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.,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.,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).,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.,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.

Distinguishing between the concepts of supply chain agility and resilience: A multidisciplinary literature review

You may be able to identify several ways students can be prepared to take an upcoming test, but which ways are ethical to use? There are available materials that you may purchase and use to prepare students for a test: Are they effective and is it ethical to use them? What constitutes an ethically acceptable test preparation procedure?

Methods for Improving Standardized Test Scores: Fruitful, Fruitless, or Fraudulent?

Purpose




Although supply chain scholars have acknowledged the fundamental disruptive changes experienced by today’s supply chains and the ensuing novelty of the research problems worthy of investigation, they have primarily relied on a limited number of theories to help explain the phenomena of interest. The purpose of this paper is to use a systematic literature review to address this gap and propose additional theories that supply chain researchers can use to help address novel supply chain phenomena, such as those caused by technological disruptions.




Design/methodology/approach




The authors use a systematic literature review to examine the studies published over the last 10 years in six of the top supply chain management journals (411 articles) and six of the top marketing and management journals (1,214 articles).




Findings




First, the findings show that 15 theories have been relied upon by over 95 per cent of the studies within supply chain management that use formal theories. Second, the authors identify the most frequently used theories within marketing and management (217 theories). Third, as space limitations make it impossible to offer a rich description of each of the 217 theories, the authors identify 30 theories that they considered to be the most salient to supply chain research and suggest areas where supply chain scholars can apply these theoretical lenses.




Originality/value




The research effort allowed the authors to map the current use of theories within the field to gain a better understanding of what other theories could augment the body of theories used within supply chain management. Thus, the current study is a “one stop shop” that supply chain scholars can consult when in a quandary about what theoretical lens to utilize.

A look into the past and future: theories within supply chain management, marketing and management

This review of published literature and research critically examines the conceptual and psychometric problems associated with curriculum-based measurement (CBM) as they relate to eligibility decision making and programming for special education. It is concluded that although CBM can provide a useful supplement in assessing and remediating academic difficulties, it suffers from many of the criticisms leveled at traditional assessments as well as some unique limitations of its own. It is concluded that CBM, to be of most value, needs to be part of a larger systematic psychoeducational assessment program rather than a replacement for it.

Curriculum-based measurement: Conceptual and psychometric considerations

In past issues (vol.8, no. 1 and vol. 10, no. 1), Mehrens & Kaminski and Cohen & Hyman have addressed test-preparation procedures. On what points is there agreement between these authors? What are points of disagreement? Where have Cohen & Hyman misinterpreted Mehrens & Kaminski? What points made by Cohen & Hyman confuse Mehrens?

Facts About Samples, Fantasies About Domains

"mainstream." Proposal readers were not frequently seized by the originality of a research strategy or a fresh conceptualization of an old problem. There were some of these, to be sure, but not a lot. Possibly there were more in the early stages of the competition. Perhaps the peer review process itself, and the government rating systems behind it, tended to screen out less conventional approaches. But even if not exhilarating, the outcome was satisfactory. The centers we ended up with are all promising; each has a serious mission, able individuals, and a worthy plan, some worthier than others at this early stage. I feel good about the process, hopeful about the winners, and determined to do all we can to help them succeed-a judging process, I might add, in which we will use various peer review mechanisms. The situation with the regional labs is a bit more problematic. The new contracts describe an ambitious agenda of work that, if satisfactorily carried out, will surely benefit American education. So far, so good. But virtually all the "new" labs were also "old" labs or close facsimiles thereof. And of the old labs, while it is both conventional and true to remark that their work was "uneven," I am not aware of any evidence that American education was palpably improved in consequence of their activities as a group over the years. I say this with sadness, not satisfaction, and in the fervent hope that the future will yield a different record. We on the OERI side of this contractual relationship will do our level best to bring this about. But the record remains to be established. Yet the principles of peer review remain sound, and we shall apply them throughout OERI, even to the point of requiring outside participation in the review of proposals (such as contracts let by our Center for Statistics) that heretofore were appraised only by Department staff members. But we apply them in the full awareness that peer review is a help for decisionmakers, not a substitute for them, and that the ways a peer review process is constituted and managed matter greatly, especially in this field of education where a linear extension of past thinking and familiar practices into the future is simply not good enough.

Peer Review and the NIE/OERI Competition for Regional Educational Laboratories and National R&D Centers

Handle everyday research tasks with reliable, citation-backed results

Your personal Research Agent to handle research tasks with citation-backed results

Popular Tasks used by Researchers

How can I help with your research?

Meet SciSpace

Get more enhanced response by uploading the PDFs you want me to reference.

No relevant PDFs in your library

SciSpace is the AI research assistant for academics. Run systematic literature reviews on 280M+ papers, and write papers with cited sources. Trusted by 1M+ students, PhDs & researchers.

SciSpace | AI for Research

Analyze PDFs

Code & Manuscripts

Funding & Grants

Literature & Patents

Medical & Clinical Data

Systematic Review

Visualize & Present

Web & Data

Build a Google Scholar-like website for your research.

Build a website

Create charts and images for your research

Create a Chart

Write a paper for submission to a journal

Draft a manuscript

Patent Search

Design eye-catching scientific posters in minutes.

Scientific Poster Generation

Systematic Literature Review

One task is running at the moment. Your messages will be shown right after.

Drag and drop or click here to browse

Loved by <highlight>1 million+</highlight> researchers

Extract a list of specific topics and their sources from unstructured text

Topics

Compare and analyze relevant papers that matches with your search

Papers

Get insights from PDFs and bookmarked papers from your library

My library

Recent searches

Try searching for:

Catch AI-generated content in scholarly and non-scholarly content

{ai} Detector

Ai Writer

Get PDF Summaries, highlighted text explanations 

Chat with PDF

Effortlessly create in-text citations and bibliographies in APA and 2,500 other formats

Citation generator

Get explanations, summaries, and answers on academic papers

Ease up your research workflow with {scispace}'s cohort of exciting AI tools

Elevate your academic writing skills and convey your ideas the way you want

Paraphraser

Explore our range of reading and writing tools

Your file is being prepared and should be ready in a few minutes. If it's a large file, it might take a bit longer. You can close this window, and we'll email you the file when it's done.

You have reached a maximum limit of <strong>{limit}</strong> columns in the table. Remove at least <strong>1</strong> column to add or create another one.

Thomas G. Carroll

Author Tools

Chat about Author

Papers

Peer Review and the NIE/OERI Competition for Regional Educational Laboratories and National R&D Centers