Analysis of Supply Chain Response Frameworks: A Literature Review

Abstract

Background: Various supply chain response frameworks (SCRFs) have been proposed in the supply chain (SC) literature, but there is no in-depth analysis. This study analyzes the applicability of SCRFs in scenarios that require SC responses by examining the frameworks’ design and use in response situations. Methods: A qualitative analysis of 38 studies revealed weaknesses in SCRFs, which include the entity proposing the framework, the stimulus being responded to, the adaptation of activities to the stimulus that is responded to, objectives, and response evaluation criteria. Results: The analysis reveals that while these frameworks have been designed for specific situations involving single SC processes, they demonstrate weaknesses by failing to meet two requirements: (1) the stimulus being responded to is different from changes in demand, and (2) the response is generated by a process distinct from manufacturing. Conclusions: Further, SCRF research that incorporates these weaknesses will promote the fragmented development of the SCR concept. Conversely, a robust SCRF can be successfully utilized in various SCRs, facilitating the comparison and evaluation of responses of different SCs to the same stimulus.

1. Introduction

Supply chains (SCs) face challenging situations, such as the occurrence of natural disasters or changing demands of customers, which require urgent attention [1]. The authors of [2] state that SCs are responsive to events such as fires in manufacturing plants and product delivery delays caused by workers’ strikes. Several definitions of supply chain responsiveness (SCR) have been proposed. The authors of [3] define it as “the speed with which a system can adjust its output within the available range of four types of external flexibilities—product, mix, volume, and delivery—in response to an external stimulus, such as a client’s order”, while [4] defines it as a “vital capacity that is demonstrated by how SC managers adjust the quantities of production, delivery, and the mix of products in response to changes in supply and demand”. These various viewpoints show that the concept of SCR is not yet definitive.

According to [5], an SC concept that is under development must have a structure for its implementation, termed a framework—the modus operandi of a system. SC managers typically use SCRFs that have only been designed to respond to the specific context and purpose for which they were developed. For example, an SCRF might respond to increased demand from the manufacturing process. However, the SC faces other situations to which it must respond, such as customer complaints or the provision of food to people affected by a disaster. According to [6], “the response to disasters is determined by the political contexts in which they occur, which includes aspects such as laws, institutional arrangements and forms of governance around which disaster response activities are organized”. Therefore, an SCRF designed to respond to changes in demand cannot be used in disaster response because it lacks the essential aspects necessary for effectiveness, as mentioned.

SCRFs have been proposed from various standpoints. Reference [3] identified aspects that require a response and those that facilitate it in SCs. Similarly, [4] proposed a framework for exploring the effect of data-driven SC capabilities on financial performance. Reference [7] evaluated SCR using a framework.

The authors of [8,9] propose two views on the stimulus concept within the SC context. Reference [8] considers stimuli to be the drivers of SCR, whereas [9] considers them a factor in and the reason for SC transformation. Both viewpoints highlight the significance of detecting and understanding the stimuli affecting SCs. Therefore, the design of SCRFs that fails to identify the stimulus to be responded to makes it challenging for SC managers to plan and allocate resources for the response. According to [10], SC planning must include the overall needs of the chain over time and the required asset adjustments concerning both quality and quantity. These two aspects cannot be considered in response planning if it is based on frameworks with an unknown response stimulus.

Another crucial consideration is that an SCRF is robust when applicable across various SC processes. Persisting in proposing SCRFs solely based on the assumption that manufacturing processes often respond to a stimulus overlooks the diverse processes involved in the SC. This is evident in the comprehensive definitions of the SC provided by [11,12]. The authors of [11] define the SC as “encompassing all parties involved in fulfilling a customer request, including manufacturers, suppliers, transporters, warehouses, retailers, and customers themselves. Reference [12] defines the SC as “a network of entities collaborating to obtain, deliver, and potentially recover products”. The previously mentioned definitions include processes such as new product development, warehousing, transportation and distribution, retailing, and product recovery. Given the different responses required by each SC process, frameworks designed for manufacturing responses cannot be universally applied to respond to stimuli from product development, transportation, and distribution processes. Persisting in proposing SCRFs exclusively for manufacturing responses hinders the addressing of research gaps, such as those identified by [13] regarding responses from retailers.

According to [14], SCR serves as an indicator that the chain is achieving its objectives. Therefore, a robust SCRF should consider the objectives the chain aims to fulfill by responding to a stimulus and be able to evaluate the achievement of these objectives. Without this consideration, it becomes challenging to assess the benefits or losses incurred by the chain through the response. For example, a response to a stimulus may satisfy the customer but simultaneously increase costs. As highlighted by [12], there are different types of SCs with potentially distinct objectives. Reference [15] even identified 35 objectives that an SC can achieve. Given this diversity of objectives, continuing to propose frameworks without an objective component hinders the effective allocation of resources when responding. This prevents a strategic focus on the objectives that most benefit the chain and its recipients.

Assessing the response using an SCRF affects both SC improvement and performance. Regarding improvement, [16] stated that enhancing SCR contributes to a competitive advantage for the chain. However, an SCRF that does not have an evaluation component in its structure inhibits ascertaining the degree of competitive advantage achieved by the response. This also impedes the identification of improvement options and lessons learned. Improvement options remain unidentified as response errors are unrecognized, and lessons learned are undocumented because the progress of the response is unknown. According to [17], an SC’s performance should be measured by its ability to respond to customers. However, the lack of a component facilitating response evaluation indicates that the data obtained in measurements are not transformed into information, making it challenging to discern the chain’s performance in the response.

The previous literature on SCRFs lacks studies that analyze their characteristics to determine their use in the various response situations faced by SCs. To overcome this gap, a systematic literature review (SLR) is employed to identify relevant studies related to SCRFs. Subsequently, aspects of these frameworks, such as their purpose, structure, use, verification, and novelty, as well as the SC issue addressed in the frameworks, are analyzed. We aim to contribute to the literature by providing an in-depth analysis of SCRFs.

Based on the analysis of the structure of these frameworks, the various uses of these frameworks are identified in this study. Thus, we consider an SCRF that is designed for use only in response situations and within a single SC process to have weaknesses (a preliminary version of a document addressing the weaknesses of SCRFs was presented at the 16th International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Industrial Management (ICIEIM)—XXVI Congress of Organizational Engineering (CIO2022)). Reference [18] stated that the SC can be analyzed as a process, dyad, chain, or network; therefore, the response of a single process is understood as the response given by manufacturing. Specifically, an SCRF has weaknesses if it is not suitable for a general application. A framework of general application implies that it can be used in the given answer either by a function (such as manufacturing), dyad (such as design and production), or several functions (such as logistics processes). Also, the framework can be used in response to stimuli other than changes in demand. This study is the first seminal document to analyze the components of such a framework and identify the weaknesses of existing SCRFs. Proposing an SCRF without weaknesses is crucial so that such frameworks may be used in any response situation or any area of the SC. Furthermore, this study extends the theory of SCR. Continuing to propose SCRFs with weaknesses has consequences for companies, as they may use such frameworks to respond in the same manner to all situations in the SC, making it more difficult to identify common aspects of SCR and preventing the generalization of the concept of SCR.

The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. Section 2 describes the methodology. Section 3 describes the SCRF. Section 4 presents the results. Section 5 comprises the discussion, and finally, Section 6 deals with the conclusions and scope for future studies.

2. Methodology

This study conducted an SLR based on the “Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis” (PRISMA) methodology employed by [19]. The SLR approach is suitable for this study because it facilitates the identification, selection, and inclusion of documents that are useful for SCRF analysis and has recently been applied in various SC studies. Identifying critical success factors in SC management based on Industry 4.0, refs. [20,21] studied modern slavery in SC by conducting an SLR. Reference [22] conducted an SLR of geopolitical disruptions in global SCs, and [23] used it to divide customer order decoupling points into four categories.

The following research question was established in this study: what are the potential uses of SCRFs? The Web of Science (WoS) database was then used to identify the relevant documents to answer the question.

Although various databases, such as Scopus, exist, WoS was selected because of four aspects: (1) it has the greatest coverage of documents published in the English language since 1990 [24]; (2) it covers various knowledge domains [25]; (3) it may be more suitable for searching and analyzing open access resources at the publication level [26]; and (4) most journals are scanned simultaneously in both Scopus and WoS, particularly in the field of Business and Management [27].

The search focused on the topic of engineering in the WoS, utilizing keywords such as “supply chain responsiveness and framework”, “supply chain response”, and “responsive supply chain”. The document selection process occurred in two phases. In phase 1, six inclusion criteria were applied to identify documents for this study’s analysis. (1) Publication between 1999 and 2024: this period was selected because the authors of this study identified that the most relevant documents date back to 1999. (2) Publication in English. (3) Publication in a peer-reviewed journal. (4) Full-text accessibility. (5) Addressing the topic of SCR. (6) Presentation of an SCRF.

Six exclusion criteria for paper selection were used in this study: (1) articles published in a period other than that between 1996 and 1992; (2) articles written in a language other than English; (3) articles published in a journal without a peer review process; (4) articles for the access of which payment was required; (5) articles addressing a topic other than SCR; and (6) articles addressing the issue of SCR but not presenting an SCRF.

In phase 2, the documents were required to meet the three conditions proposed by [5] for a structure to be termed a framework: “(i) a framework must represent the complete structure of the relationships between the elements of the system under study and not only suggest the elements that constitute the system; (ii) it must describe the steps/stages/sequence of activities that are required for its use to achieve its designated purpose, and (iii) it must describe the involved activities, which connect various elements of the framework”. Figure 1 presents a flowchart illustrating the steps through which this SLR based on the PRISMA guide was conducted.

The documents identified in the SLR were described to establish the context of the research. The description of the SCRFs facilitated an understanding of aspects such as the following: the purpose of the study in which the framework was proposed; the structure and use of the framework; the area of the SC in which the framework was proposed; the purpose of the research in which the SCRF was proposed; the novelty of the proposed framework; the activity performed by the authors who have proposed the SCRFs; and framework verification.

Based on the description of the SCRFs, the aspects that were understood as weaknesses of a framework were selected. The following identified weaknesses prevented the frameworks from being used in any response situation facing the SC: (i) the impossibility of identifying to which stimulus the SC framework responds; (ii) focusing SCR on the manufacturing process; (iii) responding to the stimulus without the framework identifying the objectives that the SC intends to achieve with the response; (iv) failing to include a component that facilitates the evaluation of the response; and (v) failing to include the activity performed by those who proposed the framework. Weaknesses (i—iv) address SC management issues such as encouragement, processes, and the evaluation of objectives, whereas (v) makes it easier to determine whether the frameworks have been proposed from a perspective of theory or practice.

The SCRFs analyzed in this study were proposed in various chain contexts: twenty-seven in SCR, six in responsive SCs, three in flexible SCs, one in an agile SC, and one in a resilient SC.

3. Description of SCRFs

This section describes 38 frameworks addressing SCR. The description presents the purpose, components, and use of each framework. A component represents each part that constitutes the framework structure. In addition, it refers to characteristics such as the area in which SCR was investigated, the activity performed by those who proposed the framework, framework novelty, and the verification process of the framework. The structure of SCRFs is appropriate if they can be used to fulfill the purpose for which they were designed. An overview of the structure of a framework includes a process, one or several management topics, and some aspects external to the chain, such as the environment. Furthermore, each framework is proposed for one type of SC; this means that a manager who faces a different problem and whose chain is of a different type does not have a framework that serves as a reference to respond to the situation they are facing. For example, a framework that was designed to respond to increased demand cannot be used to respond to the absence of production line personnel.

Reference [8] proposed a framework for evaluating response in an order fulfillment process. This was applied in the processing of both production-to-inventory and production-to-order. The components of the framework were the stimulus, knowledge required to respond, capabilities, and goals of the SC. The framework was used to investigate the implication of the stimulus in the goals of the SC.

Reference [28] evaluated the response efficiency of the mobile phone SC. To do so, a framework that has components such as lead time, bullwhip effect, information exchange, and postponement strategies was designed.

Reference [29], to evaluate the determinants of SCR to demand uncertainties in the Thai textile industry, proposed a framework that has five components: buyer behavior, operational precision, delivery time, organizational culture, and collaboration.

The influence of collective work on the SC response to supply changes was also evaluated [30]. The aspects of the framework are inter-functional cooperation, operational links, information exchange, participatory management style, and technological integration.

Reference [7] evaluated the response in the SC of products with volatile and seasonal demands, proposing a framework that is composed of two levels, one of which is strategic and the other of which is operational. At the strategic level, forecast uncertainty, demand variability, contribution margin, and delivery time are evaluated. At the operational level, the manufacturing strategy and process, inventory strategy, lead time, and order penetration point are evaluated. The evaluation is conducted by comparing the response levels in various SCs, comprising products with stable, volatile, or seasonal demands.

Reference [31] investigated supply chain communication systems (SCCSs) and proposed a conceptual framework. The exchange of information and coordination between companies were analyzed to elucidate their influence on the response capacity of the SC. The framework was used to analyze the SCCSs in a company that performs engineering-to-order activities. The result of the analysis showed that the exchange of information and the execution of coordinated activities between the members of the chain improved the response.

To study responsiveness to customers and competitors, a framework with two components was proposed: a cognitive organizational system and an affective system [32]. The first component focused on improving information processing systems and the second handled organizational culture.

To demonstrate factors improving the response of the manufacturing process, [33] designed a two-level framework. At level one, components facilitating response improvement were presented. These included product development, balanced response, adaptability, supply network efficiency, change capacity, and organizational characteristics. Level two included factors such as the profit and growth of the company, speed of response, and customer satisfaction, which were used to evaluate the response. Based on the hierarchical analysis of the processes, the authors identified that the product development process and the efficiency of the supply network influence manufacturing responsiveness in the aerospace industry the most.

Reference [3] designed a conceptual framework for SCR comprising internal determinants, external requirements, and relational factors. The internal determinants are the operational factors and the integration of the SC. The external requirements are the uncertainty of demand and its variability, variability in the final product, and the lead time. The response is evaluated through control factors such as delivery reliability and product quality. Finally, a relationship between the members of the SC and clients exists through relationship factors, such as agreements and contracts, whether formal or informal, and truth and commitment. The framework applies to any type of industry, and its efficiency can be measured qualitatively or quantitatively.

To achieve considerable speed, flexibility, and cost reduction in SC processes, [34] proposed a conceptual framework. The components of the framework were strategic planning, virtual enterprise, knowledge, and information technology management. The proposed framework was used to design a competitive strategy in a networked economy in which customized products/services are produced with virtual organizations and exchanged using e-commerce.

Reference [35] studied the influence of collaboration systems and strategic collaboration on SCR and proposed a conceptual framework. By solving a structural equation model, the influence of both factors on the SCR was verified.

Using information processing and resource dependence perspectives, a framework was proposed and used to identify options for strategic responses to chain disruptions in [36]. The framework has two components. One component addresses trust and dependency between firms and the other addresses the ability to learn from past disruptions that have affected the chain.

Reference [37] proposed a framework to examine the influence of information technology (IT) integration and trust on SCR. In the framework, SC members are separated by factors such as language, social structure, politics, economic conditions, or working methods between companies that have offices in different countries. The study grouped the strategies of multinational companies with suppliers or subcontractors worldwide. The solution of a structural equations model showed that the cooperative efforts between multinational companies and their local suppliers influence the increase in the supplier’s response capacity. Moreover, the greater the control of multinational companies over their local suppliers, the greater the supplier’s responsiveness.

Another framework was proposed to improve the response of the manufacturing industry. It addresses five aspects of coordination: management commitment, organizational factors, mutual understanding, information flow, and relationship- and decision-making [38].

To investigate the impact of manufacturing flexibility and the technological dimensions of manufacturing strategies on responsiveness in the SC, a framework whose components address aspects such as online sourcing, flexibility of the market, the business environment, and advanced manufacturing systems was proposed in [39].

The influence of modularity-based manufacturing practices on SCR was empirically explored in [40]. Three modularity practices are part of the framework: product modularity, process modularity, and dynamic teams. SCR is approached from three perspectives: the response capacity of operations, logistics processes, and the supplier network.

The practices a company uses to create a competitive advantage by responding to customer demands and constant market changes were analyzed in [41]. Thus, a framework that has three components was proposed: management practices, SCR, and competitive advantage.

The relationship between SCR and supplier partnership strategies and postponement was studied in [42]. Furthermore, the influence of SCR on company performance was analyzed.

Reference [43] designed a conceptual framework to manage responses to stimuli. The framework comprised six components: the integration of an SC, external determinants and operational factors, strategic planning, virtual companies, knowledge, and IT. The first three components are part of the framework proposed by [3], and the last three are part of that proposed by [34].

Reference [44] proposed a framework with which they studied the production response to the rapid movement of mass consumption products in multisite environments. Consequently, the framework proposed by [3] was used.

Reference [45] also designed a framework to understand the role of responsiveness and process integration in SC coordination.

Reference [1] designed a framework to optimize SC performance which combines the components of the frameworks proposed by [3] and [34]. The framework was employed based on strategies such as rapid SC, flexible response, adjusted production, organizational agility, speed, and demand. The framework can be used to solve a well-known map** problem, which involves optimally matching 10 vendors to 10 manufacturers (on a one-to-one basis).

Reference [2] proposed a framework to elucidate the influence of relationship factors on SCR. The components of the framework were trust, commitment, communication, cooperation, adaptation, and interdependence. The proposed framework was applied to address the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) crisis. Those intervening in the care and response to the crisis were the government, non-governmental agencies, the military, donors, and logistics service providers. Based on relational factors, each agent was committed to achieving common goals, such as limiting the spread of COVID-19 and ensuring the supply of food and medicine.

Various strategies to improve SCR were addressed in the structure of SCRFs. These include lean, agile manufacturing, supplier relationships, and postponement. Reference [46] confirmed the influence of these strategies on the retailer’s response, and [47] proposed that these strategies determine the response of the manufacturing process.

A framework comprising four aspects that could improve SCR management of disruptions was proposed by [48]. These were disruption recognition, disruption diagnosis, response planning, and response implementation.

The author of [49] studied the influence of SC management practices and organizational structure on SC response as well as the influence of SC response on product development. He did so using a moderated mediation framework.

Reference [50] proposed a framework that was used to identify factors that cause the re-shoring of UK companies located in India and strategies applied by the SC to avoid re-shoring. The components of the framework were IT, manufacturing equipment, and human factors. The framework was used to develop interviews that facilitated the identification of factors driving re-shoring and strategies to avoid it.

Reference [4] designed a conceptual framework to investigate the effect of SCs based on financial performance data. Response capacity was considered an SC capacity that fosters coordination and integration between partners to develop collaborative processes. A data-driven SC influences both coordination and integration among SC members and SCR capability. The proposed hypothesis, confirmed by solving a structural equation model, revealed that a data-driven SC has a positive effect on responsiveness.

A framework that has four components—scanning, interpreting, actions, and performance (SIAP)—was proposed by [51]. This framework takes information from outside the chain, interprets it, and then implements actions to improve chain performance. In this framework, the actions are linked to SCR.

The mid-range theory and SC aspects such as orientation and formal and informal institutional distance are part of a framework proposed by [52] to determine whether a US manufacturer could leverage SC orientation to prompt a global supplier’s response.

Reference [53] used a framework to demonstrate the influence of suppliers, the use of IT, inventory management, transportation management, and coordination on the response of chain retailers.

Reference [54] studied the relationship between SCR and firm operating performance using two frameworks. One was designed based on innovation, collaboration, and flexibility. In the other, the components were service performance, customer relationship management, and customer engagement. The solution of a structural equation model showed that the interaction between the components of the first framework improves the SCR and the interaction between the components of the second framework facilitates the development of SCR capability.

Reference [55] studied the influence of the SCR on the capacity of companies to attract, satisfy, and retain customers. They proposed a framework that included the capabilities of the processes, operations, and supplier network which form the SCR.

The framework in reference [56] was used to analyze the combined effect of variables such as material flow, information flow, lead time, and overall capabilities on SCR. The data for these variables were obtained from South India’s textile industry.

Understanding SCR as a multi-dimensional concept that includes concepts such as adaptability, flexibility, agility, improvisation, and resilience, [57] proposed a framework to show perspectives on the development of this new and novel research domain.

During the pandemic caused by the COVID-19 disease, Médecins Sans Frontières improved the response to chain disruptions using three types of modularity: modular architecture, modular interfaces, and process standards. The authors of [58] then proposed a framework to demonstrate how these modularities supported SCR.

Reference [59] proposed a framework to demonstrate that the management of global SCs after the COVID-19 pandemic aims to achieve resilience, responsiveness, and recovery. This would be based on flexibility in operations, management of attitudes, improvement of logistics processes, demand forecasts, and data analysis.

The analysis of these frameworks showed that thirty-seven frameworks lacked the stimulus component in their structure; the only framework that had this component was the one proposed by [8]. In the SCRFs proposed by [3,8,33,44], the response was given by the manufacturing process. The frameworks proposed by [2,3,24,25,29,31,35,36,37,50,51,54,57,58,59] lacked two components: one that facilitates the identification of the objectives that the SC intends to achieve with the response and another that indicates that the response will be evaluated.

Regarding the field of SCs, the frameworks were proposed to investigate SCR both in processes and in SC management characteristics. The processes involved in SCR research are the supply of raw materials, manufacturing, and order fulfillment process. The management of SCR was researched, as were the coordination and integration of the SC, market performance, competitive strategy, organizational culture, and response to the final customer. Notably, the frameworks were also proposed to assess SCR. Column 2 in

Table 1. Topics and purposes of the SCRFs.

Reference	Topic	Purpose of the SCRF
[8]	Order fulfillment process	Discuss evidence from field studies undertaken to investigate responsiveness.
[28]	Assessing responsiveness	Evaluate the SCR using four variables: delivery times, postponement strategies, bullwhip effect, and exchange of information.
[29]	Appraising determinants of SCR	Appraise the determinants of SCR concerning demand uncertainties in the Thai textile industry.
[30]	Cross-functional orientation	Examine the influence of cross-functional orientation on customer satisfaction and SCR in SCM.
[7]	Assessing responsiveness	Describe a structural approach to assess the responsiveness of a volatile and seasonal SC.
[31]	Responsiveness of the partnership of SC	Explore how innovations in SC communication systems affect channel relationships and market performance.
[32]	Responsiveness to customers and competitors	Identify the differential mechanisms that drive responsiveness to customers and responsiveness to competitors.
[33]	Manufacturing response	Develop an overall framework for capturing the main attributes of a responsive enterprise.
[3]	Customer responsiveness	Propose a clear definition of SCR and its relationship to flexibility and develop a holistic framework.
[34]	Competitive strategy	Analyze both advanced manufacturing and SC management to develop a framework for responsive SC.
[35]	Market performance	Examine the multiple roles of system collaboration and strategic collaboration and how they, directly and indirectly, influence a firm’s SCR and market performance.
[36]	Response to SC disruptions	Identify the repertoire of strategic responses to SC disruptions and devise and test a model that explains the occurrence of alternative responses.
[37]	IT integration	Examine the influence of information technology integration and trust on SCR in varied cultural distance conditions.
[38]	Factors that affect the SCR	Develop a theoretical framework to improve coordination in the SC and test it empirically.
[39]	Manufacturing flexibility and technological dimensions	Investigate the impact of manufacturing flexibility and technological dimensions of manufacturing strategy on SCR.
[40]	Modularity-based manufacturing practices	Extend previous research on manufacturing practices exploring dimension-level and item-level relationships between manufacturing practices based on modularity and SCR.
[41]	Impact of SCM practices	Conceptualize three dimensions of SCR and develop a reliable and valid instrument to measure this concept.
[42]	Strategic supplier partnership and postponement	Examine the role of strategic supplier partnership and postponement, respectively, on the relation between lean and agile SC strategy and SCR.
[43]	Several topics	Not specified.
[44]	Responsiveness and flexibility in multisite production environments	Explore responsiveness and flexibility in multisite production systems to identify the factors that require and enable responsiveness in a production network system.
[45]	Responsiveness and process integration in SC coordination	Present an integrative framework related to chain responsiveness, process integration, SC coordination, and performance.
[2]	SCR: a relational capability perspective	Conceptually explore trust, commitment, communication, cooperation, adaptation, and interdependence as relational resources in develo** SCR.
[1]	Responsive SC	Develop a model of responsive SC management.
[46]	Retail SCR	Empirically analyze the impacts of SC strategies on retail SCR.
[47]	Determinants of SCR	Verify the significance of SC strategies (lean and agile SC, strategic supplier partnership, and postponement) on achieving SCR.
[48]	Stages of response to SC disruption	Not specified
[49]	SCM practices and product development	Develop a moderated mediation model, investigate the influence of SCM practices on product development, explore the mediating role of SCR, and examine the moderating influence of organization structure and research and development.
[50]	Responsiveness manufacturing	Understand the main motivation behind the re-shoring strategy of UK companies located in India.
[4]	SC	Explore the effect of data-driven SC capabilities on financial performance.
[51]	Environmental scanning, SC integration, responsiveness, and operational performance	Investigate the effects of environmental scanning on operational performance through SC integration and SCR.
[52]	SC orientation for global supplier responsiveness	Utilize middle-range theorizing to examine whether a US manufacturer can leverage SC orientation to garner responsiveness from a global supplier.
[53]	SC drivers and retail SCR	Explore important drivers of retail SCR.
[54]	SC	Epistemologically extend and explore the present theories from prior research conducted in the area of responsiveness.
[55]	SCR and customer development	Examine how SCR impacts the ability of firms to attract, satisfy, and retain customers.
[56]	Responsiveness model of textile SC	Examine the effect of the combination of material flow, information flow, lead time, and overall capability on the responsiveness of a textile SC.
[57]	SC	Show the potential of defined responsiveness based on SC and logistics management.
[58]	Process modularity and SCR	Extend the literature on SCR processes.
[59]	Global SCM	Guide both scholars and industrialists on reforming global SCM to achieve responsiveness, resilience, and restoration and to seek survival under a pandemic.

The first column shows the dates of the reference; the second, the topic of the SC in which the framework was proposed; and the third, the purpose of the research in which the SCRF was proposed. Each row represents one SCRF.

shows the SC-related topics in which the frameworks were proposed.

According to [60], an investigation must have a clear and defined purpose. In this regard, the researchers proposed frameworks to describe, explore, explain, or understand the concept of SCR. Column 3 in Table 1 shows the purpose of the research studies in which each SCRF was proposed.

Concerning the novelty of the frameworks addressing SCR, thirty-five are new and three are proposed based on the combination of other SCRFs. The latter three were proposed by [1,43,44]. The advantage of combining two SCRFs is that the scope of the response is broadened from using the framework to plan the manufacturing response to planning SCR.

Reference [61] reported that a framework can be proposed by SC researchers, consultants, or practitioners. Furthermore, they claimed that the interventions of SC consultants and professionals are crucial because they facilitate the detection of deficiencies and options for improvement of the frameworks proposed by researchers. The frameworks in this study were proposed by researchers who investigate SCR.

Verification confirms the use of a framework in the proposed context. The results of this verification reject or propose ideas to improve the framework and contribute to promoting the use of the framework. The analysis of this process revealed that seven frameworks had not been verified, whereas thirty-one had been verified by the researchers who proposed the framework. The methods that were used to verify the frameworks were interviews, surveys, focus groups, questionnaires, and case studies. Verification enables researchers to improve the SCRF; therefore, only validated frameworks can be improved given that they were validated.

4. Results

Based on the research concerns raised in Section 3, some weaknesses identified in the analyzed frameworks are specified. These weaknesses were identified in both new frameworks and those whose design was based on other frameworks and in verified and unverified frameworks.

Regarding the stimuli to which the SC responds, the analysis conducted showed that thirty-four frameworks were used to respond to external changes to the SC, two were proposed to respond to chain disruptions, one was used in response to any stimulus, and one did not specify what it is that the SC responds to. In addition, the SCRFs did not consider responses to external stimuli such as natural disasters [62] or internal stimuli such as machine breakdown [8]. Although the definitions of SCR proposed by [2,4,31,33,37] mention responses to environmental changes, the proposed frameworks could not be used to respond to a natural disaster. Only three frameworks addressing the response to internal stimuli of the SC were identified in this study: [8,36,48]. Therefore, the first weakness of these SCRFs is that they cannot be used in response to any stimulus that affects the SC.

An SC adapts activities such as product design, supply, production, storage, transportation, and distribution to respond to a stimulus [63]. The analysis conducted showed that in the structures of six frameworks, only the manufacturing activity is included, and one framework incorporates a product development process, namely [33]. Another framework has components that encompass research and development and product development processes, namely [49]. Therefore, the second weakness we identified is that the structures of the frameworks do not have components of other activities, such as supply, storage, transport, or distribution, to which the SC responds. The absence of components that address the responses of SC processes other than manufacturing prevents the characteristics of the response of each SC process from being known, hindering the identification of common characteristics of the response throughout the SC. In addition, it delays the development of the SCR concept.

SCs achieve objectives such as maximizing profits, minimizing costs, and satisfying the customer with a response [64]. The analysis of the frameworks showed that no alignment exists between the concept of SCR and the components that are part of the framework structure. The misalignment noted here is that, although some SC objectives are mentioned in the definition of the SCR concept, they are not part of the framework structure and vice versa. Therefore, nine frameworks included objectives that the SC intends to achieve with the response, whereas in the other twenty-nine frameworks, these objectives were not identified. As previously mentioned, the third weakness of the SCRFs identified in this review is that the objectives that the SC intends to achieve with the response are not components of the framework structure.

In the evaluation of SCR, three frameworks were designed to evaluate the response [7,28,29], whereas in thirty-five frameworks, the evaluation of the response is not part of its structure. Consequently, the fourth weakness of the SCRFs is that they do not have a component that facilitates the evaluation of SCR. An SC that does not evaluate the response to a stimulus does not identify options for improvement or lessons learned. The implementation of improvement options and the application of lessons facilitate the achievement of the objectives of the SC and of those who receive the response [65].

Column 1 in

Table 2. Components and weaknesses of SCRFs.

Reference	Assessed Components	Stimulus	Activity	Objective	Evaluation
[8]	Stimuli, goals, capabilities	X	X	X
[28]	Lead time, postponement strategies, bullwhip effect, and information exchange		X	X	X
[29]	Buyer behavior, operational accuracy, lead time, organizational culture, and collaboration		X
[30]	Interfunctional cooperation, operational linkages, information exchange, participative management style, technology integration, length of Internet adoption, and customer satisfaction		X	X
[7]	Strategies and operational level of responsiveness, cluster, and indicators		X	X	X
[31]	Information exchange and interfirm coordination		X
[32]	Customer orientation of the cognitive organizational system, customer orientation of the affective organizational system, customer-related responsiveness, and competitor-related responsiveness		X
[33]	Manufacturing responsiveness and response output		X	X
[3]	Operational factors, SC integration, external requirements, and relational factors		X		X
[34]	Virtual enterprise, strategic planning, knowledge and IT management, and outcome		X	X
[35]	System collaboration and strategic collaboration		X
[36]	Trust, dependence, SC disruption orientation, and prior experience		X
[37]	Disruption impact
[38]	Top-level commitment, organizational factors, mutual under-standing, flow of information, and relationship- and deci-sion-making		X
[39]	New product flexibility, E-procurement, market flexibility, and advanced manufacturing technology		X
[40]	Modularity-based manufacturing practices and SCR		X
[41]	Strategic supplier partnership, customer relationship, information sharing, operation system responsiveness, logistics process responsiveness, supplier network responsiveness, price/cost, quality, delivery dependability, and time to market and product innovation		X	X
[42]	Lean SC strategy, agile SC strategy, strategic supplier partnership, postponement, and firm performance		X
[43]	Operational factors, SC integration, external determinants, strategic planning, virtual enterprise, knowledge and information technology management, and SCR		X	X
[44]	Operational factors, SC integration, external requirements, and relational factors		X		X
[45]	SCR, SC process integration, and SC coordination		X
[2]	Relational resources		X
[1]	Operational factors, SC integration, external determinants, strategic planning, virtual enterprise, knowledge and IT management, and SCR		X
[46]	Lean SC strategy, agile SC strategy, and hybrid strategies		X
[47]	Lean SC strategy, agile SC strategy, strategic supplier partnership, and postponement		X
[48]	Recognition, diagnosis, development, and implementation		X
[49]	SCM practices, organization structure, research and development, and product development		X
[50]	Human factors, manufacturing equipment, and IT solutions		X
[4]	SC data drives		X
[51]	Environmental scanning, SC integration		X
[52]	SC orientation, formal institutionaldistance, and informal institutional distance		X
[53]	Suppliers, inventory management, IT, transportation management, and coordination		X
[54]	Innovation, collaboration, flexibility, service performance, customer relationship management, and customer engagement		X
[55]	Operation system responsiveness, supplier network responsiveness, and logistics process responsiveness		X
[56]	Material flow, overall capability, information flow, and lead time		X
[57]	Flexibility, agility, resilience, and improvisation		X
[58]	Process modularity: architecture, interfaces, standards		X
[59]	Operational flexibilities and strategies, managerial attitudes, enhanced logistics, forecasting, and analytics		X

shows the references and column 2 presents the components that are part of the structure of the SCRFs that were analyzed in the process of identifying framework weaknesses. In columns 3, 4, 5, and 6, cells without the letter “X” show the weaknesses identified.

The authors who proposed the SCRFs are researchers at various university institutions. Notably, the fifth weakness identified is that SC professionals and consultants did not propose these SCRFs. This weakness shows that the “know-how” of the SC that responds is not shared with the community interested in the SC. This is either because the purpose of the professional or consultant is to maintain a competitive advantage or because the agent sharing the method of responding to a stimulus does not obtain any benefit.

5. Discussion

Response frameworks can only be used to respond to the stimulus considered in their design. For example, the frameworks proposed in [3,7] were designed to address response only to changes in demand. Therefore, they could not be used in response to other stimuli, such as those arising from disasters [66], changes in public policy initiatives based on prices and incentives [67], delays in product delivery [2], changes in work scheduling in a warehouse [68], changes in warehouse planning [69], or internal disruptions [70]. Similarly, the frameworks proposed in [2,66,67,68,69,70] cannot be used to respond to demand changes. Therefore, all the previously mentioned frameworks have the weakness of being applicable only in response to a specific stimulus. The various stimuli influencing the chain underscore the necessity for researchers to propose more comprehensive frameworks capable of addressing responses to any stimulus affecting the SC. Therefore, it is valid to assert that research on the generalization of the concept of SCR is still to emerge.

Regarding the activity that adapts the SC to respond to the stimulus, it was observed that the manufacturing process plays a crucial role. An example of this adaptation are the frameworks proposed in [33,50]. However, to address the weakness of frameworks that respond only to the manufacturing process, it is essential to propose SCRFs that address other processes within which the chain can respond, as previously mentioned. Reference [71] “linked the product design process to chain response”, and [54] established connections between supplier network response and logistics processes to improve customer retention. Proposing SCRFs in which the response is given by dyads, triads, or chain networks makes it easier to move from the analysis of the response operation to the analysis of the response process. The authors of [54] stated that understanding response as a strategic process contributes to improving organizational performance. Similarly, [57] suggested that the response process facilitates the identification of when, why, and how partners modify the configuration of the SC, its policies, and the collective work to respond to a range of issues and interruptions.

As [12] highlighted, SCs can comprise various objectives, as confirmed by the frameworks proposed in [34,43], which identified objectives such as customer satisfaction and cost reduction. However, the SCRFs often overlook objectives imposed on the SC, including compliance with environmental standards, government regulations, and industrial-specific requirements. Restricting responses solely to SC objectives increases the risk of sanctions or a loss of societal credibility and trust, either because of negative societal impacts or violations of regulations and industry standards. To address this weakness, one approach suggests including a component referred to as “objectives” in the framework structure, as demonstrated in [8]. Additionally, recognizing that the chain must meet broader objectives, such as social and ethical considerations, can help to overcome this limitation, as emphasized in [64].

This study’s results indicate a dual perspective in evaluating the response. The first perspective, proposed by [3], incorporates a “control factors” component in the SCRF. These control factors encompass delivery, reliability, and quality. The second perspective, presented by [7], involves evaluating the response by combining strategic and operational considerations. Both evaluation approaches share a focus on changes in demand and emphasize aspects of the manufacturing process. However, comprehensive research on response assessment should extend to five aspects of the chain: (1) information employed in the response, as noted by [72]; (2) integration of digital and information technologies based on Industry 4.0 [73]; (3) compliance with objectives imposed by society on SCs [64]; (4) responses from other chain processes, such as supply [74] or retail responses [54]; and (5) evaluation of responses facilitating the identification of lessons learned and options for future improvements, as highlighted by [75].

Our findings indicate that SCRFs have predominantly originated from researchers affiliated with universities. According to [76], enhancing coordination among various stakeholders in the SC contributes to improved response capabilities. Hence, the SC community must convene researchers, consultants, and practitioners, fostering collaboration to formulate a comprehensive SCRF. The authors of [5] assert that the united efforts of SC researchers, professionals, and consultants in proposing a framework will foster the development of a solid theory.

We surmise that the weaknesses identified in SCRFs originate from variations in the research purpose, delineated through three approaches. First, some SCRFs emerge from research with a specific focus, such as in the case of [2,7,35,50]. Second, there are frameworks originating from research with a general purpose but constrained to the manufacturing process, as exemplified by [8,33]. Third, there are frameworks conceived to extend the concept of SCR as a performance measure, as exemplified by [1,34,54]. Each approach reflects the evolution of the SCR concept. The third approach facilitates the transition from perceiving response as a performance indicator to understanding it as a process. Following this rationale, [77] proposed an SCRF in which the response was understood as a process that has six components: the stimulus to which one responds, response strategy, types of decisions, time frame, results, evaluation, and feedback of the response, as well as relationship facilitators. Furthermore, treating SCR as a process aids in identifying dimensions and commonalities in SC responses, laying the groundwork for standardizing an overall SCR process.

This study has both theoretical and practical implications. The theoretical implications are presented from three perspectives. First, the criteria used to analyze the SCRFs lay the foundation for conducting other analyses. These include the individual and common components of the frameworks or the analysis of the methods used in validating the frameworks. Second, the weaknesses of the SCRFs identified in this study are issues that must be addressed when designing a framework that is intended to be used in responding to stimuli across one or several chain processes. Third, the results obtained in this study could be used to further analyze the concept of SCR as a process.

There are three practical implications stemming from this study. (1) Our findings can demonstrate to managers that their proposed frameworks can only be used for the purpose for which they were designed. Using a framework for a different purpose could then cause the chain to give the wrong response to the stimulus. (2) Chain managers can use the identified weaknesses to improve their SCRFs. For example, the identification of the stimulus to which the response will be made facilitates the definition of the objectives that the chain intends to achieve with the response and also the evaluation of the response. (3) Based on practical experience in chain management and the weaknesses identified in this study, professionals could propose a general SCRF.

We extend the literature addressing SCRFs via our in-depth literature review of SCRFs to address the weaknesses of these frameworks. Future research could propose a multipurpose SCRF as a framework that adapts to the various uses and response needs of supply chains.

6. Conclusions

This study reviewed the SCRFs proposed in the literature and analyzed thirty-eight of the most representative ones. The analysis focused on characteristics such as the SC process in which the frameworks were proposed, their novelty, and their verification.

The results of this study revealed that the SCRFs found in the literature are primarily employed in singular response situations. Additionally, this study identified up to five weaknesses in the frameworks. These include issues such as the stimulus to which the chain responds, activities through which the chain responds, objectives and evaluation of the response, and activities performed by those proposing the framework. Continuing to investigate SCR using frameworks that incorporate these weaknesses may result in a fragmented development of the SCR concept. This includes difficulties in comparing and evaluating different SCs’ responses to the same stimulus and delays in the development of the general theory of SCR by SC academics, professionals, and consultants. This study extends the literature on SCR by filling the gap regarding the lack of documentation of the weaknesses of SCRFs. Further, it lays the foundation for identifying other weaknesses of SCRFs and highlights aspects missing from a general SCRF.

This study’s primary limitation is related to the selection of the analyzed frameworks. Some papers that better identified SCRF weaknesses may have been excluded. Therefore, this study proposes five focal points for future research: (i) applying multicriteria techniques to improve the selection of SCRFs and the identification of their weaknesses; (ii) evaluating the implications of the weaknesses of SCRFs in SCR, (iii) exploring the design of an SCRF without the limitations identified in this study, (iv) determining criteria that may be used to compare the efficiencies of an SCRF with and without the identified weaknesses, and (v) conducting benchmarking of SCRFs.