cycle.

2.2 SCR definition through the life cycle of disruptions

According to the above summary in Table 1, while most existing definitions include the responding stage and the recovery stage, the authors held different opinions on whether including the identification & mitigation stage and the learning & improvement stage. We will discuss further about these two stages.

For the identification and mitigation stage, some research have excluded it arguing that monitoring, identification, and mitigation are the risk management practices aimed at achieving resilience rather than constituting inherent SCR abilities (Huang et al. 2023). Similarly, Essuman et al. (2020) considered disruption preparedness is an key element of input-base resilience rather than output-base resilience. The authors support the output-base resilience perspective, which underscores that “a system’s resilience level cannot be ascertained in the absence of a disruption” (Essuman et al. 2020, p. 2). However, recent research has highlighted the critical role of pre-disruption preparedness in SCR. Ivanov (2024) emphasizes both proactive and reactive natures of SCR, and asserts the need to incorporate “an ability to anticipate and proactively mitigate disruptions before they hit the supply chain” (Ivanov 2024, p. 8) for implementing adaptation-based view of SCR. The author further distinguishes between the stability-based view and the adaptation-based view, stressing their complementary nature and advocating for future research that integrates both perspectives.

This line of research is pertinent to our study, as our objective is to formulate a comprehensive definition of SCR applicable across all stages of supply chain disruption and to equip decision-makers with effective management strategies. Whether focusing on preparing for disruptions (from a stability-based view) or fostering adaptation (from an adaptation-based view), the stage of identification and mitigation is crucial for SCR. The capacity of promptly identifying potential disruptions and assessing their impacts enables organizations to act proactively before the disruption impacts a supply chain. It is a critical part of supply chain’s resilient ability and is necessary for an action plan for supply chain decision-makers. For instance, the occurrence of the COVID-19 pandemic could be far ahead of its actual impact on a specific supply chain. During the gap time, the decision-makers of a resilient supply chain would estimate when or whether the supply chain would be affected, assess the likely impacts on them, and take proactive measures to mitigate the potential impacts. Identification and mitigation, as the SCR ability for pre-disruption, can both support the reactive activities of the other stages and have the potential to completely prevent the supply chain disruptions. We thus contend that it is necessary to include “identification and mitigation” in the comprehensive framework of SCR cycle.

For the learning and improvement stage, some existing research studied the first three stages, and the learning and improvement stage was either ignored or combined into the recovery stage. For example, Rahman et al. (2022) investigated SCR strategies for preparedness, response, and recovery. Wieteska (2019) discussed the abilities developed during the three phases of disruptions: pre-, during-, and post-disruptions. The SCR capacities for recovery, learning, and improvement were combined at the post-disruption stage. Although learning and improvement could occur throughout the whole disruption event, the distinctions between the recovery stage and the learning and improvement stage are still significant. In the recovery stage, supply chains still focus on returning to stable and normal situations, while the learning and improvement stage focuses on moving to a new, better, more desired state. Faced with new internal and external environments, supply chains need adjustment and reflection to enhance its current level of SCR (Tukamuhabwa et al. 2015). SCR is not solely about dealing with unexpected disasters, but also about building the learning capability for continuous improvement (Hussain et al. 2023). After the supply chains fully recover and return to normal, supply chain members that survived disruptions learn from experience, summarize their attempts and outcomes, generate new knowledge and skills, and improve their SCR ability for future disruptions. Those focuses of the learning and improvement stage emphasize the most significant characteristics of resilience (Holling 1973; Kochan and Nowicki 2018; Ponomarov and Holcomb 2009) and are critical for strengthening the supply chain’s adaptation and transformation abilities in the complex and constantly changing environment (Tukamuhabwa et al. 2015; Wieland and Durach 2021). This stage clarifies that the goal of a resilient supply chain is not only to survive but also to flourish in a new era (Wieland et al. 2023). Because of its critical importance and unique nature, the learning and improvement stage deserves time and resources from supply chain decision-makers for thorough analysis and investigation. We thus include the “learning and improvement” stage in the SCR cycle framework.

Supply chain resilience should dynamically and continuously evolve through the life cycle of disruptions, and the different stages of a supply chain disruption need distinct corresponding strategies (Essuman et al. 2020). The perspective of the life cycle of supply chain disruptions emphasizes the dynamic nature of SCR and calls for varied investigations (Melnyk et al. 2014). Therefore, in our study, we analyze SCR through four stages of disruptive events that a supply chain experiences, emphasizing the importance of dynamic capability through all stages of the SCR cycle. SCR is viewed as a dynamic life cycle with four main stages: (1) identification and mitigation, (2) responding during disruptions, (3) recovery after the nadir of disruptions, and (4) review, reflection and improvement from experience. Accordingly, we define SCR from a disruption life cycle perspective as follows:

Supply chain resilience is the capability of a supply chain to survive and grow throughout the entire disruption cycle, which includes identifying and mitigating potential disruptions, effectively responding to unexpected events, recovering quickly from the nadir to the normal stage, and organizational learning and improvement upon returning to normal.

Our definition of SCR (Fig. 1) emphasizes the dynamic nature of SCR, illustrates the importance of recognizing different stages of disruptions, demonstrates a complete roadmap of SCR, and encourages decision-makers to develop corresponding strategies at each stage of the cycle. We thus will use this definition as the basis of our model development in the next section.

Fig. 1
figure 1

The four stages of supply chain resilience cycle

Full size image

3 Proposed model of the SCR cycle

Following the definition of the SCR cycle in Sect. 2, we now aim to answer the second research question about management strategies for each of the SCR cycle stages. For that goal, we will first introduce the Cynefin framework as the theory basis and then propose the model of the SCR cycle including the recommended corresponding management strategies at each stage.

3.1 Theory basis: the Cynefin framework

Introduced by Snowden and Boone (2007), the Cynefin framework emphasizes that the ability to shift management strategies is essential for effective leaders in constantly changing business environments. Rooted in complexity science and knowledge management, the Cynefin framework is considered as a valuable lens to study the contingent and contextualized problems in organizational decision-making (Childs and McLeod 2013; Fodness 2015; French 2013; Sawyerr and Harrison 2020). This framework has been applied across various fields, including technology implementations (Childs and McLeod 2013), statistical modeling in risk analysis (French 2015), sustainable marketing strategies (Fodness 2015), performance measurement design (Alexander et al. 2018), decision-making in healthcare (Harden and Fulop 2015) and legal regulations on corruption (Minto and Trincanato 2022). More recently, Sawyerr and Harrison (2020) were the first to apply the Cynefin framework to SCR study, where they recommended SCR strategies for different types of crisis, termed complicated crisis, complex crisis, and chaotic crisis, rather than focusing on the stages of the SCR cycle.

The details of the four contexts defined in this framework are analyzed as follows, and decision-makers should respond to each context with different management strategies.

A simple context is the easiest case, where the cause-and-effect relationships are clearly observable to all levels of an organization, the process occurs frequently, and the best solution already exists. Examples of simple context are repeating and routine activities, such as order processing and fulfillment. In this context, managers should consider applying fact-based management strategies to implement existing best practices through clear and straightforward rules and regulations.

In a complicated context, cause-and-effect relationships are not immediately apparent to everyone but are still discoverable. After deep investigation, there could be more than one right answer. An example of a complicated context is the mechanics of cars. Although noticing an abnormality of a car is easy for most drivers, finding the real cause of the abnormality requires more expertise and investigation. In this context, decision-makers should consider creating a panel of experts for their conflicting opinions to fully understand and evaluate alternative options.

In a complex context, the cause-and-effect relationships are not fully understood, and the outcomes of options are not predicable, so there is no preexisting solution to apply. For example, a rainforest system is too complex to be fully understood, and the outcome and the impact of a potential solution on all actors of this system are unpredictable. Decision-makers in this context should encourage creative and competing ideas, monitor and analyze changes and trends, and empower the actors of the system to reveal the most suitable solutions.

A chaotic context is the most dynamic and highly turbulent situation, where the conditions are constantly changing and immediate actions are needed to “stanch the bleeding”, so there is not enough time and resources to consult all levels of the organization to find a best solution. Managers facing this high-turbulence and high-tension context should apply direct top-down broadcast management to quickly implement decisions and sense the possibility of stability.

3.2 SCR cycle model from the lens of the Cynefin framework

Based on the above analysis of the Cynefin framework, we employ the concept mapping approach to align the stages of the SCR cycle with the contexts of the Cynefin framework. This approach enables us to develop and propose a dynamic model that offers a new perspective of SCR, along with corresponding management strategies for each stage of the cycle. The processes of concept mapping and the development of recommended management strategies are presented below, and the results are summarized in Fig. 2; Table 2.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Modeling the SCR cycle through concept mapping with the Cynefin framework

Full size image

First, the identification and mitigation stage has similar characteristics to the simple context. At this stage, most processes operate smoothly as normal, and the cause-and-effect relationships can be clearly and easily identified and communicated among different levels in the organization. These characteristics of this stage align with those of the simple context. As indicated by the Cynefin framework, “sense” is emphasized in this stage, and it is vital that a supply chain leader needs to continuously assess the facts of the situations and mitigate the potential impacts of disruptions on their supply chain. At this stage, all levels of members could understand and communicate the cause-and-effect relationship, which provides the basis for supply chain leaders to identify the signals before a disruption occurs, evaluate its potential impacts on the supply chain, and communicate the logics and reasonings with all levels of members.

Second, the response stage and the chaotic context have many common characteristics. During this stage, “stanching the bleeding” is the immediate job for the supply chain leaders. Different from other stages and contexts, the decision-makers in this stage do not have sufficient time and resources to collect the opinions from all levels, and the best solution may not even exist in this constantly and quickly changing environment. The supply chain managers at this stage/context would take an instant action to contain the disruption situation from getting worse and provide clear and direct communication to all members of the supply chain. Instead of attempting to find the best practices, they need to look for what works right now and learn through doing.

Third, the recovery stage is similar to the complicated context because this is the time to identify the cause-and-effect relationships and analyze the existing situations. Due to the limited time and resources and the lack of information availability to all members of a supply chain, benchmarking successful practices and consulting experts for solutions are appropriate approaches. At this stage/context, supply chain managers are encouraged to offer information and resources to the related personals, create a panel of experts, and carefully listen to conflicting advice from different backgrounds without judgment so that the managers can learn about what happened and the possible options for recovery.

Fourth, the learning & improvement stage and the complex context share common characteristics. Members of the impacted community present diverse needs, and cause-and-effect relationships are obscured by the interrelationships and interactions among them. Because of sufficient time and resources after recovery and the long-term impacts of new policies and strategies, supply chain managers at this stage must consider the needs of all stakeholders, moving beyond viewing mere survival and recovery as the sole goals of the earlier stages. They are advised to focus on investigating the impacts of potential solutions on all related community members by carefully listening to them and allowing the solutions to emerge from the community itself. Instant actions and commands employed in the response stage should be replaced with deliberate and thoughtful measures. Communication among all supply chain members needs to promptly resume.

Table 2 Recommendations through mapping SCR cycle stages to the Cynefin contexts
Full size table

4 Discussion and conclusion

SCR is an important and broad topic that needs different perspectives and interdisciplinary studies by scholars from academia and industry. To effectively address disruptions that occur internally and externally, supply chain decision-makers need to continuously enhance the resilience capability of their supply chains to achieve sustainable competitive advantages. The lack of consensus on the definitions, scopes, and strategies of SCR calls for further clarification and theoretical development. Furthermore, while the literature has identified numerous strategies for SCR, there is a lack of studies on their development and implementation.

In response to the calls, this study investigates the scopes of various SCR definitions and defines SCR through a dynamic life cycle of supply chain disruptions, offering a systematic and dynamic view of SCR (answered Research Question 1). Building on our definition, the proposed model of the SCR cycle identifies the characteristics of each stage, maps them with the contexts of the Cynefin framework, and recommends practical strategies accordingly (answered Research Question 2). This study underscores that each stage of the SCR cycle possesses unique characteristics, and it requires supply chain leaders to employ various mechanisms and management strategies tailored to each stage.

As exploratory research, this study lays the foundation for future research opportunities. Future studies could explore additional management decisions based on the unique characteristics of each stage of the SCR cycle, such as investigating the interrelationship between SCR and supply chain innovation at each stage. Strategically aligning specific types of innovation with the appropriate stages of the SCR cycle could greatly enhance success rates and improve implementation performance.

Another potential research direction is to study SCR from the perspective of leadership styles. Building on the SCR cycle model with the recommended strategies proposed in this study, future research could explore how this model correlates with different types of leadership to provide more practical guidance to supply chain decision-makers. Several relevant leadership styles have the potentials to apply in the SCR cycle model, including transformative leadership (Bass 1990; Burns 1978), servant leadership (Liden et al. 2015), sustainable leadership (McCann and Holt 2010), and the four leadership styles from the Leadership Inventory model: commanding, logical, inspirational, and supportive (Reardon et al. 1998).

For supply chain practitioners, this proposed model of the SCR cycle provides a practical action plan at each stage with corresponding SCR strategies. Additionally, this study recommends decision-makers view SCR as an evolving concept with a dynamic and self-adaptive nature. Rather than aiming to simply “back to normal”, supply chain managers should take disruptions as opportunities to enhance their visions, test existing practices, learn from experience, develop new strategies, and improve their SCR to thrive in a constantly changing environment.

One limitation of this research is the absence of solid empirical evidence, such as relevant cases or business datasets, to demonstrate and validate the proposed model. Some closely related case studies were provided by Alexander et al. (2018) and Wieland et al. (2023). Another limitation is that this study did not analyze and compare the proposed SCR model with other resilience-related concepts, such as disruption absorption, robustness, self-adaptation, and transformation. For instance, disruption absorption refers to the ability “to maintain the structure and normal functioning of operations in the face of disruptions” (Essuman et al. 2020, p. 2). This concept plays a role in the response stage of our model. Supply chains with strong disruption absorption can potentially maintain operations without system breakdowns. However, supply chain leaders must constantly observe and evaluate the current situation to decide when and which strategies to implement in response to unexpected events.

Overall, by emphasizing the dynamic nature of SCR, identifying the characteristics of each stage of the SCR cycle, and developing different corresponding management strategies, this study has established the foundation for academic researchers to further explore additional strategies for each SCR cycle stage. Additionally, it provides supply chain decision-makers with actionable plans to manage future supply chain disruptions.