Content uploaded by Petar Radanliev
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Petar Radanliev on Apr 14, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
Preprint to be published in: OPERATIONS AND SUPPLY CHAIN MANAGEMENT
Vol 9, No. 1, pp. 22-30
Supply Chain Systems Architecture
and Engineering Design:
Green-field Supply Chain Integration
Petar Radanliev
University of Oxford, Engineering Sciences Department, OeRC, 7 Keble Road, Oxford, England, UK, OX1
3QG, Email: petar.radanliev@oerc.ox.ac.uk
ABSTRACT
This paper developed a new theory for sup-
ply chain architecture, and engineering design that
enables integration of the business and supply
chain strategies. The architecture starts with indi-
vidual supply chain participants and derives in-
sights into the complex and abstract concept of
green-field integration design. The paper pre-
sented a conceptual system for depicting the inter-
actions between business and supply chain strat-
egy engineering. The system examines the deci-
sions made when engineering the business strat-
egy, with regards to the supply chain design. The
system derived with a new understanding of how
strategies are integrated, and what are the impli-
cations for engineering successful strategies. The
study revealed that supply chain design is not con-
sidered in great detail before architecting the busi-
ness strategies. Thus, companies consequentially
experience supply chain problems that are likely
to be detrimental to the growth potentials. The pa-
per also derived with the findings that proactive
and pre-emptive involvement of supply chain par-
ticipants in the strategy engineering process,
would lead to a more robust strategic design.
Keywords: Supply Chain Architecture, Green-field
Strategic Engineering
1. INTRODUCTION
Strategic engineering requires accepting the world
and acting upon that world, followed by configuring
architectures from evaluating the outcomes of success
or failure (Pettigrew 1977, Melnyk et al., 2013). Stra-
tegic engineering also requires a consensus on objec-
tives (Qu et al. 2010, Sakka et al., 2011, Leng and
Chen, 2012), and in relation to organisational perfor-
mance, it must be focused on addressing the opera-
tional aspect of strategy design (Perez-Franco et al.,
2010, Córdova et al., 2012). These complexities and
uncertainties create the demand for further investiga-
tion of the relationship between business and supply
chain strategy architecture.
This study examines what decisions are made for ac-
cepting the realities in a given business environment
when architecting the business strategy, with regards
to the supply chain design. The research aim, is to de-
velop new theory for architecting the individual com-
pany’s business strategy in a manner that can be inte-
grated in in a green-field supply chain design. The ob-
jective is to derive with a new understanding of how
the strategies are integrated and implemented, and
what are the implications for designing successful
green-field strategies. The research differentiates
from literature on redesigning existing strategies and
is focused on designing new, green-field (non-exist-
ent until formulated) strategies.
Consequently, the research is focused on conceptual
architectures for formulating a system for relating in-
dividual strategic engineering to integrated strategic
design. The conceptual design applies business archi-
tectures to integrate individual, into collaborative
business engineering. The aim of this paper is to sys-
tematically analyse strategy abstention and absence of
operational capabilities, to determine the right level of
integration. The integration design required a syn-
chronised investigation and analysis of how several
operational strategies can be performed simultane-
ously.
The alternative is to relate individual functional strat-
egies without extracting specific designs related to the
supply chain collaborated performance. This would
hardly lead to improved performance, because even
within one company, there are a number of opera-
tional designs, requiring different operational strate-
gies, which are not isolated entities (Kaplan and Nor-
ton 1996, Frohlich and Westbrook 2001, Jayaram and
Tan 2010, Bryceson and Slaughter 2010, Prajogo and
Olhager 2012, Sukati et al. 2012).
Radanliev, P. Supp ly Chain Systems Architecture and Engineering Design : Green-field Supply Chain Integration,
Operations and Supply Chain Management
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
Existing literature on supply chain strategy architec-
ture leads towards: (1) demand for a product and
product life cycle (Fisher, 1997); (2) internal and ex-
ternal factors (Narasimhan et al., 2008); (3) level of
integration (Frohlich and Westbrook, 2001); and (4)
interdependence and organisational compatibility
(Mentzer et al., 2001). This literature outlines the sup-
ply chain engineering criteria that has not been com-
bined and applied to build an architecture for supply
chain design.
Furthermore, supply chain design represents a section
of the hierarchical chain of corporate, business and
functional level strategies (Narasimhan et al., 2008).
The supply chain design is a dynamic concept (Mel-
nyk et al., 2013), and should be analysed in an indi-
vidual context (Dubois et al., 2004) with a hierar-
chical method for network design (Dotoli et al., 2005)
and Analytical Target Cascading for deconstructing a
supply chain into a hierarchical tree (Qu et al., 2010).
Similarly to the supply chain design decomposition
method (Schnetzler et al., 2007).
This approach can be combined with case study for
verifying and testing the results (Dotoli et al., 2005,
Qu et al., 2010). Activities can be investigated to de-
termine the actual instead of the intended outcomes
(Cigolini et al., 2004) and the structural elements
should be based on the business models (Martínez-
Olvera and Shunk, 2006), while the architecture
should be grounded on present strategies (Perez-
Franco et al., 2010). This creates a gap in literature
that has not been addressed until present.
Some studies attempts to address this gap and supply
chain strategy, design, tactic and operations have been
placed in a conceptual system supported by a mathe-
matical model (Ivanov, 2009). Systems engineering
simulations have also been applied to gain the opti-
mum values and corresponding parameters of a con-
ceptual supply chain system (Hafeez et al., 1996).
However, these methods lack the necessary details re-
garding how the method can be applied in additional
real world scenarios.
The literature reviewed reveals the existing tools and
mechanism which can enable the process of architect-
ing the design for a new conceptual framework for en-
gineering the green-field supply chain integration.
From those tools, the hierarchical method for network
design was identified as most suitable for integration
design, and the case study approach for verifying the
result. This approach can be strengthened by building
upon the principles from the 'Supply Chain Design
Decomposition' (Schnetzler et al. 2007) for hierar-
chical decomposing of a complete supply chain, com-
bined with the techniques from customer–product–
process–resource (CPPR) (Martínez-Olvera and
Shunk, 2006) and Analytical Target Cascading
(ATC).
The proposed formulation method would enable (1)
anticipating the supply chain elements that arise from
multiple supply chain participants; (2) include the
participants’ main aims and objectives, and (3) de-
mystify the process of getting from the present to the
required stage. Such supply chain engineering method
would enable anticipating operational capabilities
through internal competencies and by considering in-
ter-organisational integration in combination with in-
ternal operations reformulation.
3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The research methods applied in the study include
case study, action research and field-tests. This study
was performed on the mining industry in North Wales
and the participants were selected through conven-
ience sampling. To formulate a green-field supply
chain, the mining industry (coded as C1) was required
to integrate with companies from four related indus-
tries. The mining industry needed a retailer for virtual
quarries (coded as C2), civil engineering company
(coded as C3), logistic company (coded as C4), and a
distribution centre (coded as C5).
The diversity of the population, represented in the
supply chain participants, is analysed with reference
to the ‘Industry Classification Benchmark’ to deter-
mine the industry representativeness. If the diversity
displayed in the sample data findings was established
as segmented into company or industry boundaries,
the sample data could have been considered as being
heavily influenced. In that case, further sampling
could have been required to further develop the strat-
egy formulation method. However, the industry di-
versity displayed in the ‘Industry Classification
Benchmark’ confirmed that the aggregated sample
data does not belong to a company or industry. This
eliminated the industry dominating factor of company
biasing from the formulation methods.
The pool of people interviewed were proportionally
representative of the directorial level, managing level,
and the operational level supervisors of the supply
chain consortium. Only part of the interviews were
predetermined in the initial selection and the rest were
chosen based on the development of the case study
research, this process corresponds with existing liter-
ature (Patton, 2002).
Radanliev, P. Supp ly Chain Systems Architecture and Engineering Design : Green-field Supply Chain Integration,
Operations and Supply Chain Management
The method selection are aimed at eliminating the ob-
stacles in extracting tacit strategic interests and are fo-
cused at enabling the process of critical analysis. The
critical analysis is based on evidence extracted
through verbalism, or reworded and distilled through
content and discourse analysis. The emerging design
was presented in a concept summary map, outlined in
an explicit form and evaluated with the study partici-
pants to obtain respondents validations.
The critical analysis engages a range of sources to val-
idate the theory and starts with defining the strategy
architectures of individual supply chain participants
from implicit into an explicit form. The second step
develops the idea, to derive insights into the complex
and abstract concept of business and supply chain in-
tegration. The case study approach serves as tools for
extracting and relating individual strategic architec-
tures to integrated strategic design. The process re-
sults with a conceptual system, validated through ac-
tion research and field-tested to eliminate obstacles
presented in extracting tacit strategic interests.
The process of ensuring validity of the conceptual
system applied qualitative research techniques as rec-
ommended in existing literature (Easterby-Smith et
al., 2002, Gummesson, 2000, Eriksson et al, 2008, Pe-
rez-Franco et al., 2010). Conceptual validity is further
confirmed through open and categorical coding to an-
alyse the qualitative data. This represents a time-
tested complimenting method for grounded theory
(Charmaz, 2006). Open coding provides a reliable
representation of the data collected, while categorical
coding subsequently recognises the profounder con-
cepts in the data (Goulding, 2002). In this process,
discourse analysis is applied to evaluate and interpret
the connotation behind the explicitly stated strategy
(Eriksson et al 2008), along with tables of evidence
(Eisenhardt, 1989) and conceptual maps (Miles and
Huberman, 1984) to present graphical analysis. The
research study involved secondary data review and
series of 20 qualitative interviews, followed by 2
group discussions, one with experts external to the
supply chain and one group discussion with supply
chain internal experts.
4. BUSINESS AND SUPPLY CHAIN
STRATEGY INTEGRATION
4.1 Formulate the individual strategic architectures in
an explicit form
The emerging conceptual design initiates by identify-
ing individual supply chain participants’ principles in
the form of sentences that represent the interest of all
the participants in the formulation. These statements
were used to extract the principles and a new strategic
architecture representative of all the companies
(coded as CN).
This enables investigating the interests of individual
participants, to aggregate a set of principles (coded as
PN) from the sum of companies (CN), enabling indi-
vidual areas of integration to be identified. This pre-
sents the first tenet: in integrated green-field design,
the architecture must represent the integrated princi-
ples of the supply chain group (coded as IPN) instead
of being representative of the individual interest of the
lead company (coded as C1). The emerging design
process advocates that the principles are representa-
tive of the sum of companies (CN). To achieve this,
firstly the sum of strategic principles (PN) of each in-
dividual company must be identified (C) and grouped
together (coded into CN.PN) to ensure coverage of
strategic principles (Figure 1).
Figure 1: Formulation method for integrating individual principles into
green-field business strategy
Source: Prepared by the author
To identify individual strategic principles a number of
data collection methods have been applied. The first
source for collecting data related to individual strate-
gies and strategic principles was internal and external
documents.
Radanliev, P. Supp ly Chain Systems Architecture and Engineering Design : Green-field Supply Chain Integration,
Operations and Supply Chain Management
4.2 System evaluation through case study with the sec-
ond supply chain participant
The recommended process involves critically analys-
ing the strategies of individual companies and pro-
gressively identifying and building their strategic
principles. The process continued with the second
company (coded as C2) analysed and their business
strategy (coded as S). The analysis of the second com-
pany strategy (coded as C2S) presented a very straight
forward statement, which presents the temptation to
disregard the potential in terms of sufficiency for for-
mulating strategy. It must be emphasised that it is not
the words that are being analysed but the idea behind
the quoted statement. The fact that the statement was
quoted in the direct format, as derived during the data
collection, eliminates the perception that the state-
ment represents oversimplification of their business
strategy. The idea behind the simple statement in fact
represents multiple ideas. The analysis of secondary
data from internal documents continued until the prin-
ciples related to the green-field architecture were
identified. The extracted sentences are narrowed to
the required context.
The process applied open and categorical coding, to
internal documents to investigate the relationship be-
tween the individual strategic principles and the inte-
grated business strategy. The objective of the exercise
was to narrow the idea behind the sentences to relate
to integration. The case study resulted with a set of
statements that represented the individual strategic
principles of the integrated business strategy, as out-
lined below.
▪ (C2P1) Secure position in the key markets.
▪ (C2P2) Keep a close relationship.
▪ (C2P3) Invest in engineering technology.
▪ (C2P4) Provide civil engineering expertise.
▪ (C2P5) Provide waste management expertise.
▪ (C2P6) Develop models for land remediation.
▪ (C2P7) Capture substantial aftermarket service.
The set of principles identified are first validated dur-
ing the interviews with (C2). Secondly the relevance
of the identified pillars to the green-field formulation
was validated through group discussion with execu-
tive level participants (group A) from the supply chain
consortium (CN). The new process is designed specif-
ically in the context of this study for extraction, anal-
ysis, coding and categorising the process.
4.4 System evaluation through case study with the third
supply chain participant
The analysis of the terminal and logistics providing
company (C3) presented a different example. It must
be recognised that not all companies have defined
their business strategies in equally straight forward
identifiable statements. To generalise and further con-
firm the validity of the data collection a different ap-
proach was applied. The business strategy is recorded
as initial introductory statement, followed by descrip-
tion of multiple strategies. The description presented
multiple strategic ideas that are quoted in direct for-
mat.
Having identified the (C3S), content and discourse
analysis was also applied to the passages, combined
with open and categorical coding. The set of pillars
were validated; firstly through group discussion with
(C3); secondly, through group discussions with (CN).
The process is outlined in Figure 2. Resulting with
specific principles related to the green-field formula-
tion.
▪ (C3P1) Provide network of terminals.
▪ (C3P2) Invest in rail terminal technology.
▪ (C3P3) Increase freight flow.
▪ (C3P4) Open virtual quarries.
▪ (C3P5) Provide fully integrated service.
Figure 2: Extracting and relating individual principles to integrated
business principles
Source: Prepared by the author
4.5 System evaluation through case study with the
fourth supply chain participant
The method for extracting the strategic pillars from
the fourth company (coded as C4) was completely dif-
ferent from the previous methods. The method ap-
plied involved extracting reference principles from
external documents and validating the principles with
Radanliev, P. Supp ly Chain Systems Architecture and Engineering Design : Green-field Supply Chain Integration,
Operations and Supply Chain Management
the management team of (C4). Further validation of
the passages was performed with interviewing all op-
erational level managers, to confirm that (C4) opera-
tions are compatible with the identified principles.
The passages that described the strategy were col-
lected through external sources and analysed in exact
wording. The passages were presented to the opera-
tional managers to identify the strategic principles rel-
evant to (C4). The discussions resulted with a set num-
ber of principles. Before taking the extracted princi-
ples as actual representation of the (C4) strategy, the
principles were presented and validated with the man-
agement team. The extraction is representative of the
earlier process outlined in Figure 2 and strengthens
the validity of the emerging method. The process re-
sulted with 7 principles related to supply chain inte-
gration.
• (C4P1) Invest in rail technology.
• (C4P2) Provide rail freight logistics.
• (C4P3) Carry a wide variety of slate by-product.
• (C4P4) Offer high value rail transport.
• (C4P5) Develop responsive and effective transport.
• (C4P6) Provide track maintenance.
• (C4P7) Provide effective rail transloading.
4.6 System evaluation through case study with the fifth
supply chain participant
The method for identifying and extracting the strate-
gic principles from the fifth company involved a se-
ries of interviews and group discussions. The manag-
ers of (C5) preferred to keep their strategy implicit and
preferred not revealed it because it could leave them
open to competitors. The example from (C5) repre-
sents the most straight forward process for extracting
the strategic principles, because the principles are
given. The process is outlined in Figure 3. Their stra-
tegic principles were generalised by the executive di-
rector and given as:
(C5P1) Increase productivity and profits.
(C5P2) Maximise the value of by-product sales.
(C5P3) Provide site for building infrastructure.
(C5P4) Develop a distinct brand identity.
(C5P5) Optimise the supply chain distribution.
Figure 3: Extracting and relating individual principles to integrated
business principles – applied to (C5)
Source: Prepared by the author
4.7 Analysis and evaluation of the system
The system for extracting strategic principles specific
to the supply chain strategy outlined 5 different meth-
ods for identifying and extracting tacit strategic prin-
ciples from individual companies that need to be inte-
grated into a formulation. This study does not claim
that the system is all inclusive, and the requirement to
apply different approaches to different case studies
confirms that all inclusive systems are not likely to
produce the desired results. The resulting conclusion
from applying the extraction process to five case stud-
ies is that the principles from (CNS) can be extracted
with multiple methods. The focus should be placed on
determining and validating the (CNPN) and narrow the
principles to integration by validating the principles
individually before validating the principles with the
group of (CN) to determine the integrated (CNIPN).
4.8 Conversion from tacit to explicit strategy
The process of converting tacit into an explicit strat-
egy presents a dilemma. The dilemma emerges be-
cause without visualising the explicit and implicit as-
pects of individual strategies, it is impossible to ex-
tract the required strategic elements and concepts. On
the other hand, the process of making strategy explicit
leaves the strategy open for criticisms and attack from
competitors (Quinn, 1977) and promotes ‘rigidity and
inertia’ (Mintzberg, 1990). This mind-set was identi-
fied in (C5). However, other literature supports the
process of making strategy explicit stating that artic-
ulating strategy is essential to simplify and integrate
the strategy (Love et al., 2002). This approach was ac-
cepted by (C1,2,3,4).
Radanliev, P. Supp ly Chain Systems Architecture and Engineering Design : Green-field Supply Chain Integration,
Operations and Supply Chain Management
Therefore, explicit strategy approach was accepted,
because tacit strategic interests are required in an ex-
plicit form for the supply chain integration. This ena-
bled the conceptual design to leap from the visible
into the invisible aspects of the integration and formu-
lation question. This process starts from evaluating
single quotes and leads to the essential elaboration of
the phenomenon investigated, resulting with a con-
ceptual system (Figure 4) for integrating individual
principles into integrated architecture.
Figure 4: Conceptual system for supply chain strategy engineering of
individual principles into a green-field business architecture and inte-
gration design
Source: Prepared by the author
5. FORMULATE THE INTEGRATION
PRINCIPLES
The aggregate sample principles collected (CN.PN) re-
sulted with many of the principles being similar in
context. For example:
(C1P4) Develop technology and infrastructure.
(C2P3) Invest in technology and infrastructure.
(C3P2) Invest in rail terminal technology.
(C4P1) Invest in rail technology and infrastructure.
(C5P3) Provide site for building.
The process of extracting individual principles re-
sulted in more than a manageable number required to
formulate the green-field strategy. Merging of supe-
rior principles enables eliminating and reducing du-
plicating ideas into a manageable number. The con-
trolled convergence (Pugh, 1990) can be applied in
reducing the number and to design a superior princi-
ples. However, the traditional controlled convergence
method (Pugh, 1990) is slow and time demanding. An
alternative faster approach based on recent literature
recommendations (Perez-Franco et al., 2010) was de-
veloped for the formulation of a green-field strategy.
The process is illustrated in Figure 5 and can be sum-
marised as:
• Characterise green-field integration through inte-
gration principles.
• Determine the fit and intensity to eliminate con-
flicting individual principles.
• Determine the impact integrating choices through
merging principles.
• Determine validity of underlying factors as guid-
ing force.
• Investigating the relationships in inter-organisa-
tional integration.
By applying the process through 3 rounds, the proba-
bility of specific groups establishing preferred princi-
ples according to their industry interests was elimi-
nated. The changes in the approach are made to avoid
the element of individual preference that could have
created a conflict of interest in the segmentation pro-
cess.
a) First segmentation: (1) individual validation of the
green-field principles, (2) executives identify pre-
ferred principles, (3) validation of the relationship,
(4) validating the integration elements.
b) Second segmentation: sub-groups identify the
most relevant principles to attaining superior prin-
ciples, and to detect duplicated concepts in the
principles.
c) Third segmentation: group discussion with the
supply chain participants on the superior princi-
ples.
Figure 5: Formulating integration principles from the individual prin-
ciples
Source: Prepared by the author
The method in Figure 5 is designed and applied to: a)
validate the individual principles, b) obtain additional
principles, c) reduce the list and hierarchically clas-
sify the principles. In the process the following crite-
ria is considered:
Radanliev, P. Supp ly Chain Systems Architecture and Engineering Design : Green-field Supply Chain Integration,
Operations and Supply Chain Management
● It was agreed with the participants that the superior
sample set of principles (IPN) should preserve the
relationship with integration of the principles from
(CN.PN) to define integrated principles (IPN) archi-
tecture (ISV) for the supply chain strategy.
● It was agreed with the group A and B participants
that it was necessary for the (ISV) to representative
of the interests of all companies expressed in the
(SCCN.PN) in the consortium and for the individual
principles (CN.PN) to be integrated in the context
of the green-field formulation principles (IPN).
● Through group discussions with individual compa-
nies, it was confirmed that the (ISV) should evolve
to be representative of the individual and green-
field strategic principles (IPN).
● The process resulted with superior principles (IPN)
through merging the existing principles (CN.PN) to
update the list, in the process the pre-established
reference principles served as sample guidance for
investigating the relationship between the (CN.PN)
and (SD) resulting with the (IPN).
● Several repetitions were performed, including one
repetition with each participant (CN.PN) to identify
the best possible (IPN) principles where integration
is considered to identify alternatives to the refer-
ences.
5.1 Conversion of tacit into explicit green-field ar-
chitecture
The degree of complexity confirms that if strategy is
left tacit, there is a possibility of conflicting interests
to emerge. For example, while the executive director
of (C1) wanted the green-field strategy to cover
‘world-wide markets’, the executive director of (C3)
wanted the green-field strategy to cover only the sur-
rounding areas where the company terminals were
based. Such conflicting areas could lead the formula-
tion away from integration. Also, in certain cases it
was discovered that the companies were not aware
themselves of the contribution of how useful their
specific knowledge to the formulated strategy could
be. This was caused mainly because their expertise is
a tacit knowledge and as such is not easy to record and
share.
5.2 Relationship between green-field architecture
and principles
The method applied served as a narrowing enquiry to
merge similar principles aimed at keeping the ideas
not the wording. The method confirmed that the stra-
tegic architecture must represent the interests of all
the participant industries and the principles must be
focused on achieving the architecture. The process is
aimed at visualising the problem, avoiding confusion
and bringing the focus on the common principles.
The process of formulating the new set of principles
included: 1. designing a sample set of individual prin-
ciples (CN.PN), 2. Creating a smaller sample set of
green-field reference principles and relating them to
the (SD), 3. Validate the (IPN) principles and ensure
coverage through group discussion. This resulted in
the strategic principles broadly defined by the group
in a few sentences as:
1. 'Supply enough by-product to match the current
demand and fulfil the demand of potential new
markets for recycled secondary aggregate' (Mar-
ket demand dimension).
2. 'Make the best use of engineering and technology
for transporting slate aggregate to markets by rail
and sea' (Technology dimension).
3. 'Achieve economic and environmental sustainabil-
ity for the aggregate supply chain' (Environmental
dimension).
4. 'Have a cost-effective transportation system to
move the aggregate from the quarry to the point of
sale' (Transportation dimension).
5. 'Maximise the volume of our sales of slate aggre-
gate to the market' (Resource dimension).
Through group discussions among the executives and
managers of the consortium companies participating
in the formulation, the managers reached the conclu-
sion that what unites their companies is their mutual
desire for the ‘increased sales of secondary aggre-
gate’. The (IPN) sample set of principles is summa-
rised into a new architecture (ISV): ’Commercialise
the secondary aggregate…'. This sentence repre-
sented the strategy core in the form of a jointly de-
fined strategic architecture. The validated architecture
and pillars were built into a conceptual diagram (Fig-
ure 6) representing the green-field business strategy.
Radanliev, P. Supp ly Chain Systems Architecture and Engineering Design : Green-field Supply Chain Integration,
Operations and Supply Chain Management
Figure 6: Greenfield business architecture formulated in the case study
Source: Prepared by the author
5.2 Critical Analysis of the conceptual system
The pursuit for validity of the conceptual system ap-
plied the qualitative research techniques recom-
mended in Perez-Franco et al., (2010) for open and
categorical coding analysis of qualitative data. This
resulted with a formulation of a green-field business
strategy that ensured integration on two levels:
1. Integration and anticipation of complexities when
multiple industries are involved.
2. Ensures that the green-field principles support,
compliment and enable the integrated architecture.
These steps represent the starting point of the integra-
tion design, where the formulation criteria are deter-
mined by identifying areas of the business strategy
that provide insights for the supply chain strategy for-
mulation. The second step is hierarchically linking the
formulation criteria by referring to the evaluation cri-
teria to formulate the supply chain strategy. The fol-
lowing evaluation criteria emerged from the formula-
tion:
1. Feasibility, the formulation must ensure that every
concept is feasible (Andrews et al., 2009, Inkpen
and Choudhury, 1995), and must be focused on
‘accepting’ and ‘acting’ upon reality (Pettigrew,
1977).
2. Sufficiency, the formulation needs to consider
concepts as objectives to be satisfied by the sup-
port received. Without sufficient coverage the sup-
ply chain strategy cannot be executed effectively
in sustaining the ‘goals’ of the integrated compa-
nies. The evaluation criterion is based on visibility
(Inkpen and Choudhury, 1995, Fisher, 1997).
3. Support, individual formulation criteria must be
targeted at providing support to at least one of the
concepts with higher ranking in the conceptual
framework. The evaluation criterion is based on
participation (Menda and Dilts, 1997, Karl-Erik,
2001, Zhou and Chen, 2001, Qureshi et al., 2009),
communication (Tracey et al., 1999), and formal-
ity (Andrews et al., 2009). This criterion is rein-
forced with the clarification criterion ‘adapting and
alignment’ and is based on: acceptance (Saad et al.,
2002), adaptability (Sakka et al., 2011, Saad et al.,
2002).
4. Compatibility the formulation must harmoniously
coexist with all other concepts. The criterion is fo-
cused on ‘flexibility’ (Narasimhan and Das, 1999,
Beamon, 1999, Kim, 2006). Compatibility can be
contextualised in the form of synergies in the con-
text of integration (Bozarth et al., 2009).
The evaluation and clarification criteria are designed
to address the main weaknesses identified in existing
literature in the context of supply chain strategy for-
mulation. The criteria also represent elements that are
valuable in turning the focus towards operationaliza-
tion. This process simplified the idea behind the ar-
chitecture and the principles that formulated the inte-
grated business strategy. Open coding provided a re-
liable representation of the data collected, while cate-
gorical coding subsequently recognised the insights
from the data and the 'profounder concepts' (Goulding
2002). Considering that the strategic architecture is
the fundamental aspect of the green-field formulation
and the strategic principles assist and enable the stra-
tegic architecture in integrating the principles behind
the architecture, the 'profounder concepts' of the con-
ceptual system derived with a number of conclusions:
1. Validating the integration between architecture
and principles in business strategy is instrumental
for linking accurately the coverage with the supply
chain activities.
2. Strategy validity and coverage of the green-field
business strategy is crucial for accomplishing the
strategic principles of individual participants.
3. The integration process requires focus on strategic
principles that are linked to the main activities.
4. Therefore, the strategic architecture depends on the
success of the strategic principles applied jointly
and individually.
To visualise the effect of these findings a new con-
ceptual diagram is presented (Figure 7). The system
Radanliev, P. Supp ly Chain Systems Architecture and Engineering Design : Green-field Supply Chain Integration,
Operations and Supply Chain Management
is redesigned accordingly to ensure validity and visi-
bility. This enabled presenting interdisciplinary inte-
gration concepts in a diagram involving multiple prin-
ciples and confirming that strategic principles influ-
ence the strategic architecture.
Figure 7: Conceptual system for Formulation of green-field integration
business and supply chain strategy
Source: Prepared by the author
The green-field business architecture as a for-
mulation concept enabled the research to determine a
method that links the interdisciplinary concept arising
from involving multiple participants. Also this re-
sulted in determining that the set of integrated strate-
gic principles (IPN) influence the integrated architec-
ture (ISV). In other words, the multiple principles de-
termine the architecture, while the architecture must
represent the principles. In other words, the principles
define the architecture and the architecture defines the
principles and can be seen as a system of tasks.
6. CONCLUSION
This study builds upon existing literature on integrat-
ing business and supply chain strategy (Kaplan and
Norton 1996, Frohlich and Westbrook 2001, Jayaram
and Tan 2010, Bryceson and Slaughter 2010, Prajogo
and Olhager 2012, Sukati et al. 2012), to derive with
a new conceptual system architecture for green-field
integration, based on earlier literature on supply chain
reformulation (Perez-Franco et al., 2010, Qu et al.
2010, Sakka et al., 2011, Córdova et al., 2012, Leng
and Chen, 2012).
The conceptual system for integrating individual prin-
ciples into green-field business strategy formulation
(Figure 6), derived with the conclusion that the busi-
ness objectives represent an architecture that serves as
a central idea that is best articulated through the inte-
grated operational capabilities and the individual op-
erational strategies (Figure 7).
The novelty of the conceptual system is in the engi-
neering of integrated architecture and design. The
conceptual system analyses and addresses the strategy
abstention and absence of operational capabilities and
evaluates the strategy engineering to determine the
right level of integration design. The new process is
based on extracting, evaluating and relating individ-
ual interests into integrated principles.
The study derived conclusions through the case study
and concluded that making strategy explicit is essen-
tial in the strategy integration process. The evidence
based case study confirmed that this approach is ac-
cepted by (C1,2,3,4). While (C5) preferred to keep their
strategy implicit and not to be revealed, because it
could leave them open to competitors. To address this
obstacle, the articulation approach was restructured
and documented, to serve as a tool for future research
studies that are presented with this obstacle. The syn-
thesis of the concepts and ideas, of the routine prob-
lems and issues related to architecting integrated
green-field strategy, concluded that tacit strategic in-
terests are required in an explicit form for the integra-
tion of the strategic principles to be considered repre-
sentative of a supply chain consortium.
The new process can be applied to eliminate the com-
plexities in a situation where absence of complete or
consistent data or information is present when formu-
lating a green-field supply chain. The conceptual sys-
tem designed a green-field integration strategy. The
process involved categorising individual supply chain
strategic interests and defining the integration strat-
egy as a system of concepts. This research contributed
to knowledge with advancement of the design engi-
neering method, which enables visualisation of the
supply chain strategy process. The design is not per-
sonalised for individual company business strategy or
supply chain strategy formulation. The method was
Radanliev, P. Supp ly Chain Systems Architecture and Engineering Design : Green-field Supply Chain Integration,
Operations and Supply Chain Management
personalised to evaluate the integration of individual
goals, and concepts in a supply chain strategy formu-
lation.
The novelty that emerged from this research was a
conceptual system for green-field project architecture
and integration design.
6.1 Limitations of the study
The conceptual design is aimed at generalising the
idea behind the green-field project formulation for the
mining supply chain strategy, to other sectors. How-
ever, this study involved a single case study and while
it is anticipated that the proposed conceptual frame-
work is suitable for other sectors, the findings would
need to be delimited through further research.
The research methodology recognises that there is
ambivalence in generalising the findings based on di-
versity as opposed to representativeness. The first
challenge is represented in the relationship between
the concepts, (ex. product family and the supply chain
strategy) and is exposed to uncertainties when taken
out of the context of the mining industry. A second
challenge became clearer when attempting to com-
pare the results between industries. If it is possible to
synthesise data in one industry but not in another, the
research will end up describing different industries,
but would not be able to compare them by applying
the same formulation parameters. The third challenge
can be anticipated in using qualitative interviews for
specific data collection in a small industry, such as the
mining industry in North Wales. The size of the in-
dustry increases the possibility of bias and distortions
in the conclusions, while the sensitive data would be
difficult to collect. The fourth challenge future re-
search studies will face in extracting tacit knowledge
and converting it into explicit, is the preference to-
wards desired over feasible principles. This issue be-
comes one of a degree in an integration scenario if a
researcher is faced with the responders’ avoidance of
criticism, conflict, disagreement, and controversy.
Future research studies should be aware that these
challenges will occur, regardless of confidentiality
agreements.
6.2 Future research avenues
The investigation into the strategic operational activ-
ities in this research is aimed at designing operational
green-field formulation. The new design brings strat-
egy dynamics through the feedback mechanisms,
where strategy absence effectively disables the feed-
back mechanisms. Further research is required into
the topic of addressing strategy absence, because in
such scenarios, the formulation would be difficult to
implement. A series of publications follows this re-
search 1,2,11–20,3,21–30,4–1031,32
7. REFERENCES
Andrews, R. B., George A. Law, J. W., Richard, M., 2009. Strategy
Formulation, Strategy Content and Performance: An Empirical
Analysis. Public Management Review, 11, pp. 1-22.
Bartolomei, J. C., M. Dahlgren, J., De Neufville, R., Maldonado, D.,
Wilds, J., 2007. Analysis and Applications of Design Structure
Matrix, Domain Mapping Matrix, and Engineering System Matrix
Framework. Citeseer, Thesis, MIT Press.
Beamon, B.M., 1998. Supply Chain Design and Analysis: Models and
Methods. International Journal of Production Economics, 55(3),
pp. 281–294
Bozarth, C.C., Warsinga, D.P., Flynnb, B.B., Flynn, E.J., 2009. The im-
pact of supply chain complexity on manufacturing plant perfor-
mance. Journal of Operations Management, 27(1), pp.78–93.
Bryceson, K.P. & Slaughter, G., 2010. Alignment of performance met-
rics in a multi
-
enterprise agribusiness. International Journal of
Productivity and Performance Management, 59(4), pp.325–350.
Charmaz, K. 2006. Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide
Through Qualitative Analysis, Sage Publications Ltd.
Cigolini, R., Cozzi, M. & Perona, M., 2004. A new framework for sup-
ply chain management. International Journal of Operations &
Production Management, 24(1), pp.7–41.
Clausing, D. P. 1992. Enhanced Quality Function Deployment (EQFD),
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, MIT Center For Ad-
vanced Engineering Study. MIT Press.
Córdova, F. Durán, C., Sepúlveda, J., Fernández, A., Rojas, M., 2012.
A Proposal of Logistic Services Innovation Strategy for a Mining
Company. Journal of technology management & innovation, 7(1),
pp.175–185.
Dotoli, M. Fanti, M. P., Melonia., & Zhoub, M.C., 2007. A multi-level
approach for network design of integrated supply chains. Interna-
tional Journal of Production Research. 43 (20), pp 4267-4287
Dubois, A., Hulthén, K. & Pedersen, A.-C., 2004. Supply chains and
interdependence: a theoretical analysis. Journal of Purchasing
and Supply Management, 10(1), pp.3–9.
Easterby-Smith, M. T., R. Lowe, A. 2002. Management Research: An
Introduction, Sage Publications Ltd.
Eisenhardt, K. M. 1989. Building Theories From Case Study Re-search.
Academy Of Management Review, 14(4), pp. 532-550.
Eppinger, S. D. W., Smith, R.P. Gebala, D.A. 1994. A Model-Based
Method for Organizing Tasks in Product Development. Research
in Engineering Design, 6 (1), pp.1-13.
Eriksson, P. K. K., A 2008. Qualitative Methods in Business Research.
Sage Publications, London.
Fisher, M. L. 1997. What Is the Right Supply Chain for Your Product?
Harvard Business Review, 75 (2), pp. 105-117.
Frohlich, M. & Westbrook, R., 2001. Arcs of Integration: An Interna-
tional Study of Supply Chain Strategies. Journal of Operations
Management. 19 (2001), pp. 185–200.
Goulding, C. 2002. Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide for Manage-
ment, Business and Market Researchers, Sage Publications Ltd.
Gummesson, E. 2000. Qualitative Methods in Management Re-search,
Sage Publications, Inc.
Hafeez, K., Griffiths, K.M., Griffiths, J., & Naim, M.M., 1996. Systems
design of a two-echelon steel industry supply chain. International
Journal of Production Economics, 45(1-3), pp.121–130.
Hines, T. 2004. Supply Chain Strategies: Customer-Driven and Cus-
tomer-Focused, Oxford, Butterworth-Heinemann.
Inkpen, A. & Choudhury, N., 1995. The seeking of strategy where it is
not: Towards a theory of strategy absence. Strategic Management
Journal, 16(4), pp.313–323.
Radanliev, P. Supp ly Chain Systems Architecture and Engineering Design : Green-field Supply Chain Integration,
Operations and Supply Chain Management
Ivanov, D., 2010. An adaptive framework for aligning (re)planning de-
cisions on supply chain strategy, design, tactics, and operations.
International Journal of Production Research, 48(13), pp.3999–
4017.
Jayaram, J. & Tan, K.-C., 2010. Supply Chain Integration with Third-
Party Logistics Providers. International Journal of Production
Economics, 125 (2), pp. 262–271
Kaplan, R. & Norton, D., 1996. Using the balanced scorecard as a stra-
tegic management system. Harvard Business Review (Janu-
ary/February): 74 (1), pp. 75-85
Karl-Erik, S. 2001. A Knowledge-Based Theory of the Firm to Guide in
Strategy Formulation. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 2 (4), pp.
344-358.
Kim, D., 2006. Process chain: A new paradigm of collaborative com-
merce and synchronized supply chain. Business Horizons, 49(5),
pp.359–367.
Leng, K. & Chen, X., 2012. A genetic algorithm approach for TOC-
based supply chain coordination. Applied Mathematics & Infor-
mation Sciences, 6 (3), pp. 767-774
Love, L., Priem, R. & Lumpkin, G., 2002. Explicitly articulated strat-
egy and firm performance under alternative levels of centraliza-
tion. Journal of Management. 28 (5), pp. 611-627
Martínez-Olvera, C. & Shunk, D., 2006. Comprehensive framework for
the development of a supply chain strategy. International Journal
of Production Research, 44(21), pp.4511–4528.
Melnyk, S.A., Narasimhan, R. & DeCampos, H.A., 2013. Supply chain
design: issues, challenges, frameworks and solutions. Interna-
tional Journal of Production Research, 52(7), pp.1887–1896.
Menda, R. & Dilts, D., 1997. The manufacturing strategy formulation
process: linking multifunctional viewpoints. Journal of Opera-
tions Management. 15 (4), pp. 223–241
Mentzer, J.T., DeWitt, W., Keebler, J.S., Min. S., Nix, N.W., Smith,
C.D., Zacharia, Z.G., 2001. Defining Supply Chain Management.
Journal of Business Logistics, 22(2), pp.1–25.
Miles, M. H., 1984. Qualitative Data Analysis: A Sourcebook of New
Methods, Beverly Hills, Ca, Sage Publications.
Mintzberg, H., 1990. The design school: reconsidering the basic prem-
ises of strategic management. Strategic management journal. 11
(3), pp. 171–195,
Narasimhan, R. & Das, A., 1999. Manufacturing agility and supply
chain management practices. Production and Inventory Manage-
ment Journal, 40(1), pp. 4-10.
Narasimhan, R., Kim, S.-W. & Tan, K.-C., 2008. An Empirical Investi-
gation of Supply Chain Strategy Typologies and Relationships to
Performance. International Journal of Production Research,
46(18), pp.5231 – 5259.
Perez – Franco, R. J, Sheffi, Y. Silbey, S., Frey, D., Singh, M., Leveson,
N. 2010. A Methodology to Capture, Evaluate and Reformulate a
Firm's Supply Chain Strategy as a Conceptual System. PhD The-
sis, MIT Press
Pettigrew, A. M. 1977. Strategy Formulation as a Political Process. In-
ternational Studies of Management & Organization, 7 (2), pp.78-
87.
Prajogo, D., & Olhager, J., 2012. Supply chain integration and perfor-
mance: The effects of long-term relationships, information tech-
nology and sharing, and logistics integration. International Jour-
nal of Production Economics, 135(1), pp.514–522.
Pugh, S., 1990. Total Design: Integrated Methods for Successful Prod-
uct Engineering, Addison-Wesley Wokingham, UK.
Qu, T. Huanga, G. Q., Cungb, V., & Mangioneb, F., 2010. Optimal
configuration of assembly supply chains using analytical target
cascading. International Journal of Production Research, 48(23),
pp.6883–6907.
Quinn, J. B., 1977. Strategic Principles: Process and Politics. Sloan
Management Review, 21(4), pp.21-37.
Qureshi, M. N., Kumar, P., & Kumar, D., 2009. Selection of Transpor-
tation Company: An Analytic Network Process Approach. Icfai
Journal of Supply Chain Management, 6(2), pp.26-38.
Saad, M., Jones, M. & James, P., 2002. A review of the progress towards
the adoption of supply chain management (SCM) relationships in
construction. European Journal of Purchasing & Supply Manage-
ment, 8(3), pp.173–183.
Sakka, O., Millet, P.A. & Bot ta-Genoulaz, V., 2011. An ontological ap-
proach for strategic alignment: a supply chain operations refer-
ence case study. International Journal of Computer Integrated
Manufacturing, 24(11), pp.1022–1037.
Schnetzler, M.J., Sennheiser, A. & Schönsleben, P., 2007. A decompo-
sition-based approach for the development of a supply chain
strategy. International Journal of Production Economics, 105(1),
pp.21–42.
Sukati, I., Hamid, A.B., Baharun, B., Yusoff. R.M.,, 2012. The Study
of Supply Chain Management Strategy and Practices on Supply
Chain Performance. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences,
40, pp.225–233.
Tracey, M., Vonderembse, M.A. & Lim, J.-S., 1999. Manufacturing
technology and strategy formulation: keys to enhancing competi-
tiveness and improving performance. Journal of Operations Man-
agement, 17(4), pp.411–428.
Zhou, S. & Chen, R., 2001. A decision model for selecting participants
in supply chain. Journal of Shanghai University (English Edition),
5(4), pp.341–344.
1. Nicolescu, R., Huth, M., Radanliev, P. & De Roure, D.
Mapping the values of IoT. J. Inf. Technol. 1–16 (2018).
doi:10.1057/s41265-018-0054-1
2. Taylor, P., Allpress, S., Carr, M., Lupu, E., Norton, J., Smith,
L., Blackstock, J., Boyes, H., Hudson-Smith, A., Brass, I.,
Chizari, H., Cooper, R., Coulton, P., Craggs, B., Davies, N.,
De Roure, D., Elsden, M., Huth, M., Lindley, J., Maple, C.,
Mittelstadt, B., Nicolescu, R., Nurse, J., Procter, R., Radanliev,
P., Rashid, A., Sgandurra, D., Skatova, A., Taddeo, M.,
Tanczer, L., Vieira-Steiner, R., … R.J., Westbury, P. S.
Internet of Things realising the potential of a trusted smart
world. (2018).
3. Radanliev, P., De Roure, D., Nurse, J. R., Burnap, P., Anthi,
E., Ani, U., … Mantilla Montalvo, R. Cyber risk from IoT
technologies in the supply chain-discussion on supply chains
decision support system for the digital economy. Univ. Oxford
(2019). doi:10.13140/RG.2.2.17286.22080
4. Radanliev, P., Charles De Roure, D., Nurse, J. R. C., Burnap,
P. & Montalvo, R. M. Methodology for designing decision
support supply chain systems for visualising and mitigating
cyber risk from IoT technologies. Working paper. (2019).
doi:10.13140/RG.2.2.32975.53921
5. Radanliev, P., De Roure, D. C., Nurse, J. R. C., Montalvo, R.
M. & Burnap, P. The Industrial Internet-of-Things in the
Industry 4.0 supply chains of small and medium sized
enterprises. Working paper. (2019).
Radanliev, P. Supp ly Chain Systems Architecture and Engineering Design : Green-field Supply Chain Integration,
Operations and Supply Chain Management
doi:10.13140/RG.2.2.14140.49283
6. Radanliev, P., Roure, D. C. De, Nurse, J. R. C., Burnap, P.,
Eirini Anthi, Ani, U., … Montalvo, R. M. Design principles
for cyber risk impact assessment from Internet of Things (IoT).
Wokring paper. (2019). doi:10.13140/RG.2.2.33014.86083
7. Radanliev, P., De Roure, D. C., Nurse, J. R. C., Rafael, M. M.
& Burnap, P. Supply Chain Design for the Industrial Internet
of Things and the Industry 4.0. (2019).
doi:10.13140/RG.2.2.36311.32160
8. Radanliev, P., De Roure, D. C., Nurse, J. R. C. C., Nicolescu,
R., Huth, M., Cannady, S. & Montalvo, R. M. New
developments in Cyber Physical Systems, the Internet of
Things and the Digital Economy – future developments in the
Industrial Internet of Things and Industry 4.0. (2019).
doi:10.13140/RG.2.2.14133.93921
9. Radanliev, P. Supply Chain Systems Architecture and
Engineering Design: Green-field Supply Chain Integration.
Oper. Supply Chain Manag. An Int. J. 9, (2016).
10. Radanliev, P., Charles De Roure, D., Maple, C., Nurse, J. R.
C., Nicolescu, R. & Ani, U. Cyber Risk in IoT Systems. Journal
of Cyber Policy (2019). doi:10.13140/RG.2.2.29652.86404
11. Radanliev, P., De Roure, D., Nicolescu, R., Huth, M.,
Montalvo, R. M., Cannady, S. & Burnap, P. Future
developments in cyber risk assessment for the internet of
things. Comput. Ind. 102, 14–22 (2018).
12. Radanliev, P., De Roure, D., Nurse, J. R. C., Nicolescu, R.,
Huth, M., Cannady, S. & Montalvo, R. M. Cyber Security
Framework for the Internet-of-Things in Industry 4.0. (2019).
doi:10.13140/RG.2.2.32955.87845
13. Radanliev, P., Rowlands, H. & Thomas, A. Supply Chain
Paradox: Green-field Architecture for Sustainable Strategy
Formulation. in Cardiff: Sustainable Design and
Manufacturing 2014, Part 2, International Conference (eds.
Setchi, R., Howlett, R. J., Naim, M. & Seinz, H.) 839–850
(Future Technology Press, 2014).
14. Radanliev, P. A conceptual framework for supply chain
systems architecture and integration design based on practice
and theory in the North Wales slate mining industry. (British
Library, 2014). doi:ISNI: 0000 0004 5352 6866
15. Radanliev, P. Architectures for Green-Field Supply Chain
Integration. J. Supply Chain Oper. Manag. 13, (2015).
16. Radanliev, P., Roure, D. C. De, Nurse, J. R. C., Burnap, P.,
Anthi, E., Ani, U., … Montalvo, R. M. Definition of Internet
of Things (IoT) Cyber Risk – Discussion on a Transformation
Roadmap for Standardisation of Regulations, Risk Maturity,
Strategy Design and Impact Assessment. (Preprints, 2019).
doi:10.13140/RG.2.2.17305.88167
17. Radanliev, P., De Roure, D., Cannady, S., Montalvo, R. .,
Nicolescu, R. & Huth, M. Economic impact of IoT cyber risk
- analysing past and present to predict the future developments
in IoT risk analysis and IoT cyber insurance. in Living in the
Internet of Things: Cybersecurity of the IoT - 2018 3 (9 pp.)
(Institution of Engineering and Technology, 2018).
doi:10.1049/cp.2018.0003
18. Radanliev, P. Green-field Architecture for Sustainable Supply
Chain Strategy Formulation. Int. J. Supply Chain Manag. 4,
62–67 (2015).
19. Nicolescu, R., Huth, M., Radanliev, P. & De Roure, D. State
of The Art in IoT - Beyond Economic Value. (2018).
20. Radanliev, P., De Roure, D., Nurse, J. R. C. C., Nicolescu, R.,
Huth, M., Cannady, S. & Montalvo, R. M. Cyber risk impact
assessment – assessing the risk from the IoT to the digital
economy. (2019). doi:10.13140/RG.2.2.11145.49768
21. Nurse, J. R. C., Radanliev, P., Creese, S. & De Roure, D.
Realities of Risk: ‘If you can’t understand it, you can’t
properly assess it!’: The reality of assessing security risks in
Internet of Things systems. in Living in the Internet of Things:
Cybersecurity of the IoT - 2018 1–9 (The Institution of
Engineering and Technology, 2018).
doi:10.1049/cp.2018.0001
22. Radanliev, P., De Roure, D., Nicolescu, R. & Huth, M. A
reference architecture for integrating the Industrial Internet of
Things in the Industry 4.0. Working paper. (2019).
doi:10.13140/RG.2.2.26854.47686
23. Radanliev, P., De Roure, C. D., Nurse, .R.C., Nicolescu, R.,
Huth, M., Cannady, C. & Montalvo, R. M. Integration of Cyber
Security Frameworks, Models and Approaches for Building
Design Principles for the Internet-of-things in Industry 4.0. in
Living in the Internet of Things: Cybersecurity of the IoT -
2018 41 (6 pp.)-41 (6 pp.) (IET, 2018).
doi:10.1049/cp.2018.0041
24. Radanliev, P., Roure, D. De, Nurse, J. R. C., Nicolescu, R.,
Huth, M., Cannady, S. & Montalvo, R. M. New Developments
in Cyber Physical Systems, the Internet of Things and the
Digital Economy – Discussion on Future Developments in the
Industrial Internet of Things and Industry 4.0. (2019).
doi:10.20944/PREPRINTS201903.0094.V1
25. Radanliev, P., De Roure, D., Cannady, S., Montalvo, R. M.,
Nicolescu, R. & Huth, M. Analysing IoT cyber risk for
estimating IoT cyber insurance. (2019).
doi:10.13140/RG.2.2.25006.36167
26. Radanliev, P., De Roure, D. C., Nurse, J. R. C., Montalvo, R.
M. & Burnap, P. Standardisation of cyber risk impact
assessment for the Internet of Things (IoT). (2019).
doi:10.13140/RG.2.2.27903.05280
27. Radanliev, P. Engineering Design Methodology for Green-
Field Supply Chain Architectures Taxonomic Scheme. J.
Oper. Supply Chain Manag. 8, 52–66 (2015).
28. Radanliev, P., DeRoure, D., Nurse, J. R. C., Burnap, P., Anthi,
E., Ani, U., … Montalvo, R. M. Definition of Cyber Strategy
Transformation Roadmap for Standardisation of IoT Risk
Impact Assessment with a Goal-Oriented Approach and the
Internet of Things Micro Mart. Working paper. (2019).
doi:10.13140/RG.2.2.12462.77124
29. Radanliev, P., Roure, D. C. De, Nurse, J. R. C., Burnap, P.,
Anthi, E., Ani, U., … Montalvo, R. M. Cyber risk from IoT
technologies in the supply chain – decision support system for
the Industry 4.0. (2019). doi:10.13140/RG.2.2.17286.22080
30. Radanliev, P., Roure, D. De, Nurse, J. R. C., Nicolescu, R.,
Huth, M., Cannady, S. & Montalvo, R. M. Cyber Risk impact
Assessment - Assessing the Risk from the IoT to the Digital
Economy. Univ. Oxford (2019).
doi:10.20944/PREPRINTS201903.0109.V1
31. Radanliev, P. Cyber Risk Management for the Internet of
Things. Univ. Oxford (2019).
32. Radanliev, P. CYBER RISK IMPACT ASSESSMENT. Univ.
Oxford (2019).
Dr Petar Radanliev is a Postdoctoral Research Ass ociate at the University of Oxford. Dr Radanliev holds a Ph.D. in Technology from the
University of South Wales, MSc (Econ) and BA (Hons) from University of Wales, Aberystwyth. In 2010, Dr Petar Radanliev was awarded a
Prince of Wales Innovation Scholarship and has been working on collaborative research with MIT-ILP on the ‘Supply Chain 2020’ project. His
primary areas of research are: supply chain and smart city design, green-field architectures and environmental science and technologies.
