Next Article in Journal
The Impact of Green Supply Chain Management on Circular Economy Performance: The Mediating Roles of Green Innovations
Previous Article in Journal
The Existence and Uniqueness Conditions for Solving Neutrosophic Differential Equations and Its Consequence on Optimal Order Quantity Strategy
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:

A Systematic Review of Strategic Supply Chain Challenges and Teaching Strategies

Jérémie Katembo Kavota
Luc Cassivi
1 and
Pierre-Majorique Léger
Ecole des Sciences de la Gestion, Université du Québec à Montréal, Montréal, QC H2X 3X2, Canada
Department of Information Technology, HEC Montréal, Montréal, QC H3T 2A7, Canada
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Logistics 2024, 8(1), 19;
Submission received: 28 November 2023 / Revised: 2 February 2024 / Accepted: 5 February 2024 / Published: 15 February 2024


Background: This study provides a comprehensive overview of current supply chain challenges and how they are taught within university circles or among supply chain professionals to simulate reality. Methods: The study applied a systematic literature review, using bibliometric co-citation and concept-centered content analysis for a comprehensive review of 118 relevant articles, leading to the identification of critical challenges in modern supply chain management. Results: These challenges include supplier selection and quality, supply chain networks, and sustainable supply chains. Supply chain educators are encouraged to use games that mirror real-world scenarios to teach these challenges. Results from this review underscore that existing games covered supply chain concepts such as the bullwhip effect, collaboration, networks, supplier selection, quality management, humanitarian logistics, sustainability, lean supply chain, Supply Chain 4.0, and perishable goods supply. Conclusions: The study’s contribution is to assist in selecting games tailored to the supply chain specific aspects and to guide developers in creating realistic games that address recent challenges in supply chain management. It recommends a holistic approach to enhance new supply chain game development, drawing from methodologies such as problem-based learning and Lego Serious Play. This multifaceted approach imparts practical knowledge and comprehensive skills for addressing supply chain intricacies in modern business settings.

1. Introduction

Strategic supply chain management is vital in today’s competitive global landscape, efficiently aiding companies in anticipating and meeting consumer demands [1,2]. However, uncertainties from disruptive technologies, demand fluctuations, pandemics, and environmental turbulence challenge the supply chain decision-making [3,4,5]. To that effect, the traditional theoretical teaching approach may leave future managers ill-equipped to handle real-world problems, termed the “enigma of professionalism.” [6] Practical skills development is crucial to address the above challenges, especially in disciplines such as supply chain management. Business simulations and game-based learning have proven effective, providing an engaging and interactive environment where learners can make genuine decisions and enhance creativity [7,8].
Previous studies have utilized games such as the Beer Game to illustrate concepts like supply chain coordination [9,10,11,12]. Other games have tackled various supply chain concepts, such as the closed-loop supply chain [13], demand forecast, production plan, supplier selection based on cost and lead times, and inventory management [14,15].
While some games address specific supply chain challenges, research suggests a need for more educational tools and models, especially in the era of Supply Chain 4.0 [16]. Current games focus on technical stability rather than learning capabilities, necessitating a broader perspective on real-world challenges. One of the reasons for this could be the need for increased access to a more recent survey of the challenges in this field, as most prior reviews have focused on strategic supply chain issues individually. For instance, numerous literature reviews have delved into specific facets of green supply chain management, including performance measurement, supplier selection/evaluation, and analytical modeling efforts [17,18]. This makes it difficult for them to see the big picture of severe challenges that may affect the supply chain and need consideration. Efforts to consider recent challenges and uncertainties in the strategic supply chain still need to be apparent in existing games and simulations. Many games focus on the same familiar concept or challenge, neglecting other potentially newer and more difficult challenges. For instance, more than twelve games concentrate on the bullwhip effect [19], whereas other critical aspects such as reverse supply chain and collaboration in uncertainties are not directly addressed in current games. It is also difficult to clearly state the most- and least-used supply chain aspects or challenges covered in existing games.
This study reviews recent strategic supply chain challenges and educational strategies to bridge this gap. The objective is to offer a thorough overview of current supply chain challenges and illustrate how existing games and simulations cover and address them, thereby aiding their comprehension within university circles or among supply chain professionals. More specifically, this study addresses the following questions: (1) What strategic supply chain management challenges have recent studies addressed? (2) How has strategic supply chain knowledge been conveyed to students, and what are future avenues in teaching strategic supply chain given contemporary challenges and uncertainties?
The review encompasses search methodology, analysis techniques, and results detailing strategic supply chain challenges, pedagogical activities, innovative teaching strategies, future directions, and conclusions.

2. Methodology

This work uses a systematic literature review methodology to identify strategic supply chain management challenges and the state-of-the-art of actual pedagogical strategies to teach these supply chain challenges. This study uses ref. [20]’s protocol for a systematic literature review. The study relies on two queries to search papers. It uses keywords derived from the main research question and joins them using standard Boolean operations [21]. The first query consists of identifying supply chain management challenges. As presented in Table 1, the search scope was limited to Scopus and ABI-Inform, two critical interdisciplinary databases.
The second query investigates pedagogical strategies for teaching supply chain management in higher education. This study utilizes Scopus, ABI-Inform, Business Source Complete, ACM Digital, and ABSL databases, as suggested [20] (See details in Table 2). ABI-Inform, Business Source Complete, and ACM Digital are vital supply chain and information systems databases, while Scopus offers interdisciplinary coverage. ABSL focuses on simulation publications.
The scope of this study was limited to studies published in the year 2000 and beyond, as 2000 was a year of interactive and collaborative technology development. To ensure the incorporation of pertinent papers in this study, we implemented a two-step process utilizing eligibility criteria. Initially, the articles were filtered based on title, abstract, and keywords after removing duplications. Secondly, the literature was screened by examining the introduction and the conclusion. The last two authors have independently replicated each step of the process to ensure and verify the quality of the selected articles. This study proposes inclusion and exclusion criteria to screen relevant papers. The inclusion criteria are outlined as follows:
Must be published in peer-reviewed journals or conferences and written in English.
Publications must reference strategic supply chain management and its teaching strategies in high schools.
Publications must reference one or more supply chain challenges.
Papers published after the year 2000 are of interest.
For exclusion, the paper must meet the following criteria:
Non-English papers.
Papers that focus on supply chain curricula without any aspect of pedagogy.
Non-peer-reviewed and review papers.
Books, thesis, reports, and book chapters.
Publications with no direct relation to supply chain management challenges and supply chain educational strategies.
The approach applied in this study integrates bibliometric co-citation analysis with concepts-centric content analysis. Bibliometric reviews leverage quantitative methods, combining co-citation analysis and bibliographic coupling for mapping publication networks [17,22]. These techniques form “clusters of thematically related publications” [22]. Co-citation occurs when two papers are both cited by a third paper, indicating a potential relationship between the co-cited papers. Studies suggest that papers frequently cited together by other publications are more likely to be related, implying a shared subject area [17,23]. Co-citation analysis assumes similarity between publications when cited together, forming classes representing different themes. Bibliometric analysis suits broad reviews with “large datasets due to its efficiency” [24].
With n1 = 1905, co-citation analysis was applied to query one following the initial screening. Grouping co-cited publications revealed distinct themes in the literature. We used VOSviewer_1.6.19 software to run the co-citation analysis. The second evaluation of the papers was conducted based on the results obtained from co-citation analysis. Query 2 papers on teaching strategic supply chain strategies were comparatively fewer (n2 = 197), aligning with [21] recommendations for classic methods requiring fewer papers for review. Figure 1 summarizes the study’s steps and the final number of papers included.
Figure 1 summarizes our literature search and paper evaluation. Initially, 68 relevant papers on strategic supply chain challenges were identified through co-citation analysis for query 1. After excluding 16 articles (13 published before 2000 and 3 inaccessible), 52 papers remained. Incorporating the four most recent papers from backward and forward searches and adding 62 from query 2 gave a total of 118 papers for content analysis. Following [25] a concept-centric approach, the study analyzed and synthesized the content of these papers. As in the previous steps, the last two had to double-check the analysis results separately. Concept-centric analysis is the best way to organize and analyze the literature [25]. This approach organizes diverse concepts developed in the literature in a matrix. The concepts matrix makes it easier to identify shared supply chain concepts among authors, along with their conclusions (findings) about these concepts. The other alternative is the author-centric approach, which “essentially presents a summary of relevant articles” instead of analyzing them, as argued in [25]. The next section presents both the co-citation and concepts-based content analysis results.

3. Results

This section presents the findings of this study in three main subsections: (1) topics analysis, (2) strategic supply chain concepts-based content analysis, and (3) strategic supply chain pedagogical activities and teaching innovative strategies from content analysis. All those papers were excluded from the content analysis.

3.1. Thematic Analysis with Co-Citation Analysis

The co-citation technique applied to the database (n1 = 1905 papers) revealed three essential themes. The co-citation analysis allowed us to extract classical papers, as shown in Figure 2.
Co-citation analysis identified 68 classic articles, initially grouped into three clusters with a minimum co-citation requirement of 20, resulting in 39 articles. Subsequently, the minimum was adjusted to 15 co-citations, maintaining the total at 68 articles across three clusters (first cluster in red, second cluster in green, and third cluster color in blue), as illustrated in Figure 2. VOSviewer did not automatically assign themes, requiring us to identify topics by reviewing titles and abstracts. Co-citation bibliometric analysis (results in Figure 2) highlights three main areas of scholarly focus: (a) information control, supplier evaluation, and selection with 34 papers in this cluster (with example papers in this cluster, [26,27,28]); (b) green supply chain and sustainability with 22 papers (examples of papers in this cluster [29,30,31]); (c) decision-making tools for sustainable supply chain management with 12 (examples of papers in this cluster [32,33,34]). It is essential to note that co-citation analysis may occasionally include papers beyond the intended scope. As was the case in this study with some classic papers before the year 2000, none of these papers were considered for content analysis. Following systematic review guidelines adapted from seminal papers, the following section presents the outcomes of content analysis within the framework outlined by [25].

3.2. Strategic Supply Chain Concepts-Based Content Analysis

The content analysis identified five key challenges in the supply chain: supplier evaluation and supplier quality, supply chain network, and green supply chains. Additional challenges encompassed collaboration, disruptions and resilience, inventory, distribution, and integration of Industry 4.0 and lean management.
The supplier evaluation and selection have been extensively examined in earlier studies [27]. Their analysis reveals that supplier selection and evaluation involve multiple phases and require well-established criteria to facilitate decision-making. Previous studies often concentrated on the final step of the process—choosing qualified suppliers—with a sole criterion: cost [27,35]. In modern supply chains, effective supplier selection and evaluation necessitate a multicriteria approach encompassing all process steps, prompting recent studies to categorize criteria and devise new selection methods [18,36,37,38].
The phases of the selection process encompass initial problem definition, formulation of criteria, qualification of potential suppliers, and the final choice among qualified suppliers [35]. Problem definition involves determining the ultimate problem and justifying supplier selection as the optimal solution. This phase addresses why to buy or not, the number of suppliers, and the rationale for replacing the current supplier [35,39]. The formulation of the criteria phase entails identifying suitable suppliers, commonly referred to as factors influencing the selection [40]. While earlier studies focused on the traditional cost-based approach, modern supply chains acknowledge supplier selection as a multicriteria problem [41,42,43]. Researchers have identified quality, delivery, and cost as critical criteria, with recent considerations incorporating Industry 4.0-related sub-criteria in economic, environmental, and social categories [18,44,45]. Supplier qualification involves reducing the supplier pool to an acceptable set [35], and the final choice occurs in the last phase. Various methods are applied in these stages, differing between traditional and Industry 4.0 supply chains. AHP and TOPSIS emerged as popular methodologies for supplier selection and evaluation, with information control identified as a critical factor in reducing uncertainty [27,46].
Another important aspect of supply evaluation and selection is supplier quality. Quality is pivotal in supplier selection and evaluation decision-making [18,27]. Companies, as noted in [47], should invest in enhancing supplier quality, resulting in a substantial decrease in the cost of quality (COQ) [48]. However, quality cost is integral to the quality management system, with quality cost management representing a crucial aspect of overall system development within a company [47]. Effective management of quality costs allows companies to strategically utilize pricing strategies by considering both quality and price in consumer purchasing decisions [49]. Quality improvement for suppliers entails an increase in quality costs, with supplier performance evaluation playing a vital role in this improvement and assisting suppliers in controlling their quality costs. Previous research identified Six Sigma techniques, outsourcing parts production in supplier selection, and conformance quality as influential factors in reducing quality costs [50,51]. Various factors can impede quality management within organizations, with the scarcity of human resources identified as a central barrier. Ref. [52] identifies leadership issues, ignorance, inadequate human resources, lack of cooperation, insufficient encouragement, absence of information technology, inadequate green practices in production, and limited awareness of global circumstances as significant barriers to effective supplier quality management. These challenges hinder the successful implementation of supplier quality management in various organizations.
The second challenge developed in the literature is the supplier network. The supply chain network is critical in supply chain management. It involves long-term decisions with substantial financial implications [53]. Essential practices within the supply chain network, such as supplier selection, site localization, sizing, and production allocation, are paramount [53,54]. It is not only the regular supply chain network that has attracted studies; the reverse logistics network, described as the closed-loop supply chain network, is now also of interest [55].
This field has gained recognition across various disciplines due to its emergent and rapidly growing nature [56]. It highlights the increasing complexity of supply chains, requiring enhanced collaboration, resilient mechanisms, continuous inventory monitoring, and optimization efforts to reach customers effectively [53].
Supply chain collaboration, as investigated in [57,58,59], involves companies working together for a competitive advantage and increased profits. This synergistic approach optimizes resources and benefits partners [60], enhancing efficiency and asset utilization, reducing inventories, and consolidating truck requirements. Outsourcing logistics to service providers, as emphasized in [58], allows businesses to focus on core competencies. Logistics service providers serve as enablers for collaboration between manufacturers and retailers. Careful provider selection is crucial, ensuring active promotion of collaboration over capitalizing on operational inefficiencies [61]. Despite the essential collaboration needed among supply chain actors, the increasing complexity of supply chains brings forth specific threats, notably disruption risks. These risks stem from natural disasters (e.g., earthquakes, tsunamis, and floods) or intentional or unintentional human actions (e.g., strikes, wars, economic crises), with low probabilities but severe consequences, disrupting regular chain operations [53]. Disruption occurrences cause some costs that have been quantified by prior scholars [62,63]. Prior papers on supply chain network design considered disruption and all other risk management practices as processes marked by uncertainties [53]. The costs incurred due to disruption occurrences have been quantified in previous studies [62,63]. Resilient mechanisms are crucial in this uncertain landscape of supply chain network design, aiming to mitigate the damage and costs associated with disruptions.
Resilient supply chain literature explores the interplay between resilience and sustainability in supply chain design. It emphasizes the resilient-green supplier selection criterion [59,64]. Recent studies have delved into resilient strategies pre-disruption, encompassing multiple sourcing, supplier fortification, prepositioned inventory at protected suppliers, and third-party logistics provider (3PL) contracts [65]. Key resilient indicators include responsiveness and facility reinforcement. Meanwhile, sustainability aspects prioritize reliability and quality as the foremost indicators [66]. However, these strategies depend on the maturity of the supply chain. Regarding maturity in humanitarian logistics, a few prerequisites are required. For instance, to comment on the maturity in the context of humanitarian logistics, the phase of the crisis needs to be well known, as do the main processes, in a narrow link to stakeholders and information flows [67]. To handle crises associated with recurrent events, the maturity model for humanitarian logistics systems by [67] includes administering donations, designing distribution networks, and selecting suppliers. The most recent literature introduces the supply chain viability concept, focusing on the dynamic reconfiguration of supply chain structures for long-term survival [68]. Supply chain viability goes beyond traditional resilience mechanisms as it qualifies as an extended resilience perspective. While resilience involves returning to a previous state or restoring planned performance after a disruption, supply chain viability is an adaptive open-system perspective that embraces a “new normal” to endure and thrive in significantly altered internal and external conditions [68].
Regarding monitoring inventory and distribution, information technologies have revolutionized supply chain reliability, reducing costs and enhancing information exchange among actors for better decision-making. Traditional models, managing procurement, production, and distribution independently, incurred high costs and diminished customer satisfaction [69]. Supply chain design involving collaborative specifications and task sharing addresses these challenges. As highlighted in earlier studies [70,71], information technology integrates activities for efficient customer product delivery. Innovations such as RFID, big-data analytics, and blockchain improve performance. RFID enhances distribution systems, improving product dispatch and inventory transit. Big-data analytics tools handle massive data for informed decision-making. RFID enables real-time data sharing, and the Internet of Things enhances warehouse visibility, increasing speed and efficiency [72]. Blockchain directly benefits supply chain revenue, improving visibility, traceability, and sustainability. Blockchain positively influences sustainability through integration, eliminating intermediaries in sourcing, and establishing direct links to suppliers [73].
The third challenge that emerged from the analysis is green supply chain and sustainability. As highlighted earlier, the evaluation and selection of suppliers stand out as a critical and strategic tool for decision-making guidance [43,74]. The emergence of green supply chain management, driven by a growing commitment to environmental protection, has positioned sustainable practices as integral to long-term industry competitiveness [29,75,76,77]. Factors such as sustainability criteria in supplier selection, environmental policy, and green human resource management contribute to the influence of green supply management [75,78,79,80]. Recent studies have shifted focus towards strategically choosing green suppliers in supply chains, centering on criteria derived from actual case studies and effective supplier selection methods [81,82,83,84]. The coordination and improvement of supply chain information integration for production, technology investment, transportation, and inventory require a joint decision-making [85,86]. Carbon tax emerges as a critical policy that directly sets prices on carbon emissions, significantly impacts supply chain management decision-making, and promotes coordination among supply chain members for economic, environmental, and societal improvements [86].
Another critical aspect highlighted in studies is the importance of Industry 4.0 and lean supply chain management integration. Integrating lean supply chain management (LSCM) with Industry 4.0 (I4.0) is mutually beneficial for companies, sharing the common goal of cost reduction and increased productivity [87,88]. Recent studies indicate that LSCM is a strategic precursor to the I4.0 adoption [89]. I4.0 focuses on automating systems, digitalization, and data exchange in industries, facilitating intraorganizational and inter-organizational process integration [90,91]. This approach meets the growing need for informatization and automatization, enhancing information integration throughout the supply chain and enabling real-time transmission and processing for easier decision-making [92]. In manufacturing, for instance, digitalization aims to connect all actors in value chains [89]. I4.0′s application minimizes human interaction, increasing quality, customer satisfaction, and productivity [90,91]. Lean management is a quality method that emphasizes flow by eliminating waste [93]. Within organizations, lean management distinguishes between waste and value [94]. Lean supply chain management integrates upstream and downstream flows to enhance value and reduce costs and waste, meeting customer demands promptly [89]. Implementation yields benefits in cost reduction, shortened throughput time, and improved quality [92,95]. Strategically, LSCM drives I4.0 for sustainability while, at the operational level, I4.0 supports LSCM with advanced tools such as big data, augmented reality, digital products, cloud chains, blockchain, and additive manufacturing [89].

3.3. Strategic Supply Chain Pedagogical Activities and Teaching Innovative Strategies

This subsection outlines supply chain educational strategies. The content from existing papers is organized as follows: (a) theoretical approaches to games and simulation-based learning, (b) technical features of existing games and business simulations, and (c) the addressed supply chain concepts in teaching-based games and simulations.
As far as theories are concerned, two primary theoretical trends guiding the use of games and simulations in supply chain teaching emerge from existing literature: problem-based learning (PBL) and Experimental Learning Theory (ELT). Both emphasize action-based, participatory, and student-centered learning, drawing from concrete experiences and critical reflection in group settings [96,97,98]. Problem-based learning encourages students to explore new knowledge collaboratively, with the teacher as a facilitator and guide [7,98,99]. Ref. [8] identify several critical elements in the Problem-based learning process. These include the open-ended problem that triggers learning student engagement in independent and collaborative learning. Additionally, teachers’ facilitation through continuous scaffolding enables students to develop domain-relevant problem-solving skills, stimulates creativity, and encourages critical thinking [8,100,101].
Simulations have become a tool for revitalizing supply chain courses, utilizing guided experiences to replace or amplify real experiences with positive learning outcomes [98,101,102]. Grounded in Kolb’s Experimental Learning Theory, simulations bridge practical skills and theoretical knowledge, enhancing short-term engagement and long-term employability [103,104]. The study highlights the challenge of conveying fundamental supply chain knowledge through theoretical teaching alone, emphasizing the effectiveness of role-playing games, simulations, exercises, and business case studies as complementary approaches [104,105,106,107,108].
The literature defines a game as a paradigm for competitive and cooperative behavior within a structure of rules varying in formality. In contrast, a simulation aims to understand and solve “complex real-life problems” by constructing a simplified version or model [109]. Whether playing individually or in groups, participants pursue goals through action and decision-making in business games or simulations related to the business world [110,111]. The simulation is a simplified, abstract model with rules, enabling participants to harness the dynamics of achieving common goals. Within the simulation environment, gaming allows individuals to witness the effects of different strategies without a human competitor, constituting a sensemaking process [109].
Regarding the existing simulation games’ technical features, the supply chain simulation games literature covers paper-based (for example, the game by [112]) and digital formats, addressing various supply chain and logistics dimensions. Online games “reduce the setup time, make it easier for an instructor to review and present results” [113]. They also reduce the students’ coordination requirements and make the supply chain more realistic [113,114,115]. Despite these advancements, the industry still predominantly employs paper-based games, with only 37.5% being digital web-based games [19]. Recent games integrate multiple supply chain and logistics dimensions, with examples such as the Shortfall and X-Supply games incorporating sustainable aspects [19]. However, a limited number of digital web-based games simulate current supply chain challenges, as most remain technically basic and paper-based. This limitation hinders the incorporation of essential settings such as real-time interaction and player numbers. Consequently, there is a need for more realistic games that address modern supply chain challenges dynamically, moving beyond conventional, static knowledge transmission [16]. The existing games’ model realism is low, necessitating a comprehensive framing of real-world supply chain challenges. The subsequent passages elaborate on the various supply chain concepts these games and simulations cover.
However, games have facilitated young students’ acquisition of practical skills in educational settings. Games operate in real-time and continuously simulate the complexities of a global supply chain, involving human players in decision-making processes [116,117]. They have received consistent approval for their effectiveness in teaching students how to manage the challenges of a global supply chain by offering practical insights into the real-world application of supply chain concepts [116,117,118,119,120]. Moreover, game-based learning enhances higher-order thinking skills, promotes teamwork, and facilitates the social construction of knowledge. This approach allows them to interact with others, an essential added value that most companies require [119,121]. More intriguingly, research suggests that learning is often influenced by context. Consequently, the transfer of knowledge from a simulation game to real-life situations is not guaranteed. It all depends on factors such as the student’s level of engagement and metacognitive responses [117].
The study by ref. [19] identified numerous supply chain games and systematically analyzed the complexity of forty of them. Based on their characteristics, we classified them into two main categories. The first category encompasses global supply chain games. This category of games covers several challenges of a global supply chain. This category includes games such as Fresh Connection, SCM GLOBE, The Distributor Game, and The Cell Phone Game [19,120,122]. The second category comprises games focusing on a specific global supply chain challenge, such as beer games and many other games developed with the same logic [123,124]. The analyses carried out reveal that all these games in every category cover a range of supply chain concepts, encompassing (1) the bullwhip effect, (2) collaboration and contract, (3) supply chain network, (4) supplier selection and evaluation, (5) quality and risk management, (6) humanitarian logistics, (7) sustainable supply chain, (8) lean supply chain management, Supply Chain 4.0, and (9) perishable goods supply and closed-loop supply chain.
First, the bullwhip effect concept has been a focal point for simulation and game developers in supply chain education. The Beer Game and many others have effectively addressed this concept, serving as popular tools for conveying supply chain information value [9,125,126,127,128,129]. The Beer Game can demonstrate the bullwhip effect and swiftly share insights for mitigation [104,130,131]. Over ten existing games, including The Mortgage Service Game, SBELP “supply chain simulator”, The SC-Mark Shark Tank Game, ECLIPS Game, Lean Leap Logistics Game, Quebec Wood Supply Game, Service Supply Chain Game, and Think Log, support this supply chain phenomenon [14,19,106,132,133]. The Mortgage Service Game centers on service-oriented supply chain management (SCM) principles, highlighting cost reduction. It empowers learners to make informed decisions in demand forecasting and inventory management, fostering a more profound comprehension of bullwhip effects and emphasizing the significance of information sharing in the SCM [14,133,134,135]. However, these actions are often addressed at operational levels, posing challenges in making optimal inventory and demand forecasting decisions amid uncertainties [14].
Second, collaboration and contract concepts have been implemented in existing games. Collaboration is pivotal in the supply chain for building relationships and gaining a competitive edge. Games and simulations are practical tools for teaching this supply chain phenomenon [136]. Examples include BASE, the supply chain collaboration business game [10], The Fresh Connection [122], Service Supply Chain, Lean Leap Logistics, and Chain Game [19]. Additionally, the FloraPark simulation, a newer game focusing on supply chain contracts and collaboration, complements The Beer Game [104]. Together with the B2B simulation, the FloraPark simulation introduces price bargaining, addressing conflicts of interest and competition among supply chain partners in the same market [104,137,138]. Collaboration games aim to impart the significance of inventory control and collaboration between firms throughout their experiences [10,139].
Third, the supply chain network concept is also of interest to game developers in existing games. Production planning is a pivotal element within supply chain management, overseeing the entire production process and holding a critical position in the broader supply chain network. According to [13], a supply chain plan integrates and ensures the smooth operation of every organizational component. Existing research introduces Logistic Simulator (LOST) as a game for supply chain production planning, providing students with a playful approach to learning. Another game, Responsive Learning Technologies, focuses on critical factors in the supply chain and network design [14]. Through these games, students can make concrete decisions related to demand forecasting, capacity, production planning, inventory management, and logistics network design [14,110,140,141]. As learners play these games, they quickly grasp key decision factors in supply chain management, making capacity, forecasting, and inventory management decisions. They can formulate an efficient logistics network that maximizes supply chain performance, concurrently managing demand and inventory [14,142,143,144,145,146]. By addressing order fulfillment and capacity management, these games aim to reduce costs [133].
Fourth, the supplier selection and evaluation challenge is also implemented in a few existing games. Supplier selection and evaluation pose critical challenges in strategic supply chains. Learners, as stated in [14], can formulate strategies to navigate demand uncertainty while understanding the cost-lead time trade-off. Game-based learning facilitates the development of supply-based management skills, fostering the creation of a profitable and flexible supply chain. Armed with this knowledge, learners find it easier to make informed decisions in supplier selection, production planning, and resource allocation [14]. While there is a scarcity of games addressing supplier selection and evaluation, The Global Supply Chain Management Simulation, described by [19], focuses primarily on operations management.
Fifth, quality and risk management supplier chain challenges have been developed in existing games. Quality management is pivotal for robust production networks, emphasizing game-based simulations for effective learning [147]. These simulations enable players to make informed decisions by grasping the fundamental principles of quality management in the production network learning [147]. The Quality Intelligence Game and Beware support quality and risk management [148]. Ref. [14] asserts the effectiveness of games in raising awareness among supply chain managers about quality issues, illustrating how these issues permeate the chain network and impact overall supply chain costs. While simulations on quality management are limited, developing concrete skills in quality management is crucial, considering it as a critical factor in supplier selection and evaluation.
Sixth, humanitarian supply chains and logistics, shaped by complex and hazardous events, can be comprehended through games. For instance, ref. [99] proposed a mixed-reality game as an extension of the Disaster Relief Game. It is a role-based simulation game that improves understanding of the intricate planning and execution of supply chain management during crises. Notably, it enhances game visualization and simplicity, facilitating easier play compared to its predecessor [8]. Other games dedicated to humanitarian logistics include The Disaster Relief Game and Thing Log [14,133]. Existing games cover a significant number of aspects of crisis management, such as hostage situations using the ARLearn Game, terrorist attacks using AUGGMED, and the basic Disaster Relief Game (with MR Extension) to introduce players to basic concepts of humanitarian logistics. These games have been developed with recent technologies and can run on devices such as phones and computers with head-mounted displays or can be played with multiple users online. Ref. [149] states that humanitarian logistics exhibit various characteristics and temporal dimensions, including both long-term and short-term actions, whether exceptional or routine. However, not all these specificities are clearly specified within existing games.
Seventh, sustainable supply chain management addresses economic, social, and environmental challenges, as described by The Crude Palm Oil Management Game [150]. Games and simulations such as Shortfall, the X-Supply Game, and Business on the Move have enhanced the understanding of sustainable supply chain management [14,151,152]. Ref. [151] introduced Looper, a single-player serious game for SSCM to foster awareness and prompt discussions. Recognized as an attractive “teaching tool, Looper contributes significantly to raising awareness and comprehension” of sustainable supply chain management [151]. While sustainable supply chain management is getting the most attention from scholars by fashioning recent works on curriculum development and program development in higher education, few games still cover this challenge. For instance, ref. [19] identified only two supply chain games that implement this concept. Sustainable supply chain management refers to several concepts such as “closed-loop supply chains”, “responsible sourcing”, “green logistics”, and “performance measurement”; however, a consistent definition is still needed [153,154]. Usually used for the integration of economic, environmental, and social aspects into supply chain management to increase performance and manage risks from environmental and social practices along the supply chain, the social dimension has received less attention in existing studies [155]. Similarly, sustainable supply chain management has received less attention from professionals who have another understating and definition of this concept compared to scholars. For instance, one of the conclusions of a study by [153] is that the development of sustainable supply chain management frameworks is predominantly led by academics, while practitioners and consultants exhibit limited involvement in the research field. In the same vein, ref. [155] concluded that practitioners show limited awareness of supply chain challenges beyond their firms, emphasizing economic and environmental concerns. They highlight understudied areas in sustainable supply chain management, such as human resources, leadership for sustainability, and ethics, indicating the need for further exploration. For an easier understanding of sustainable supply chain management, ref. [156] concluded that knowledge management practices offer a valuable reference for designing courses for business management students or professionals, especially in the context of supply chain management.
Eighth, the lean supply chain management and Supply Chain 4.0 have been covered by existing games and simulations. Recent methodological developments introduced the Lego Serious Play (LSP) approach as an effective strategy for teaching Supply Chain 4.0 [16]. Although LSP has a history in education, it is a recent addition to supply chain teaching methodologies. LSP employs gamification, allowing students to visualize and articulate their understanding of taught concepts by constructing 3D models [16]. Only two studies have highlighted the significance of LSP in the broader supply chain context [157], specifically in the Supply Chain Management 4.0 [16]. For lean supply chain management, the TimeWise simulation game, developed in 2003, stands out as an exemplary tool [14]. However, enhancements are necessary to address contemporary challenges and uncertainties.
Ninth, the perishable goods supply and closed-loop supply chain are the last supply chain challenges covered by existing games. Ref. [158] emphasize the challenges in managing perishable supply chains, highlighting the need for competent decision-making due to limited shelf life. They introduce The Blood Supply Chain Game, a simulation that models the delicate equilibrium between supply and demand in the UK blood supply chain. Players act as distributors, striving to maximize order fulfillment in hospitals. In the context of closed-loop supply chains addressing the Waste of Electronic and Electrical Equipment (WEEE) and simple waste (e.g., [134]’s game), ref. [159] proposes a serious simulation game to teach this complex concept effectively. Closed-loop supply chains, described as the movement of goods from producer to consumer and back for reprocessing, emerge as being crucial for green and sustainable supply chain efforts, mitigating environmental and health issues associated with WEEE.

4. Implications and Further Development

The findings from the analyzed papers emphasize that supply chain management is shaped by contemporary complex challenges, which may hinder the achievement of its goals and disrupt decision-making. Supply chain decision-making challenges arise from disruptive technologies, fluctuations in demand, pandemics, and environmental turbulence [3,4,5]. Due to their unpredictable and complex nature, these challenges become difficult to convey to young university students. To fulfill the business school’s mission of imparting practical supply chain knowledge and connecting theoretical understanding with practical skills [104], a variety of continuously updated teaching strategies must be employed. The use of contemporary and innovative teaching methods and tools, including simulations and games, not only boosts students’ short-term engagement but also improves their long-term employability after graduation.
In terms of implications, this study provides a more recent picture of the challenges and some mechanisms to face these challenges in the strategic supply chain management field. The same study describes business simulation games and the different strategic supply chain challenges they cover. Hence, the conclusions of this study are useful for supply chain scholars and managers, as well as for simulation and game developers. For instance, these findings may help supply managers and teachers to choose a suitable game based on the specific aspect of the supply chain in which they want their employees or students to develop practical skills. For simulations and game developers, this study uncovers games’ current state of supply chain coverage. Therefore, this study may guide them in developing new games that simulate reality and cover the most recent challenges in supply chain management.
While acknowledging that the conclusions drawn in this study are confined to the studies analyzed in this literature review, further research in this area should be instigated and include additional documents that may yet have to be captured during this literature review. Future research should concentrate on understudied aspects of sustainable supply chain management (e.g., human resources, leadership, and ethics) and develop frameworks for teaching and understanding these areas for students and practitioners. Others should empirically test various sustainable supply chain frameworks and explore the effectiveness of innovative teaching approaches, such as integrating knowledge management practices with supply chain methodologies. Game development efforts should include mobile, computer, or web-based games that can be viable to meet 21st-century technological challenges and other uncertainties rather than physical or paper-based games. Implementing games in newer technologies allows the game to consider and meet several scenarios that are not possible without online or computer-based game versions. Under these conditions, game developers can create more complex exercises, bringing games closer to simulating the complexity of supply chain management as it is in reality [19].
In the realm of future game development, there is a need to integrate the latest technologies, including artificial intelligence, blockchain, and the Internet of Things. Simultaneously, addressing less-explored challenges, such as emphasizing sustainable supplier selection and quality, sustainable supply chain practices, closed-loop and reverse supply chain dynamics, logistic outsourcing, and collaboration in uncertain environments, is crucial for these games. The games should thoroughly consider the strategic supply chain dimensions, including operational, tactical, and strategic levels. Configurability for diverse course levels is essential. Employing approaches such as problem-based learning and Lego Serious Play enhances creativity and dynamic knowledge transfer by bringing the game closer to reality. Designing the game cycle to include multiple rounds will enable the differentiation of operational, tactical, and strategic decisions across various supply chain concepts. Moreover, disasters and emergency situations are inevitable in daily life [160], and teaching practical skills to cope with them is more than critical. Lack of these practical skills for supplier chain managers may cause secondary crises such as economic losses, social disruption, and famine, which can result from poor management or logistical breakdowns. Hence, further research and initiatives in game development should prioritize humanitarian logistics, encompassing diverse aspects such as various characteristics and temporal dimensions. This includes both long-term and short-term actions, whether they are exceptional or routine. Supply chains in the non-profit humanitarian sector, addressing long-term crises or improvements, require distinct management approaches compared to emergency relief actions or post-disaster logistics [161].

5. Conclusions

This study systematically reviewed strategic supply chain challenges and instructional strategies. Using a systematic literature review and a bibliometric co-citation analysis, this study retained 118 essential papers. Their analysis uncovered a predominant emphasis on studies addressing sustainable supplier selection and evaluation challenges within supply chain management. Additionally, they highlighted the effectiveness of business simulation games as a suitable strategy for teaching these challenges. The criteria encompass quality, delivery, technological capabilities, sustainable factors, and cost. Fuzzy AHP and VIKOR emerged as relevant methods for supplier selection. Other literature topics include supply chain networks and sustainable supply chain management.
In educational settings, games and simulations effectively teach supply chain concepts, covering diverse areas such as the bullwhip effect, collaboration, supply chain networks, and sustainable practices. However, to align with the complexities of sustainable Supply Chain 4.0, developers should create more intricate exercises addressing uncertainties, disruptions, and sustainable factors. Integration of blockchain and artificial intelligence models is essential.
Future games should offer extensibility, incorporating recent technologies, less explored challenges (e.g., focus on supplier selection and supplier quality, sustainable supply chain, closed-loop and reverse supply chain, logistic outsourcing, collaboration in uncertainties, humanitarian logistics), and various dimensions of the strategic supply chain (operational, tactical, and strategic levels). Configurability for different course levels is crucial. Adopting approaches such as problem-based learning and Lego Serious Play enhances creativity and dynamism in knowledge transfer. The game cycle should include multiple rounds to differentiate operational, tactical, and strategic decisions across supply chain concepts.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, P.-M.L. and L.C.; methodology, J.K.K.; software, J.K.K.; validation, J.K.K., L.C. and P.-M.L.; formal analysis, J.K.K.; investigation, J.K.K.; resources, P.-M.L.; data curation, L.C.; writing—original draft preparation, J.K.K.; writing—review and editing, J.K.K., L.C. and P.-M.L.; visualization, J.K.K.; supervision, L.C. and P.-M.L.; project administration, P.-M.L.; funding acquisition, P.-M.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.


Thank you so much to ERPSimLab (HEC Montreal) [E23 Nr. 91568], which sponsored the entire research process.

Data Availability Statement

Data are contained within the articles or references.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.


  1. Bodendorf, F.; Wonn, F.; Simon, K.; Franke, J. Indicators and Countermeasures of Modern Slavery in Global Supply Chains: Pathway to a Social Supply Chain Management Framework. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2023, 32, 2049–2077. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Madhani, P.M. Strategic Supply Chain Management for Enhancing Competitive Advantages: Developing Business Value Added Framework. Int. J. Value Chain Manag. 2019, 10, 316–338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Prabhu, M.; Srivastava, A.K. Leadership and Supply Chain Management: A Systematic Literature Review. J. Model. Manag. 2023, 18, 524–548. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Rejeb, A.; Rejeb, K.; Simske, S.J.; Treiblmaier, H. Drones for Supply Chain Management and Logistics: A Review and Research Agenda. Int. J. Logist. Res. Appl. 2023, 26, 708–731. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Gammelgaard, B.; Nowicka, K. Next Generation Supply Chain Management: The Impact of Cloud Computing. J. Enterp. Inf. Manag. 2023; ahead-of-print. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Abston, K.A.; Soter, H.A. A Professionalism Conundrum: Development of Business Students. Available online: (accessed on 22 November 2023).
  7. Léger, P.; Cronan, P.; Charland, P.; Pellerin, R.; Babin, G.; Robert, J. Authentic OM Problem Solving in an ERP Context. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 2012, 32, 1375–1394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. William, L.; Rahim, Z.A.B.A.; Wu, L.; de Souza, R. Effectiveness of Supply Chain Games in Problem-Based Learning Environment. In Game-Based Assessment Revisited; Ifenthaler, D., Kim, Y.J., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2019; pp. 257–280. ISBN 978-3-030-15569-8. [Google Scholar]
  9. Gravier, M.J.; Farris, T.M. An Analysis of Logistics Pedagogical Literature: Past and Future Trends in Curriculum, Content, and Pedagogy. Int. J. Logist. Manag. 2008, 19, 233–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Hamada, R.; Kaneko, T.; Hiji, M. Development of BASE Supply Chain Collaboration Game by Using Tangible Blocks. Available online: (accessed on 22 November 2023).
  11. Tajima, E.; Ishigaki, A.; Takashima, R.; Nishida, H.; Okammoto, T. Effectiveness of a Multi-Agent Cooperation Game in a Multi-Stage Supply Chain. J. Jpn. Ind. Manag. Assoc. 2023, 73, 234–250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Wuttke, D.; Mohadikar, M.; Eichhorn, C. Serious VR Simulation: J. Forrester’s Beer Game in Virtual Reality. In Proceedings of the 2022 IEEE International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality Adjunct (ISMAR-Adjunct), Singapore, 17–21 October 2022; pp. 333–337. [Google Scholar]
  13. Loaiza-Velez, C.; PACHECO, E.; Ramirez-Echeverri, S.; Vieira-Mejia, C. Using Game-Based Learning for Supply Chain Education. In Proceedings of the 2021 The 2nd International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Industrial Management, New York, NY, USA, 8–11 January 2021; pp. 77–82. [Google Scholar]
  14. Chuang, M.-L. A Web-Based Simulation Game for Teaching Supply Chain Management. Manag. Teach. Rev. 2020, 5, 265–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Scherpereel, C.M.; Williams, S.K.; Hoefle, S. The Difficulties of Context: An Exploratory Study of Learning Transfer from a Business Simulation Game. Decis. Sci. J. Innov. Educ. 2022, 20, 89–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Deif, A. Going from 2D to 3D in Supply Chain 4.0 Education: An LSP Approach. Int. J. Ind. Eng. Oper. Manag. 2023, 5, 161–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Fahimnia, B.; Sarkis, J.; Davarzani, H. Green Supply Chain Management: A Review and Bibliometric Analysis. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2015, 162, 101–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Hosseini Dolatabad, A.; Heidary Dahooie, J.; Antucheviciene, J.; Azari, M.; Razavi Hajiagha, S.H. Supplier Selection in the Industry 4.0 Era by Using a Fuzzy Cognitive Map and Hesitant Fuzzy Linguistic VIKOR Methodology. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2023, 30, 52923–52942. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Deghedi, G.A. Game-Based Learning for Supply Chain Management: Assessing the Complexity of Games. Int. J. Game-Based Learn. 2023, 13, 1–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Xiao, Y.; Watson, M. Guidance on Conducting a Systematic Literature Review. J. Plan. Educ. Res. 2019, 39, 93–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Snyder, H. Literature Review as a Research Methodology: An Overview and Guidelines. J. Bus. Res. 2019, 104, 333–339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Dominguez-Péry, C.; Vuddaraju, L.N.R.; Corbett-Etchevers, I.; Tassabehji, R. Reducing Maritime Accidents in Ships by Tackling Human Error: A Bibliometric Review and Research Agenda. J. Shipp. Trade 2021, 6, 1–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Hjørland, B. Citation Analysis: A Social and Dynamic Approach to Knowledge Organization. Inf. Process. Manag. 2013, 49, 1313–1325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Donthu, N.; Kumar, S.; Mukherjee, D.; Pandey, N.; Lim, W.M. How to Conduct a Bibliometric Analysis: An Overview and Guidelines. J. Bus. Res. 2021, 133, 285–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Webster, J.; Watson, R.T. Analyzing the Past to Prepare for the Future: Writing a Literature Review. MIS Q. 2002, 26, xiii–xxiii. [Google Scholar]
  26. Dickson, G.W. An Analysis Of Vendor Selection Systems And Decisions. J. Purch. 1966, 2, 5–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Ho, W.; Xu, X.; Dey, P.K. Multi-Criteria Decision Making Approaches for Supplier Evaluation and Selection: A Literature Review. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2010, 202, 16–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Weber, C.A.; Current, J.R.; Benton, W.C. Vendor Selection Criteria and Methods. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 1991, 50, 2–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Bai, C.; Sarkis, J. Green Supplier Development: Analytical Evaluation Using Rough Set Theory. J. Clean. Prod. 2010, 18, 1200–1210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Govindan, K.; Khodaverdi, R.; Jafarian, A. A Fuzzy Multi Criteria Approach for Measuring Sustainability Performance of a Supplier Based on Triple Bottom Line Approach. J. Clean. Prod. 2013, 47, 345–354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Seuring, S.; Müller, M. From a Literature Review to a Conceptual Framework for Sustainable Supply Chain Management. J. Clean. Prod. 2008, 16, 1699–1710. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Govindan, K.; Rajendran, S.; Sarkis, J.; Murugesan, P. Multi Criteria Decision Making Approaches for Green Supplier Evaluation and Selection: A Literature Review. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 98, 66–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Luthra, S.; Kumar, S.; Garg, D.; Haleem, A. Comparative Evaluation of GSCM Practices in Automotive Components Manufacturing Firms of India: A Fuzzy TOPSIS Approach. Int. J. Logist. Syst. Manag. 2016, 25, 358–390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Rezaei, J. Best-Worst Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Method. Omega 2015, 53, 49–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. de Boer, L.; Labro, E.; Morlacchi, P. A Review of Methods Supporting Supplier Selection. Eur. J. Purch. Supply Manag. 2001, 7, 75–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Chan, F.T.S.; Kumar, N. Global Supplier Development Considering Risk Factors Using Fuzzy Extended AHP-Based Approach. Omega 2007, 35, 417–431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Gencer, C.; Gürpinar, D. Analytic Network Process in Supplier Selection: A Case Study in an Electronic Firm. Appl. Math. Model. 2007, 31, 2475–2486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Sarkis, J.; Talluri, S. A Model for Strategic Supplier Selection. J. Supply Chain Manag. 2002, 38, 18–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Suryadi, A.; Rau, H. Considering Region Risks and Mitigation Strategies in the Supplier Selection Process for Improving Supply Chain Resilience. Comput. Ind. Eng. 2023, 181, 109288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Chai, J.; Ngai, E.W.T. Multi-Perspective Strategic Supplier Selection in Uncertain Environments. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2015, 166, 215–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Amid, A.; Ghodsypour, S.H.; O’Brien, C. A Weighted Max–Min Model for Fuzzy Multi-Objective Supplier Selection in a Supply Chain. Innsbr. 2011, 131, 139–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Boran, F.E.; Genç, S.; Kurt, M.; Akay, D. A Multi-Criteria Intuitionistic Fuzzy Group Decision Making for Supplier Selection with TOPSIS Method. Expert Syst. Appl. 2009, 36, 11363–11368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Deng, X.; Hu, Y.; Deng, Y.; Mahadevan, S. Supplier Selection Using AHP Methodology Extended by D Numbers. 21st Century Logist. Supply Chain Manag. 2014, 41, 156–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Awasthi, A.; Chauhan, S.S.; Goyal, S.K. A Fuzzy Multicriteria Approach for Evaluating Environmental Performance of Suppliers. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2010, 126, 370–378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Dobos, I.; Vörösmarty, G. Green Supplier Selection and Evaluation Using DEA-Type Composite Indicators. Int. Soc. Inventory Res. 2012 2014, 157, 273–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Ali, S.; Kumar Paul, S.; Chowdhury, P.; Agarwal, R.; Fathollahi-Fard, A.M.; Jose Chiappetta Jabbour, C.; Luthra, S. Modelling of Supply Chain Disruption Analytics Using an Integrated Approach: An Emerging Economy Example. Expert Syst. Appl. 2021, 173, 114690. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Masoudi, E.; Shahin, A. The Influence of the Quality Criteria on the Quality Cost of Suppliers in SMEs. Benchmarking Int. J. 2022, 29, 2313–2333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Gao, C.; Cheng, T.C.E.; Shen, H.; Xu, L. Incentives for Quality Improvement Efforts Coordination in Supply Chains with Partial Cost Allocation Contract. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2016, 54, 6216–6231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Li, J.; Lu, J.; Wang, Q.; Li, C. Quality and Pricing Decisions in a Two-Echelon Supply Chain with Nash Bargaining Fairness Concerns. Discrete Dyn. Nat. Soc. 2018, 2018, 4267305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Gaikwad, L.M.; Teli, S.N.; Majali, V.S.; Bhushi, U.M. An Application of Six Sigma to Reduce Supplier Quality Cost. J. Inst. Eng. India Ser. C 2016, 97, 93–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Surange, V.G. Implementation of Six Sigma to Reduce Cost of Quality: A Case Study of Automobile Sector. J. Fail. Anal. Prev. 2015, 15, 282–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Mukhtar, H.; Schiffauerova, A. Analysing Barriers to Supplier Quality Management via Interpretive Structural Modelling: The Case of Saudi Industry. Int. J. Logist. Syst. Manag. 2016, 24, 452–465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Aldrighetti, R.; Battini, D.; Persona, A.; Zennaro, I. Disruption Cost Evaluation Methods in Supply Chain Network Design: State of the Art and Future Steps. In Proceedings of the Summer School Francesco Turco; Perona, M., Zanoni, S., Eds.; AIDI-Italian Association of Industrial Operations Professors: Brescia, Italy, 2019; Volume 1, pp. 517–523. [Google Scholar]
  54. Govindan, K.; Fattahi, M.; Keyvanshokooh, E. Supply Chain Network Design under Uncertainty: A Comprehensive Review and Future Research Directions. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2017, 263, 108–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Amin, S.H.; Zhang, G. An Integrated Model for Closed-Loop Supply Chain Configuration and Supplier Selection: Multi-Objective Approach. Expert Syst. Appl. 2012, 39, 6782–6791. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Zhu, W.; Wang, Z. The Collaborative Networks and Thematic Trends of Research on Purchasing and Supply Management for Environmental Sustainability: A Bibliometric Review. Sustainability 2018, 10, 1510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Al-Omoush, K.S.; de Lucas, A.; del Val, M.T. The Role of E-Supply Chain Collaboration in Collaborative Innovation and Value-Co Creation. J. Bus. Res. 2023, 158, 113647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Prataviera, L.B.; Creazza, A.; Dallari, F.; Melacini, M. How Can Logistics Service Providers Foster Supply Chain Collaboration in Logistics Triads? Insights from the Italian Grocery Industry. Supply Chain Manag. Int. J. 2023, 28, 242–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Tukamuhabwa, B.R.; Stevenson, M.; Busby, J.; Zorzini, M. Supply Chain Resilience: Definition, Review and Theoretical Foundations for Further Study. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2015, 53, 5592–5623. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Zacharia, Z.G.; Sanders, N.R.; Nix, N.W. The Emerging Role of the Third-Party Logistics Provider (3PL) as an Orchestrator. J. Bus. Logist. 2011, 32, 40–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Drake, M.J.; Schlachter, J.T. A Virtue-Ethics Analysis of Supply Chain Collaboration. J. Bus. Ethics 2008, 82, 851–864. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Jabbarzadeh, A.; Haughton, M.; Khosrojerdi, A. Closed-Loop Supply Chain Network Design under Disruption Risks: A Robust Approach with Real World Application. Comput. Ind. Eng. 2018, 116, 178–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Snoeck, A.; Udenio, M.; Fransoo, J.C. A Stochastic Program to Evaluate Disruption Mitigation Investments in the Supply Chain. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2019, 274, 516–530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Xiong, L.; Zhong, S.; Liu, S.; Zhang, X.; Li, Y. An Approach for Resilient-Green Supplier Selection Based on WASPAS, BWM, and TOPSIS under Intuitionistic Fuzzy Sets. Math. Probl. Eng. 2020, 2020, 1761893. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Taghavi, S.M.; Ghezavati, V.; Bidhandi, H.M.; Al-e-Hashem, S.M.J.M. Green-Resilient Supplier Selection and Order Allocation Under Disruption by Utilizing Conditional Value at Risk: Mixed Response Strategies. Process Integr. Optim. Sustain. 2023, 7, 359–380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Zarei-Kordshouli, F.; Paydar, M.M.; Nayeri, S. Designing a Dairy Supply Chain Network Considering Sustainability and Resilience: A Multistage Decision-Making Framework. Clean Technol. Environ. Policy 2023, 25, 2903–2927. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Gonzalez-Feliu, J.; Chong, M.; Vargas-Florez, J.; de Brito, I.; Osorio-Ramirez, C.; Piatyszek, E.; Quiliche Altamirano, R. The Maturity of Humanitarian Logistics against Recurrent Crises. Soc. Sci. 2020, 9, 90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Ruel, S.; El Baz, J.; Ivanov, D.; Das, A. Supply Chain Viability: Conceptualization, Measurement, and Nomological Validation. Ann. Oper. Res. 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  69. Thomas, D.J.; Griffin, P.M. Coordinated Supply Chain Management. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 1996, 94, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Hill, C.A.; Scudder, G.D. The Use of Electronic Data Interchange for Supply Chain Coordination in the Food Industry. J. Oper. Manag. 2002, 20, 375–387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Vlachos, I.P. A Hierarchical Model of the Impact of RFID Practices on Retail Supply Chain Performance. 21st Century Logist. Supply Chain Manag. 2014, 41, 5–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Mostafa, N.; Hamdy, W.; Alawady, H. Impacts of Internet of Things on Supply Chains: A Framework for Warehousing. Soc. Sci. 2019, 8, 84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Deepa, R. Chapter 9-The Application of Blockchain in Talent Supply Chain Management. In Blockchain in a Volatile-Uncertain-Complex-Ambiguous World; Mathiyazhagan, K., Sreedharan, V.R., Mathivathanan, D., Sunder M, V., Eds.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2023; pp. 121–139. [Google Scholar]
  74. Mafakheri, F.; Breton, M.; Ghoniem, A. Supplier Selection-Order Allocation: A Two-Stage Multiple Criteria Dynamic Programming Approach. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2011, 132, 52–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Bhardwaj, B.R. Role of Green Policy on Sustainable Supply Chain Management. Benchmarking Int. J. 2016, 23, 456–468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Brown, J.R.; Bushuev, M.A.; Kretinin, A.A.; Guiffrida, A.L. Recent Developments in Green Supply Chain Management: Sourcing and Logistics. Green Supply Chain Manag. Sustain. Bus. Pract. 2017, 191–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Hashemi, S.H.; Karimi, A.; Tavana, M. An Integrated Green Supplier Selection Approach with Analytic Network Process and Improved Grey Relational Analysis. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2015, 159, 178–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Handfield, R.; Walton, S.V.; Sroufe, R.; Melnyk, S.A. Applying Environmental Criteria to Supplier Assessment: A Study in the Application of the Analytical Hierarchy Process. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2002, 141, 70–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Kannan, D.; Khodaverdi, R.; Olfat, L.; Jafarian, A.; Diabat, A. Integrated Fuzzy Multi Criteria Decision Making Method and Multi-Objective Programming Approach for Supplier Selection and Order Allocation in a Green Supply Chain. Clean. Prod. Initiat. Chall. Sustain. World 2013, 47, 355–367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Luthra, S.; Govindan, K.; Kannan, D.; Mangla, S.K.; Garg, C.P. An Integrated Framework for Sustainable Supplier Selection and Evaluation in Supply Chains. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 140, 1686–1698. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Agarwal, R.; Agrawal, A.; Kumar, N.; Shah, M.A.; Jawla, P.; Priyan, S. Benchmarking the Interactions among Green and Sustainable Vendor Selection Attributes. Adv. Oper. Res. 2022, 2022, 8966856. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Hsu, C.-W.; Hu, A.H. Applying Hazardous Substance Management to Supplier Selection Using Analytic Network Process. J. Clean. Prod. 2009, 17, 255–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Kumar, A.; Jain, V.; Kumar, S. A Comprehensive Environment Friendly Approach for Supplier Selection. Omega 2014, 42, 109–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Masoomi, B.; Sahebi, I.G.; Fathi, M.; Yıldırım, F.; Ghorbani, S. Strategic Supplier Selection for Renewable Energy Supply Chain under Green Capabilities (Fuzzy BWM-WASPAS-COPRAS Approach). Energy Strategy Rev. 2022, 40, 100815. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Alnourani, S.; Mejjaouli, S. The Impact of Carbon Cap Policy on Supply Chain Network. In Proceedings of the 2022 9th International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Applications (Europe), Barcelona, Spain, 12–14 January 2022; Association for Computing Machinery: New York, NY, USA, 2022; pp. 14–18. [Google Scholar]
  86. Zhou, X.; Wei, X.; Lin, J.; Tian, X.; Lev, B.; Wang, S. Supply Chain Management under Carbon Taxes: A Review and Bibliometric Analysis. Omega 2021, 98, 102295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Bittencourt, V.L.; Alves, A.C.; Leão, C.P. Lean Thinking Contributions for Industry 4.0: A Systematic Literature Review. IFAC-PapersOnLine 2019, 52, 904–909. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Kolberg, D.; Zühlke, D. Lean Automation Enabled by Industry 4.0 Technologies. IFAC-PapersOnLine 2015, 48, 1870–1875. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Rossini, M.; Powell, D.J.; Kundu, K. Lean Supply Chain Management and Industry 4.0: A Systematic Literature Review. Int. J. Lean Six Sigma 2023, 14, 253–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Abdirad, M.; Krishnan, K. Industry 4.0 in Logistics and Supply Chain Management: A Systematic Literature Review. Eng. Manag. J. 2021, 33, 187–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Abdirad, M.; Krishnan, K. Examining the Impact of E-Supply Chain on Service Quality and Customer Satisfaction: A Case Study. Int. J. Qual. Serv. Sci. 2022, 14, 274–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Núñez-Merino, M.; Maqueira-Marín, J.M.; Moyano-Fuentes, J.; Martínez-Jurado, P.J. Information and Digital Technologies of Industry 4.0 and Lean Supply Chain Management: A Systematic Literature Review. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2020, 58, 5034–5061. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Saxby, R.; Cano-Kourouklis, M.; Viza, E. An Initial Assessment of Lean Management Methods for Industry 4.0. TQM J. 2020, 32, 587–601. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Sony, M. Industry 4.0 and Lean Management: A Proposed Integration Model and Research Propositions. Prod. Manuf. Res. 2018, 6, 416–432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Tortorella, G.L.; Miorando, R.; Marodin, G. Lean Supply Chain Management: Empirical Research on Practices, Contexts and Performance. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2017, 193, 98–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Labonte-LeMoyne, E.; Leger, P.-M.; Robert, J.; Babin, G.; Charland, P.; Michon, J.-F. Business Intelligence Serious Game Participatory Development: Lessons from ERPsim for Big Data. Bus. Process Manag. J. 2017, 23, 493–505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Léger, P.-M.; Charland, P.; Feldstein, H.D.; Robert, J.; Babin, G.; Lyle, D. Business Simulation Training in Information Technology Education: Guidelines for New Approaches in IT Training. J. Inf. Technol. Educ. Res. 2011, 10, 39–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. May, M.-D. Physical and Virtual Game Based Experiential Learning for Supply Chain and Operations Management Teaching Practice and Effectiveness. In Proceedings of the 2022 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON), Gammarth, Tunisia, 28–31 March 2022; pp. 1113–1120. [Google Scholar]
  99. William, L.; Rahim, Z.B.A.; Boo, I.; De Souza, R. Embedding Mixed Reality in Humanitarian Logistics Gaming. In Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE International Conference on Teaching, Assessment, and Learning for Engineering (TALE), Wollongong, NSW, Australia, 4–7 December 2018; Lee, M.J.W., Nikolic, S., Wong, G.K.W., Shen, J., Ros, M., Lei, L.C.U., Venkatarayalu, N., Eds.; Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc.: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2019; pp. 710–715. [Google Scholar]
  100. Balaban, M.; Russell, S.; Mastaglio, T.W.; Dykes, P. The Evaluation of a Constructive Modeling and Simulation Approach in Teaching Port Management Skills. In Proceedings of the 48th Annual Simulation Symposium, Alexandria, VA, USA, 12–15 April 2015; Society for Computer Simulation International: San Diego, CA, USA, 2015; pp. 102–110. [Google Scholar]
  101. van den Berg, M.; Voordijk, H.; Adriaanse, A.; Hartmann, T. Experiencing Supply Chain Optimizations: A Serious Gaming Approach. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2017, 143, 04017082. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Liu, C.-L. Using a Video Game to Teach Supply Chain and Logistics Management. Interact. Learn. Environ. 2017, 25, 1009–1024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Seethamraju, R. Enhancing Student Learning of Enterprise Integration and Business Process Orientation through an ERP Business Simulation Game. J. Inf. Syst. Educ. 2011, 22, 19. [Google Scholar]
  104. Zhao, Y.; Park, A.; Rudna, O.; Song, J.M. FloraPark (the Flower Game): A Supply Chain Contract and Collaboration Simulation. Inf. Trans. Educ. 2023, 24, 1–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Griffin, P. The Use of Classroom Games in Management Science and Operations Research. Inf. Trans. Educ. 2007, 8, 1–2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Lau, A.K.W. Teaching Supply Chain Management Using a Modified Beer Game: An Action Learning Approach. Int. J. Logist. Res. Appl. 2015, 18, 62–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Lee, P.T.; Lui, R.W.; Chau, M. How Does Competition Help Future Learning in Serious Games? An Exploratory Study in Learning Search Engine Optimization. J. Inf. Syst. Educ. 2019, 30, 167–177. [Google Scholar]
  108. McKinney Jr, E.; Niese, B.; Bhatia, M.S. Teaching Tip: Active Learning in the IS Classroom: A Student Crowdpolling Exercise for IS Courses. J. Inf. Syst. Educ. 2023, 34, 118–130. [Google Scholar]
  109. Lewis, M.A.; Maylor, H.R. Game Playing and Operations Management Education. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2007, 105, 134–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Scherpereel, C.M. The Juice Supply Game: An Excel Based Simulation. Available online: (accessed on 1 May 2023).
  111. Stefan, I.A.; Hauge, J.B.; Hasse, F.; Stefan, A. Using Serious Games and Simulations for Teaching Co-Operative Decision-Making. In Procedia Computer Science; Herrera-Viedma, E., Shi, Y., Berg, D., Tien, J., Cabrerizo, F.J., Li, J., Eds.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2019; Volume 162, pp. 745–753. [Google Scholar]
  112. Schaedler Uhlmann, T.; Battaiola, A.L. Applications of a Roleplaying Game for Qualitative Simulation and Cooperative Situations Related to Supply Chain Management. In Proceedings of the HCI in Business, Crete, Greece, 22–27 June 2014; Nah, F.F.-H., Ed.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2014; pp. 429–439. [Google Scholar]
  113. Wood, S.C. Online Games to Teach Operations. Inf. Trans. Educ. 2007, 8, 3–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Arunachalam, R.; Sadeh, N. The 2003 Supply Chain Management Trading Agent Competition. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Electronic Commerce, Plymouth, UK, 27–29 April 2022; Association for Computing Machinery: New York, NY, USA, 2004; pp. 113–120. [Google Scholar]
  115. Tobail, A.; Crowe, J.; Arisha, A. Learning by Gaming: Supply Chain Application. In Proceedings of the Winter Simulation Conference, Phoenix, AZ, USA, 11–14 December 2011; Winter Simulation Conference: Phoenix, Arizona, 2011; pp. 3940–3951. [Google Scholar]
  116. Corsi, T.M.; Boyson, S.; Verbraeck, A.; Van Houten, S.-P.; Han, C.; Macdonald, J.R. The Real-Time Global Supply Chain Game: New Educational Tool for Developing Supply Chain Management Professionals. Transp. J. 2006, 45, 61–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Scherpereel, C.M.; Williams, S.K.; Hoefle, S.E. Learning Transfer from a Business Simulation: How Are You Situated? Available online: (accessed on 22 November 2023).
  118. Kandanaarachchi, T.; Perera, H.N. Gamified Learning of Supply Chain Optimization Through the Beer Distribution Game. In Proceedings of the 2021 IEEE International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management (IEEM), Singapore, 13–16 December 2021; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2021; pp. 503–507, ISBN 978-1-66543-771-4. [Google Scholar]
  119. Shovityakool, P.; Jittam, P.; Sriwattanarothai, N.; Laosinchai, P. A Flexible Supply Chain Management Game. Simul. Gaming 2019, 50, 461–482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Weenk, E. Mastering the Supply Chain: Principles, Practice and Real-Life Applications; Kogan Page Publishers: London, UK, 2019; ISBN 0-7494-8449-7. [Google Scholar]
  121. Maisiri, W.; Hattingh, T. Integrating Game-Based Learning in an Industrial Engineering Module at a South African University. In Proceedings of the 2022 IEEE IFEES World Engineering Education Forum—Global Engineering Deans Council (WEEF-GEDC), Cape Town, South Africa, 28 November–1 December 2022; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2022; pp. 1–5, ISBN 978-1-66547-528-0. [Google Scholar]
  122. De Leeuw, S.; Schippers, M.C.; Hoogervorst, S.J. The Fresh Connection. In The Handbook of Behavioral Operations Management; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2015; pp. 359–377. [Google Scholar]
  123. Shaltayev, D. Mixed-Integer Linear Programming Optimization for the Supply Chain Game. Decis. Sci. J. Innov. Educ. 2021, 19, 250–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Wellman, M.P.; Estelle, J.; Singh, S.; Vorobeychik, Y.; Kiekintveld, C.; Soni, V. Strategic interactions in a supply chain game. Comput. Intell. 2005, 21, 1–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Anderson, E.G., Jr.; Morrice, D.J. A Simulation Game for Teaching Services-Oriented Supply Chain Management: Does Information Sharing Help Managers with Service Capacity Decisions? Prod. Oper. Manag. 2000, 9, 40–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Ichikawa, M.; Koyama, Y.; Deguchi, H. Human and Agent Playing the “Beer Game”. Available online: (accessed on 1 December 2023).
  127. Oe, A.; Kawai, A. Educational Effect of a Supply Chain Management Game: Simulation Results for Supply Chain Experts. In Proceedings of the Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems: “Societal Transformation Through IS/IT”, PACIS, Langkawi, Malaysia, 16–20 July 2017; Association for Information Systems: Atlanta, Georgia, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  128. Sparling, D. Simulations and Supply Chains: Strategies for Teaching Supply Chain Management. Supply Chain Manag. Int. J. 2002, 7, 334–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Zhou, L.; Xie, Y.; Wild, N.; Hunt, C. Learning and Practising Supply Chain Management Strategies from a Business Simulation Game: A Comprehensive Supply Chain Simulation. In Proceedings of the Proceedings of the 40th Conference on Winter Simulation, Miami, FL, USA, 7–10 December 2008; Winter Simulation Conference: Miami, Florida, 2008; pp. 2534–2542. [Google Scholar]
  130. Pillay, R.; Laeequddin, M. Peer Teaching: A Pedagogic Method for Higher Education. Int. J. Innov. Technol. Explor. Eng. 2019, 9, 2907–2913. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Shang, K. Cash Beer Game. Found. Trends Technol. Inf. Oper. Manag. 2019, 12, 173–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Bikovska, J. Developing an Integrated Approach for the Scenario-Based Management of Simulation Games. In Proceedings of the Open Conference of Electrical, Electronic and Information Sciences eStream-Proceedings, Vilnius, Lithuania, 25 April 2019; Navakauskas, D., Paulikas, S., Plonis, D., Udris, D., Eds.; Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc.: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  133. Lindawati; Nugroho, E.; Fredericco, R.; Rahim, Z.B.A.; De Souza, R. ThinkLog: Interactive Learning for Supply Chain Management. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Teaching Assessment, and Learning for Engineering (TALE); Hong Kong, China, 12–14 December 2017, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc.: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2017; pp. 44–51. [Google Scholar]
  134. Sato, M.; Nakano, M.; Mizuyama, H.; Roser, C. Proposal of a Beer Distribution Game Considering Waste Management and the Bullwhip Effect; Springer Science and Business Media Deutschland GmbH: Berlin, Germany, 2020; Volume 12434 LNCS, p. 84. ISBN 9783030618131. [Google Scholar]
  135. Super, J.F.; Betts, T.K.; Keller, H. Humphreys Joy Roach Simulation Game Outcomes: A Multilevel Examination of Knowledge Sharing Norms, Transactive Memory Systems, and Individual Learning Goal Orientations. Simul. Gaming 2020, 51, 830–858. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  136. Tanaka, K.K.; Tanabu, M.; Shirai, H.; Koji, K.; Managi, S. Cooperative Business Game with Framing Effect. Available online: (accessed on 12 November 2022).
  137. Delke, V.; Buchholz, W.; Schiele, H. Assessing Serious Games within Purchasing and Supply Management Education: An in-Class Experiment. In ECGBL 2021 15th European Conference on Game-Based Learning; Fotaris, P., Ed.; Dechema e.V.: Frankfurt, Germany, 2021; pp. 178–187. [Google Scholar]
  138. Murff, E.; Teach, R.D. Partners or Competitors? A B2B Simulation. Available online: (accessed on 12 November 2022).
  139. Galli, M.; Mezzogori, D.; Reverberi, D.; Romagnoli, G.; Zammori, F. Experiencing the Role of Cooperation and Competition in Operations and Supply Chain Management with a Multiplayer Serious Game. Available online: (accessed on 12 November 2022).
  140. Chang, Y.-C.; Chen, W.-C.; Yang, Y.-N.; Chao, H.-C. A Flexible Web-Based Simulation Game for Production and Logistics Management Courses. Simul. Model. Pract. Theory 2009, 17, 1241–1253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  141. Sunny, J.; Pillai, V.M.; Nath, H.V.; Shah, K.; Prajwal, P.G.; Manu, J.P.; Shirswar, M. Blockchain-Enabled Beer Game: A Software Tool for Familiarizing the Application of Blockchain in Supply Chain Management. Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 2022, 122, 1025–1055. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  142. Aguilera-Ramirez, M.; Pacheco-Velazquez, E.; Thierry-Aguilera, R. Designing and Evaluating a Business Simulator for Sustainable Logistics Decisions. Available online: (accessed on 22 November 2023).
  143. Gu, x.; Song, J.; Guo, J.; Yang, M. Research of the Supply Chain Inventory Manager Dynamic Simulation Training Based on HLA. Available online: (accessed on 12 November 2022).
  144. Merkuryev, Y.; Bikovska, J.; Merkuryeva, G. Supply Chain Dynamics: Simulation-Based Training and Education. Available online: (accessed on 1 May 2023).
  145. Merkuryev, Y.; Bikovska, J. Business Simulation Game Development for Education and Training in Supply Chain Management. Available online: (accessed on 12 November 2022).
  146. Titton, L.A. Parameterised Business Simulation Game Development for Education in Supply Chain Management and Logistics. Available online: (accessed on 1 May 2023).
  147. Stiller, S.; Falk, B.; Philipsen, R.; Brauner, P.; Schmitt, R.; Ziefle, M. A Game-Based Approach to Understand Human Factors in Supply Chains and Quality Management. Procedia CIRP 2014, 20, 67–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  148. Hauge, J.; Duin, H.; Thoben, K.-D. Increasing the Resiliency of Global Supply Networks by Using Games. Available online: (accessed on 22 November 2023).
  149. Gonzalez-Feliu, J.; Chong, M.; Vargas Florez, J.; Padilla Solis, J. Handbook of Research on Urban and Humanitarian Logistics; IGI Global: Pennsylvania, PA, USA, 2019; ISBN 1-5225-8161-8. [Google Scholar]
  150. Hidayatno, A.; Zulkarnain; Hasibuan, R.G.; Wardana Nimpuno, G.C.; Destyanto, A.R. Designing a Serious Simulation Game as a Learning Media of Sustainable Supply Chain Management for Biofuel Production. In Energy Procedia; Bevrani, H., Ed.; Elsevier Ltd.: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2019; Volume 156, pp. 43–47. [Google Scholar]
  151. Aguiar, V.A.C.; Rosly, M.M.; Nakano, M. A Single Player Serious Game for Sustainable Supply Chain Management. Stud. Simul. Gaming 2018, 28, 60–72. [Google Scholar]
  152. Salman, S.; Alaswad, S. The X-Supply Game. Available online: (accessed on 22 November 2023).
  153. Ansari, Z.N.; Kant, R. Exploring the Framework Development Status for Sustainability in Supply Chain Management: A Systematic Literature Synthesis and Future Research Directions. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2017, 26, 873–892. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  154. Stindt, D. A Generic Planning Approach for Sustainable Supply Chain Management-How to Integrate Concepts and Methods to Address the Issues of Sustainability? J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 153, 146–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  155. Fritz, M.M.C.; Ruel, S. What Does “Sustainable Supply Chain Management” Really Mean? A Contribution to Bridging the Gap between Research, Education and Practice. Int. J. Logist. Manag. 2024, 35, 332–363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  156. Kassaneh, T.C.; Bolisani, E.; Cegarra-Navarro, J.-G. Knowledge Management Practices for Sustainable Supply Chain Management: A Challenge for Business Education. Sustainability 2021, 13, 2956. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  157. Sinha, T. Play with Purpose-Lego Serious Play: Methods for Understanding and Researching Complex Systems Such as Supply Chains and Supply Chain Management. In Handbook of Research Methods for Supply Chain Management; Childe, S., Soares, A., Eds.; Edward Elgar Publishing: Cheltenham, UK, 2022; pp. 169–186. [Google Scholar]
  158. Katsaliaki, K.; Mustafee, N.; Kumar, S. A Game-Based Approach towards Facilitating Decision Making for Perishable Products: An Example of Blood Supply Chain. Expert Syst. Appl. 2014, 41, 4043–4059. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  159. Destyanto, A.R.; Fajar, N.F.; Ardi, R. Serious Simulation Game Design to Support Extensive Understanding of Closed-Loop Supply Chain Concept in E-Waste Management Context. In Proceedings of the Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Industrial and Business Engineering, Hon Kong, China, 27–29 September 2019; Association for Computing Machinery: New York, NY, USA, 2019; pp. 101–105. [Google Scholar]
  160. Kavota, J.K.; Kamdjoug, J.R.K.; Wamba, S.F. Social Media and Disaster Management: Case of the North and South Kivu Regions in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2020, 52, 102068. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  161. Holguín-Veras, J.; Jaller, M.; Wassenhove, L.N.V.; Pérez, N.; Wachtendorf, T. On the Unique Features of Post-Disaster Humanitarian Logistics. J. Oper. Manag. 2012, 30, 494–506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Synthesis of steps and final number of papers included in this study.
Figure 1. Synthesis of steps and final number of papers included in this study.
Logistics 08 00019 g001
Figure 2. Clusters from co-citation analysis, as produced by VOSviewer1.6.19 software.
Figure 2. Clusters from co-citation analysis, as produced by VOSviewer1.6.19 software.
Logistics 08 00019 g002
Table 1. Number of papers per database for query 1.
Table 1. Number of papers per database for query 1.
Database Query 1Number of Papers
ABI-Inform NOFT ((“supply chain management” OR “supply-chain management” OR “strategic suppl*” OR “supply chain network design” OR “Supply chain planning” OR “supply chain coordination” OR “supply chain optimization” OR “supply chain collaboration” OR “supply chain forecasting”) AND (“supplier selection” OR “supplier management”))358
Scopus TITLE-ABS-KEY ((“supply chain management” OR “supply-chain management” OR “strategic suppl*” OR “supply chain network design” OR “supply chain planning” OR “supply chain coordination” OR “supply chain optimization” OR “supply chain collaboration” OR “supply chain forecasting”) AND TITLE-ABS-KEY (“supplier selection” OR “supplier management”))1734
Total 2092
Table 2. Papers per database for query 2.
Table 2. Papers per database for query 2.
Database Query 2Number of Papers
ABI-Inform MAIN SUBJECT.EXACT (“supply chains”) AND NOFT (serious game” OR “simulation game” OR “simulation training” OR “megagame” OR “instructional strateg*”)12
Scopus TITLE-ABS-KEY ((“strategic supply chain” OR “collaborative supply chain” OR “supply chain management”) AND (“serious game” OR “simulation game” OR “simulation training” OR “megagame” OR “instructional strateg*”)) 108
ACM-library [[All: “strategic supply chain”] OR [All: “collaborative supply chain”] OR [All: “supply chain management”]] AND [[All: “serious game”] OR [All: “simulation game”] OR [All: “simulation training”] OR [All: “megagame”] OR [All: “ instructional strateg*”]]49
Business source complete TI ((“strategic supply chain” OR “collaborative supply chain” OR “supply chain management”) AND TI (“serious game” OR “simulation game” OR “simulation training” OR “megagame” OR “instructional strateg*”))3
ABSLSupply chain22
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Kavota, J.K.; Cassivi, L.; Léger, P.-M. A Systematic Review of Strategic Supply Chain Challenges and Teaching Strategies. Logistics 2024, 8, 19.

AMA Style

Kavota JK, Cassivi L, Léger P-M. A Systematic Review of Strategic Supply Chain Challenges and Teaching Strategies. Logistics. 2024; 8(1):19.

Chicago/Turabian Style

Kavota, Jérémie Katembo, Luc Cassivi, and Pierre-Majorique Léger. 2024. "A Systematic Review of Strategic Supply Chain Challenges and Teaching Strategies" Logistics 8, no. 1: 19.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop