Multidisciplinary Journal Epistemology of the Sciences
Volume 2, Issue 4, 2025, October-December
DOI: https://doi.org/10.71112/s6e6s531
DIGITAL TRANSFORMATION AS A CATALYST FOR ORGANIZATIONAL AGILITY
AND BUSINESS RESILIENCE IN THE POST-PANDEMIC CONTEXT
LA TRANSFORMACIÓN DIGITAL COMO CATALIZADOR DE LA AGILIDAD
ORGANIZACIONAL Y LA RESILIENCIA EMPRESARIAL EN EL CONTEXTO
POSTPANDEMIA
Yesica Lorena Estrada Chica
Carlos Alberto Jimenez Vera
Diana Marcela Gómez Ramírez
Colombia
DOI: https://doi.org/10.71112/s6e6s531
268 Multidisciplinary Journal Epistemology of the Sciences | Vol. 2, Issue 4, 2025, October–December
Digital transformation as a catalyst for organizational agility and business
resilience in the post-pandemic context
La transformación digital como catalizador de la agilidad organizacional y la
resiliencia empresarial en el contexto postpandemia
Yesica Lorena Estrada Chica
1
yesica.estrada@unad.edu.co
https://orcid.org/0009-0008-1862-8572
Universidad Nacional Abierta y Distancia
Colombia
Carlos Alberto Jimenez Vera
carlos.jimenezv@unad.edu.co
https://orcid.org/0009-0009-1772-2126
Universidad Nacional Abierta y Distancia
Colombia
Diana Marcela Gómez Ramírez
dianam.gomez@unad.edu.co
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7127-0014
Universidad Nacional Abierta y Distancia,
Colombia
RESUMEN
El entorno postpandemia, caracterizado por la volatilidad, incertidumbre, complejidad y
ambigüedad (VUCA), exige agilidad organizacional (AO) y resiliencia empresarial (RE) como
condiciones críticas de supervivencia. La transformación digital (TD) se reconoce como
catalizador fundamental, aunque la literatura carece de un análisis sistemático sobre su
impacto en AO y RE. Este estudio desarrolla una revisión sistemática de la literatura (354
artículos de Scopus y Web of Science, 2018–2026) para explorar: (i) la relación entre TD, AO y
RE; (ii) los impulsores de la agilidad; (iii) el papel de la AO digitalizada en la resiliencia; y (iv)
1
Correspondencia: yesica.estrada@unad.edu.co
DOI: https://doi.org/10.71112/s6e6s531
269 Multidisciplinary Journal Epistemology of the Sciences | Vol. 2, Issue 4, 2025, October–December
barreras, facilitadores y factores contextuales. Los resultados confirman el efecto positivo de la
TD sobre la RE, mediado por innovación y respuesta ágil, con marcos como RBV, DCT, IPT,
SCT e Industria 4.0. El estudio aporta implicaciones teóricas y prácticas para estrategias
digitales que fortalezcan la AO y la RE en entornos disruptivos.
Palabras clave: transformación digital (TD); agilidad organizacional (AO); resiliencia
empresarial (RE); entorno VUCA; capacidades dinámicas
ABSTRACT
The post-pandemic VUCA environment demands organizational agility (OA) and business
resilience (BR). Digital transformation (DT) is recognized as a key catalyst, yet systematic
analyses of its effects on OA and BR and the factors moderating this relationship remain scarce.
This systematic literature review of 354 articles (Scopus and Web of Science, 2018–2026)
investigates: (i) links among DT, OA and BR; (ii) drivers of agility; (iii) how digitalized OA fosters
resilience; and (iv) barriers, enablers and contextual moderators. Findings show a positive effect
of DT on BR, mediated by innovation and agile response. The relationships are supported by
theoretical lenses (RBV, DCT, IPT, SCT) and models such as EFQM 2025 and Industry 4.0.
Identified barriers include resistance to change and organizational culture; enablers include
leadership and dynamic capabilities. Firm size and digital maturity act as key moderators.
Implications are offered for DT strategies to strengthen OA and BR.
Keywords: digital transformation; organizational agility; business resilience; VUCA
environment; dynamic capabilities
Received: September 29, 2025 | Accepted: October 15, 2025
DOI: https://doi.org/10.71112/s6e6s531
270 Multidisciplinary Journal Epistemology of the Sciences | Vol. 2, Issue 4, 2025, October–December
INTRODUCTION
The current business environment is defined by volatility, uncertainty, complexity, and
ambiguity (VUCA), exacerbated by global disruptive events such as the COVID-19 pandemic
and geopolitical conflicts (Ashkanasy et al., 2025; Pennetta, 2025; Syamsir et al., 2025;
Ramírez-Soto et al., 2024). In this context, digital transformation (DT) has become an
indispensable strategy for organizations not only to survive but also to thrive (Berawi et al.,
2020; Li et al., 2022). DT involves the integration of digital technologies across all aspects of
business, fundamentally altering how firms operate and deliver value to their customers
(Nugraha et al., 2025; Assal, 2024).
In parallel, organizational agility (OA) and business resilience (BR) have emerged as
critical capabilities for adapting quickly to changes and effectively recovering from adversity
(Zhang et al., 2025). OA refers to an organization’s ability to sense and respond rapidly to
market changes (Aljawazneh, 2024). BR, in turn, denotes the capacity to withstand and recover
from disruptions, and even adapt or transform in their aftermath (Ivanov, 2022).
The interconnection among these three constructs is increasingly evident. DT is not
merely a technological trend but a fundamental catalyst for agility and resilience, enabling firms
to reinvent their operations, strategies, and business models (Sagala & Őri, 2025). However,
DT’s benefits are contingent on moderating factors—organizational culture, leadership, and
resource availability—that can enable or constrain successful implementation (Castillo et al.,
2025; Korobkina & Dashenkova, 2025).
Despite growing interest, significant gaps remain in the comprehensive understanding of
how DT influences OA and BR—both configurationally and through mediation—particularly in
the context of recent global disruptions. Therefore, this study synthesizes recent evidence to
provide a holistic perspective on these interactions.
This systematic literature review addresses the following research questions (RQs):
DOI: https://doi.org/10.71112/s6e6s531
271 Multidisciplinary Journal Epistemology of the Sciences | Vol. 2, Issue 4, 2025, October–December
• RQ1: What is the conceptual and empirical relationship between digital transformation,
organizational agility, and business resilience as discussed in recent academic literature?
• RQ2: What frameworks, models, and specific practices of digital transformation are
identified in the literature as the main drivers of organizational agility?
• RQ3: How does organizational agility, facilitated by digitalization, translate into greater
business resilience in the face of external disruptions (economic, health-related, geopolitical)?
• RQ4: What barriers, enablers, and contextual factors (e.g., organizational culture,
leadership, firm size) moderate the effectiveness of digital transformation in enhancing agility
and resilience?
The paper is structured as follows: Section 2 presents the theoretical foundation
underpinning the study. Section 3 details the methodology of the systematic review. Section 4
reports the findings, organized according to the research questions. Finally, Section 5 outlines
the conclusions, implications, study limitations, and future research directions.
Theoretical foundation
This research integrates perspectives from strategic management, information systems,
and organizational behavior to explain the interconnection between digital transformation (DT),
organizational agility (OA), and business resilience (BR) in the post-pandemic context. The
framework builds on the Resource-Based View (RBV), Dynamic Capabilities Theory (DCT),
Information Processing Theory (IPT), Social Cognitive Theory (SCT), and Diffusion of
Innovation Theory (DOI), complemented by management models (EFQM 2025, digital maturity)
and contemporary concepts (IS ambidexterity, Industry 4.0/5.0) (Cosa & Torelli, 2024;
Chavarnakul et al., 2025; Gallego Cossio et al., 2025; Syamsir et al., 2025).
Resource-Based View (RBV) and Dynamic Capabilities Theory (DCT)
The Resource-Based View (RBV) is a central theory explaining how organizations
achieve sustainable competitive advantages through the accumulation and deployment of
DOI: https://doi.org/10.71112/s6e6s531
272 Multidisciplinary Journal Epistemology of the Sciences | Vol. 2, Issue 4, 2025, October–December
valuable, rare, inimitable, and non-substitutable resources (Barney, 1991; Hall, 1993; Grant,
1991; Wernerfelt, 1984, 1995 as cited in Siddique et al., 2025; Zhang et al., 2025; Ahmed et al.,
2025). In information systems, RBV highlights resources such as updated information quality,
staff skills, and executives’ innovativeness as fundamental for organizational success (Wade &
Hulland, 2004 as cited in Siddique et al., 2025; Berawi et al., 2020; Li et al., 2022). Accordingly,
RBV suggests that organizations can secure competitive advantage by cultivating distinctive
resources that enable adaptation to rapidly evolving digital environments (Gallego Cossio et al.,
2025; Rizana et al., 2024; Sagala & Őri, 2025).
Complementarily, Dynamic Capabilities Theory (DCT) explaining how firms transform
digital resources into resilience and antifragility by integrating, building, and reconfiguring
competencies in fast-changing environments (Sagala & Őri, 2025; Ivanov, 2022). Key
microfoundations include IS-ambidexterity—simultaneous exploration and exploitation of
information systems—recognized as critical for agility (Siddique et al., 2025). Kwiotkowska
(2024) further identifies three core dynamic capabilities: sensing, seizing, and reconfiguring, all
of which are essential for organizational resilience, particularly in capital-intensive firms.
In this study, RBV explains how digital resources enable OA, while DCT clarifies how
these dynamic capabilities allow OA to translate into BR under disruptive contexts.
Information Processing Theory (IPT)
Information Processing Theory (IPT) argues that digital infrastructures (e.g., digital supply
chains) increase firms’ information-processing capacity, improving decision speed and quality
and thus operational efficiency (Joshi & Sharma, 2022; Li et al., 2022; Ivanov, 2022). This
framework supports the DT → OA pathway, showing how digitalized information enhances
decision-making speed and quality—an essential condition for OA to foster BR.
Social Cognitive Theory (SCT)
To capture broader aspects of organizational resilience—beyond resources and
structure, incorporating cognitive processes and social interactions of managers and
DOI: https://doi.org/10.71112/s6e6s531
273 Multidisciplinary Journal Epistemology of the Sciences | Vol. 2, Issue 4, 2025, October–December
employees—this study draws on Social Cognitive Theory (SCT) (Zhang et al., 2025; Nolte &
Lindenmeier, 2024). explains how cognitive and social processes—self-efficacy, emotional
regulation, and manager–employee interactions—shape organizational resilience, linking
human factors to the DT → OA → BR causal chain (Pennetta, 2025).
Diffusion of Innovation Theory (DOI)
Diffusion of Innovation Theory (DOI) explains how innovation adoption spreads in social
systems, shaping digital competence and learning essential for agility and resilience (Starke &
Ludviga, 2025; Robinson, 2009; Berawi et al., 2020; Li et al., 2022; Del Giudice et al., 2021).
From this perspective, DOI justifies differences in DT effectiveness based on adoption
levels, moderating the DT → OA pathway and its impact on BR (Piprani et al., 2024).
Key Management Models and Frameworks 140
• EFQM 2025 Model: A structured framework emphasizing disruption management,
business continuity, and data-driven insights, integrating sustainability and technologies like AI
and Big Data, while highlighting agility, organizational resilience, and new work forms such as
remote, hybrid, and Lean (Martusewicz et al., 2024; Ivanov, 2022).
• Performance Management Systems (PMSs): per Henri’s (2006) framework (as cited
in Cosa & Torelli, 2024), cover monitoring, focus of attention, strategic decision-making, and
legitimation. In the digital era PMSs have shifted from “rationalization machines” to strategic
assets that support organizational adaptability and resilience. (Cosa & Torelli, 2024; Eriksson &
Lycke, 2025).
• RocaSalvatella Model: A holistic model for DT incorporating strategic vision,
operational processes, and organizational culture (Gallego Cossio et al., 2025; Cosa & Torelli,
2024).
• Digital Maturity Models: Measure DT progression based on digital intensity and
transformation management intensity (Cosa & Torelli, 2024; Kwiotkowska, 2024; Li et al., 2022).
High digital maturity fosters organizational resilience by developing sensing and seizing
DOI: https://doi.org/10.71112/s6e6s531
274 Multidisciplinary Journal Epistemology of the Sciences | Vol. 2, Issue 4, 2025, October–December
capabilities (Kwiotkowska, 2024; Debnath et al., 2023; Zouari et al., 2021; Ziari & Taleizadeh,
2025; Castillo et al., 2025).
These frameworks provide operationalizations that measure DT progression, its influence
on OA, and how OA mediates toward BR.
Key Concepts for Digital Agility and Resilience
• Digital Capabilities: Essential for SMEs’ successful DT; deeper learning and stronger
digital capacity support not only adaptation but also antifragility—the ability to grow stronger
through disruptions (Sagala & Őri, 2025; Doukidis et al., 2024; Li et al., 2022; Ameen & Tarba,
2025; Maalouf et al., 2025).
• Culture of Dignity: Proposed as a neurocognitive infrastructure that shapes team
thinking, creating an adaptive environment where information complexity becomes a productive
variation of strategic options. It acts as a “soft architecture” connecting operational, coordination,
and strategic management levels through trust and sensemaking. This culture is particularly
relevant in contexts of digital exhaustion, fragmented interaction, and organizational turbulence
(Korobkina & Dashenkova, 2025).
• Transformational and Digital Leadership: Leadership models that link strategic goal-
setting with organizational adaptation and foster intelligent organizations where human–AI
collaboration improves real-time decision-making; leadership agility and an innovation-oriented
culture are central to Industry 5.0 values and resilient DT (Gallego Cossio et al., 2025; Razzak
et al., 2025; Chatterjee et al., 2023; Castillo et al., 2025; Boumsisse et al., 2025; Assal, 2024;
Gomaa, 2025; Syamsir et al., 2025).
• Antifragility: SMEs can not only survive but strengthen through crises when flexibility,
agility, and robust digital capabilities are present (Sagala & Őri, 2025; Corvello et al., 2023).
• Industry 4.0 and Industry 5.0: Industry 4.0 (I4.0) encompasses advanced
technologies such as AI, IoT, Big Data Analytics, and automation, all essential for supply chain
agility and resilience (Giudice et al., 2021; Santhi & Muthuswamy, 2022; Han & Trimi, 2022;
DOI: https://doi.org/10.71112/s6e6s531
275 Multidisciplinary Journal Epistemology of the Sciences | Vol. 2, Issue 4, 2025, October–December
Ivanov, 2022; Ghabak & Chaugule, 2024; Centobelli et al., 2020; Amrani et al., 2024). Industry
5.0 (I5.0) goes further, focusing on a human-centered technological paradigm that strengthens
resilience and integrates sustainability into operations, emphasizing human–machine
collaboration (Castillo et al., 2025; Kowalska et al., 2023; Rijwani et al., 2024; Moser et al.,
2025; Belhadi et al., 2024; Chirumalla, 2021).
• Innovation Capability and Agile Response: DT supports innovation activities,
enhancing firms’ ability to respond to uncertainty and competition (Berawi et al., 2020; Li et al.,
2022; Zhang et al., 2025). Agile responses improve information acquisition and transmission
efficiency (Slaiby et al., 2025), enabling firms to adjust strategies flexibly and respond quickly to
market fluctuations and crises (Nolte & Lindenmeier, 2024; Ivanov, 2022; Zhang et al., 2025;
Rizana et al., 2024; Aljawazneh, 2024; Ghezzi & Cavallo, 2020).
These concepts integrate the mechanisms linking DT - OA – BR and reinforce the study’s
research model. This theoretical foundation guides the literature analysis and frames how digital
transformation acts as a catalyst for agility and resilience in dynamic environments (Jelisic et al.,
2024; Gallego Cossio et al., 2025; Rincón-Guio et al., 2025; Nolte & Lindenmeier, 2024; Rana
et al., 2025).
METHODOLOGY
Design and guidelines
This study adopts a Systematic Literature Review (SLR) to synthesize evidence on the
relationship between digital transformation (DT), organizational agility (OA), and business
resilience (BR). The SLR offers a comprehensive, replicable, and less biased method for
mapping emergent concepts, identifying gaps, and guiding future research in information
systems and management. (Cosa & Torelli, 2024; Gallego Cossio et al., 2025; Pennetta, 2025;
Sagala & Őri, 2025; Chavarnakul et al., 2025).
DOI: https://doi.org/10.71112/s6e6s531
276 Multidisciplinary Journal Epistemology of the Sciences | Vol. 2, Issue 4, 2025, October–December
To ensure rigor, the SLR followed established guidelines, including PRISMA (Preferred
Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) (Gallego Cossio et al., 2025;
Pennetta, 2025; Joshi & Sharma, 2022) and the structured review principles of Tranfield et al.
(2003) (Cosa & Torelli, 2024; Sagala & Őri, 2025).
Sources and search strategy
Primary studies were searched in Scopus and Web of Science, given their reputation for
indexing high-quality publications in business, management, economics, and the social
sciences (Gallego Cossio et al., 2025; Pennetta et al., 2025; Sagala & Őri, 2025)
The search strategy combined keywords aligned with the research questions:
• "digital transformation" OR "digital strategy" OR "digital disruption" OR "digitalize" OR
"digitize" OR "IT transformation" OR "IS transformation"
• AND "organizational agility" OR "agile response" OR "flexibility" OR "adaptability"
• AND "business resilience" OR "organizational resilience" OR "enterprise resilience" OR
"firm resilience" OR "antifragility"
• AND "post-pandemic" OR "COVID-19" OR "crisis" OR "disruption" OR "VUCA"
Filters limited results to peer-reviewed articles and reviews; academic books/chapters
and conference papers included when offering quality empirical evidence or modeling, all in
English. The time window spanned January 2018 to September 2025 to capture recent, post-
pandemic insights (Gallego Cossio et al., 2025; Pennetta, 2025).
Eligibility criteria
• Inclusion criteria:
a) Empirical and systematic review articles in peer-reviewed journals, plus books, book
chapters, and conference papers.
b) Written in English.
c) Studies examining relationships among DT, OA, and/or BR, including
mediators/moderators.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.71112/s6e6s531
277 Multidisciplinary Journal Epistemology of the Sciences | Vol. 2, Issue 4, 2025, October–December
d) Papers discussing strategies, frameworks, models, practices, barriers, enablers, or
contextual factors of DT in relation to agility and resilience.
e) Publication within 2018–2025.
• Exclusion criteria:
a) Editorials, theses, preprints, or industry reports (unless used secondarily for context).
b) Articles not directly addressing the research questions.
c) Duplicates.
d) Outside the specified time range.
e) (repeat) Articles not directly addressing the research questions.
f) Studies addressing external factors and/or regulation in isolation (without SMEs’
strategic responses).
Study selection (PRISMA)
The selection was carried out in stages following the PRISMA flow diagram presented in
Figure 1, in order to minimize bias (Cosa & Torelli, 2024; Gallego Cossio et al., 2025; Pennetta,
2025, 2015; Joshi & Sharma, 2022).
Figure 1
PRISMA flow diagram for the systematic review
DOI: https://doi.org/10.71112/s6e6s531
278 Multidisciplinary Journal Epistemology of the Sciences | Vol. 2, Issue 4, 2025, October–December
1. Identification: 258 initial records were retrieved from Scopus and Web of Science using
the defined strategy.
2. Screening: 102 duplicates were removed from 258 records. The remaining 156 unique
records were screened by title and abstract for relevance.
3. Eligibility: Full texts of the 156 articles were assessed against inclusion/exclusion
criteria.
4. Inclusion: 106 articles met all criteria and were included in the qualitative synthesis
Data extraction and management
Data extraction covered title, authors, abstract, year, country, research questions, study
design, sample size, and key findings (Cosa & Torelli, 2024; Gallego Cossio et al., 2025; Sagala
& Őri, 2025; Pennetta, 2025).
Synthesis combined thematic analysis—following Wolcott’s (1994) steps of sketching,
coding/condensing, and contextualizing—with topic modeling (NMF on a TF–IDF matrix of 156
abstracts) to identify ten emergent thematic clusters (Sagala & Őri, 2025; Gallego Cossio et al.,
2025).
The results of the data extraction and synthesis are summarized in Table 1, which reports
the ten thematic clusters derived from the combined qualitative and quantitative procedures.
Table 1
Clusters of Literature on Digital Transformation, Agility, and Resilience
Cluster
Name
N° of
Articles
Top Keywords
1
Supply Chain Resilience
4.0 (AI/IoT/DT)
31
Supply, supply chain, chain, chain
resilience, resilience, supply chains,
chain, chains, agility, study, industry
2
Dynamic Capabilities
(RBV/DCT), Digital
Maturity, and Governance
29
industry, technologies, process, digital,
business, innovation, development,
management, data, systems
DOI: https://doi.org/10.71112/s6e6s531
279 Multidisciplinary Journal Epistemology of the Sciences | Vol. 2, Issue 4, 2025, October–December
3
Dynamic Capabilities
(RBV/DCT), Digital
Maturity, and Governance
21
pandemic, crisis, small, covid,
businesses, companies, covid pandemic,
business, agility, digital
4
Dynamic Capabilities
(RBV/DCT), Digital
Maturity, and Governance
19
digital, digital transformation,
transformation, organizational,
organizational resilience, study, resilience,
innovation, level, organizations
5
Leadership and Agile
Culture for Resilient Digital
Transformation
14
leadership, transformational,
organizational, transformational
leadership, organizational agility, agility,
digital, innovation, resilience,
transformation
6
Business Models,
Ecosystems, and Digital
Servitization
13
digital, models, business models,
business, service, firm, bms, servitization,
digitalization, agile
7
Dynamic Capabilities
(RBV/DCT), Digital
Maturity, and Governance
11
sc, scr, dynamic, sca, relationship,
dynamic capabilities, positive, capabilities,
capability, using
8
Dynamic Capabilities
(RBV/DCT), Digital
Maturity, and Governance
9
ai, creativity, agility, intelligence,
intelligence ai, security, human, artificial
intelligence, artificial, organizational
9
SMEs, Entrepreneurship,
and Dynamic Capabilities
5
project, entrepreneurial, project
management, management, ai, agile,
resilience, study, sustainable, digital
10
Supply Chain Resilience
4.0 (AI/IoT/DT)
4
food, supply, production, cloud, chains, ai,
supply chain, chain, reduce, disruptions
Methodological quality and risk of bias
Quality appraisal was tailored to design: MMAT (mixed/quantitative/qualitative), CASP
(qualitative), and JBI (case/observational). Biases (selection, measurement, reporting) were
logged, and sensitivity analyses were run excluding lower-quality studies when synthesizing key
effects.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.71112/s6e6s531
280 Multidisciplinary Journal Epistemology of the Sciences | Vol. 2, Issue 4, 2025, October–December
Synthesis and linkage to RQs 297
Given conceptual and measurement heterogeneity, we used qualitative synthesis
reinforced with vote-counting and method triangulation (PLS-SEM, case studies, fsQCA).
• RQ1 (DT–OA–BR relationships): tabulated β, t, p, f², R² (when available), identified
direct/indirect effects and causal chains; output: relationships table + structural model.
• RQ2 (Frameworks/models/practices for OA): evidence mapping across frameworks
(RBV, DCT, EFQM, maturity, I4.0/I5.0) and practices (I4.0 tech stack, BI/analytics, agile
methods, KM/learning, networks); output: frameworks/practices table and visual map (Zabraoui,
Chafi, & Alami, 2026).
• RQ3 (Mechanisms OA → BR): synthesis of mediations (innovation, ISAMB, OA) and
operational mechanisms (DSC/visibility, automation/standardization, data- driven decision-
making, learning and process redesign); output: mediation table (total/direct/indirect + p) and
mechanism diagram.
• RQ4 (Barriers, enablers, contextual factors): thematic analysis and subgrouping by
region/size/intensity/maturity/industry; output: barriers/enablers/context table and heterogeneity
table.
RESULTS
This section presents the key empirical findings from recent literature, organized by the
research questions. The reviewed studies employed quantitative analyses (PLS-SEM, fsQCA,
regression), systematic literature reviews (SLR), and qualitative designs, offering a multifaceted
view of how DT, OA, and BR interact.
Thematic cluster from abstracts
Topic modeling (NMF) revealed ten dominant clusters:
1. Supply Chain Resilience 4.0 (AI/IoT/DT): Focus on Industry 4.0 technologies (AI,
IoT, data analytics, DT) to achieve end-to-end visibility, agility, and continuity in supply chains
DOI: https://doi.org/10.71112/s6e6s531
281 Multidisciplinary Journal Epistemology of the Sciences | Vol. 2, Issue 4, 2025, October–December
(Santhi & Muthuswamy, 2022; Ghabak & Chaugule, 2024; Jelisic et al.,2024; Joshi & Sharma,
2022; Ziari & Taleizadeh, 2025; Hamieddine & Akioud, 2025).
• Frequent keywords: supply, supply chain, chain, chain resilience, resilience, supply
chains, chains, chain agility, study, industry.
• # of articles: 31
2. Dynamic Capabilities (RBV/DCT), Digital Maturity, and Governance: RBV and
DCT, digital maturity, and governance as key to sensing, seizing, and reconfiguring for
sustained DT (Kwiotkowska, 2024; Sagala & Őri, 2025; Chavarnakul et al., 2025).
• Frequent keywords: industry, technologies, process, digital, business, innovation,
development, management, data, systems.
• # of articles: 29
3. Dynamic Capabilities, Digital Maturity, and SME Resilience under Crisis: Focus
on pandemics, antifragility, and agility (Sagala & Őri, 2025; Corvello et al., 2023; Ramírez-Soto
et al., 2024).
• Frequent keywords: pandemic, crisis, small, covid, businesses, companies, covid
pandemic, business, agility, digital.
• # of articles: 21
4. Digital Transformation, Dynamic Capabilities, and Organizational Resilience:
Direct link between DT and organizational resilience, highlighting roles of dynamic capabilities
and innovation (Zhang et al., 2025; Kwiotkowska, 2024)
• Frequent keywords: digital, digital transformation, transformation, organizational,
organizational resilience, study, resilience, innovation, level, organizations.
• # of articles: 19
5. Agile Leadership and Culture for Resilient DT
DOI: https://doi.org/10.71112/s6e6s531
282 Multidisciplinary Journal Epistemology of the Sciences | Vol. 2, Issue 4, 2025, October–December
• Description: The critical role of leadership and culture in enabling successful DT,
promoting agility and resilience (Castillo et al., 2025; Korobkina & Dashenkova, 2025; Nugraha
et al., 2025; Razzak et al., 2025).
• Frequent keywords: leadership, transformational, organizational, transformational
leadership, organizational agility, agility, digital, innovation, resilience, transformation.
• # of articles: 14
6. Business Models, Ecosystems, and Digital Servitization: How digitalization
enables business model evolution, innovative ecosystems, and servitization to create value and
resilience (Attah-Boakye et al., 2023; Sagala & Őri, 2025; Pennetta, 2025).
• Frequent keywords: digital, models, business models, business, service, firm, bmi,
servitization, digitalization, agile.
• # of articles: 13
7. Dynamic Capabilities (RBV/DCT), Digital Maturity, and Governance: Subset
reinforcing dynamic capabilities, digital maturity, and governance for DT-to-resilience (Kumar &
Singh, 2025; Martusewicz et al., 2024; Li et al., 2022; Razzak et al., 2025; Hayes, 2025; Kioskli
et al., 2025; Oltra- Rodríguez et al., 2025).
• Frequent keywords: sc, scr, dynamic, sca, relationship, dynamic capabilities, positive,
capabilities, capability, using.
• # of articles: 11 379
8. Dynamic Capabilities (RBV/DCT), Digital Maturity, and Governance: Another
subset deepening interactions among dynamic capabilities, digital maturity, and governance in
DT for agility and resilience (Moser et al., 2025; Sharma et al., 2025; Mutambik, 2024; Piprani et
al., 2024).
• Frequent keywords: ai, creativity, agility, intelligence, intelligence ai, security, human,
artificial intelligence, artificial, organisational.
• # of articles: 9
DOI: https://doi.org/10.71112/s6e6s531
283 Multidisciplinary Journal Epistemology of the Sciences | Vol. 2, Issue 4, 2025, October–December
9. SMEs, Entrepreneurship, and Dynamic Capabilities: Focus on digital competence,
literacy, and strategic agility as pillars of resilience in SMEs and entrepreneurial contexts
(Hamieddine & Akioud, 2025; Sagala & Őri, 2025; Han & Trimi, 2022; Kiani, 2024; Pennetta et
al., 2025; Shatila et al., 2025; Ramírez-Soto et al., 2024; Nugraha et al., 2025).
• Frequent keywords: project, entrepreneurial, project management, management, ai,
agile, resilience, study, sustainable, digital.
• # of articles: 5
10. Supply Chain Resilience 4.0 (AI/IoT/DT) in the Food Sector: Application of
Industry 4.0 (AI, IoT, analytics, DT) in food supply chains to improve visibility, agility, and
continuity, mitigating disruptions (Sutar et al., 2024; Kowalska et al., 2023; Seknametla, 2025;
Santhi & Muthuswamy, 2022; Lakhouil & Soulhi, 2024).
• Frequent keywords: food, supply, production, cloud, chains, ai, supply chain, chain,
reduce, disruptions.
• # of articles: 4
These clusters provide a structured basis for deepening the review and contextualizing
RQ findings within dominant themes.
RQ1 — DT–OA–BR relationships (direct and mediated)
Key findings:
• DT → BR (direct): positive effects on resistance (β≈0.16, p<0.01) and recovery (β≈0.08,
p<0.01) in manufacturing and regulated service contexts.
• DT → OA: digitalization improves information acquisition/transmission, reconfigures
resources, and accelerates response (evidence from PLS-SEM and supply-chain studies).
• OA → BR: OA acts as a dynamic capability enhancing robustness and adaptability; at
supply-chain level, ACAP → SCA (β≈0.70) and SCR (β≈0.65).
Mediations (DT → OA/Innovation → BR):
• Innovation capability partially mediates DT → BR (stronger on recovery).
DOI: https://doi.org/10.71112/s6e6s531
284 Multidisciplinary Journal Epistemology of the Sciences | Vol. 2, Issue 4, 2025, October–December
• Agile response partially mediates DT → resistance and recovery.
• IS ambidexterity mediating the effects of IQ, Innov, and IT-Cap on HRIS effectiveness,
reinforcing OA and BR outcomes.
RQ2 — Frameworks, models, and practices that drive OA
Frameworks/models
• RBV/DCT: foundation for sensing–seizing–reconfiguring supporting OA and BR.
• EFQM 2025 & digital maturity: align purpose, data, and continuity; maturity (digital
intensity + transformation management intensity) associates with higher BR.
• DOI: innovation adoption builds digital competences and thus OA.
Digital maturity models such as the smart-factory model show how digitalization enables
process innovation and strengthens dynamic capabilities in manufacturing (Sjödin, Parida,
Leksell, & Petrovic, 2018).
Practices
• Investment in I4.0 (AI, IoT, BDA, blockchain): greater end-to-end visibility, agility, and
resilience.
• Staff digital capabilities (IT-Cap), executive innovativeness, and IS ambidexterity: direct
enablers of OA.
• Agile/Lean Startup: accelerate learning and pivoting.
• Sector-specific need assessment: avoids the “digital paradox” and maximizes impact.
RQ3 — How does digitalized OA translate into BR?
Observed mechanisms
▪ Digital Supply Chains (DSCs): higher E2E visibility, collaboration, responsiveness →
lower risk and faster recovery.
• Efficient decision-making: automation/standardization reduce error and support
continuity.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.71112/s6e6s531
285 Multidisciplinary Journal Epistemology of the Sciences | Vol. 2, Issue 4, 2025, October–December
• Continuous innovation and adaptability: DT underpin innovation initiatives that buffer
shocks.
RQ4 — Moderators (barriers, enablers, and context)
• Barriers: resistance to change, cultural/digital literacy gaps, financial constraints, data
quality, cyber/integration risks, “digital paradox.”
• Enablers: digital/transformational leadership, dynamic capabilities (incl. ACAP), culture
of dignity, I4.0 investment, learning & knowledge management, networks/collaboration.
• Context: firm size (SMEs vs. large), life-cycle stage (growth/maturity), geography, digital
maturity, regulatory environment.
Notable quantitative anchors (to ground the model)
• DT → BR: β≈0.16 (resistance), β≈0.08 (recovery), p0, p<0.01
• ACAP → SCA/SCR: β≈0.70 / β≈0.65, p<0.001.
• Innovation (mediation): stronger on recovery; agile response mediates resistance and
recovery.
• IS ambidexterity (mediation): positive mediation of IQ, Innov, IT-Cap → HRIS
effectiveness (β>0, p<0.05).
Tables 2 and 3 present a synthesis of the literature, with Table 2 mapping thematic
clusters on the interplay between Digital Transformation (DT), Organizational Agility (OA), and
Business Resilience (BR), and Table 3 summarizing key indicators of analysis, including
barriers, facilitators, and contextual factors.
Table 2
Synthesis table — DT, OA, and BR
Relationship
Theoretical Evidence
Empirical Evidence
Key Authors
DT → OA
RBV/DCT: resources and
dynamic capabilities as
Digitalization improves
information acquisition
Siddique et al.
(2025); Sagala & Ori
DOI: https://doi.org/10.71112/s6e6s531
286 Multidisciplinary Journal Epistemology of the Sciences | Vol. 2, Issue 4, 2025, October–December
the basis of agility. Digital
maturity: digital intensity +
transformation
management. IS-
Ambidexterity:
simultaneous exploration
and exploitation of IS
resources
and transmission. Rapid
reconfiguration of
internal/external
resources. Digital supply
chains increase flexibility
and adaptability.
(2025); Aljawazneh
(2024); Li et al.
(2022); Abourookbah
et al. (2023); Starke
& Ludvigia (2025).
DT → BR
DCT/IPT: integration of
digital processes
enhances resilience.
Innovation and flexibility:
key to resistance and
recovery.
DT has a positive impact
on resistance (β=0.159,
p<0.01) and recovery
(β=0.079, p<0.01).
Optimization of innovation
and agility to face
disruptions. Effective
HRIS strengthen
organizational resilience.
Zhang et al. (2025);
Kwitkowska (2024);
Siddique et al.
(2025); Pennetta
(2025); Joshi &
Sharma (2022);
Adam & Kopanaki
(2025); Dąbrowska
et al. (2022).
OA → BR
Dynamic capabilities:
sensing, seizing,
reconfiguring.
Psychological and social
resilience: self-efficacy
and emotional regulation.
ACAP → SCA (β=0.698,
p<0.001), SCR (β=0.649,
p<0.001). Agility improves
customer service,
differentiation, and
robustness. BR influenced
by psychological and
cultural resilience.
Abourookbah et al.
(2023); Pennetta
(2025); Syamsir et
al. (2025); Zhang et
al. (2025); Nolte &
Lindemeier (2024);
Bai et al. (2025).
DT → OA →
BR
(mediation)
OA as an operational
mechanism translating
digital capabilities into
resilience. Innovation and
agile response as critical
mediators.
Innovation mediates
5.86% of the DT–BR
relationship (p=0.041).
Agile response mediates
13–15% of the DT–BR
relationship. IS-
Ambidexterity mediates
the effect of IQ, Inov, and
IT-Cap on HRIS
Zhang et al. (2025);
Rana et al. (2025);
Ivanov (2022);
Berawi et al. (2020);
Siddique et al.
(2025).
DOI: https://doi.org/10.71112/s6e6s531
287 Multidisciplinary Journal Epistemology of the Sciences | Vol. 2, Issue 4, 2025, October–December
effectiveness.
Moderators
(context,
barriers,
facilitators)
Organizational culture:
dignity, trust, continuous
learning. Leadership:
digital, transformational,
paradoxical. Firm
size/digital maturity:
differences between
SMEs and large firms
Digital leadership and
dynamic capabilities
strengthen DT→OA and
OA→BR. Barriers:
resistance, digital gaps,
financial constraints.
Stronger effects in capital-
intensive and service
industries with high digital
maturity.
Castillo et al. (2025);
Korobkin &
Dashenkova (2025);
Nugraha et al.
(2025); Razzak et al.
(2025); Kwitkowska
(2024); Ahmed
(2024); Abourookbah
et al. (2023).
Summary indicators
Table 3
Indicators of Analysis (Barriers, Facilitators, and Contextual Factors)
Category
Identified Elements
Key Authors
Barriers
Resistance to change; financial constraints;
“digital paradox”; data quality issues; digital skill
gaps; cybersecurity/integration risks
Sagala & Őri (2025); Zhang
et al. (2025); Aljawazneh
(2024)
Facilitators
Digital/transformational leadership; dynamic
capabilities (incl. ACAP); dignity culture;
investment in Industry 4.0; continuous learning
and knowledge management; collaboration and
networks
Siddique et al. (2025);
Korobkina & Dashenkova
(2025); Joshi & Sharma
(2022)
Contextual
Factors
Firm size; digital maturity; business life-cycle
stage; geographic location; regulatory
environment
Martusiewicz et al. (2024);
Zhang et al. (2025);
Abourookbah et al. (2023)
DISCUSIÓN
These clusters provide a structured basis for deepening the review and contextualizing
RQ findings within dominant themes.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.71112/s6e6s531
288 Multidisciplinary Journal Epistemology of the Sciences | Vol. 2, Issue 4, 2025, October–December
RQ1 — Model implication: strong evidence for a direct DT→BR path and a mediated
DT→OA→BR route; IS ambidexterity is a key operating mechanism.
RQ2 — Model implication: frameworks define capabilities and routines that operationalize the
DT→OA route, strengthening the subsequent DT/OA→BR link.
RQ3 — Model implication: OA is the functional bridge between DT and BR (operational and
strategic), especially in VUCA contexts.
RQ4 — Model implication: Barriers, enablers 4.0, and context modulate the strength of
DT→OA and OA→BR; they should inform strategy design and the interpretation of
heterogeneous effects.
CONCLUSIONS
This systematic literature review met its stated objectives by providing a comprehensive
synthesis of the relationship between digital transformation (TD), organizational agility (AO), and
business resilience (RE) in the post-pandemic context.
In response to RQ1, the literature confirms a robust and positive empirical and
conceptual relationship among TD, AO, and RE. TD functions as a direct antecedent of
resilience, and this relationship is mediated by the organization’s innovation capacity and agile
response (Zhang et al., 2025; Kwiotkowska, 2024; Siddique et al., 2025).
Regarding RQ2, the literature identifies RBV, DCT (with micro-foundations: sensing,
seizing, reconfiguring), IPT, SCT, and DOI as core frameworks; practical enablers include
EFQM 2025 and digital-maturity models and practices such as Industry 4.0 investment,
employee digital upskilling, executive innovation, and IS-ambidexterity—these jointly drive
organizational agility. (Siddique et al., 2025; Martusewicz et al., 2024; Kwiotkowska, 2024;
Starke & Ludviga, 2025)
With respect to RQ3, organizational agility — strengthened by digitalization — translates
into greater business resilience by enabling rapid adaptation to VUCA environments, the
DOI: https://doi.org/10.71112/s6e6s531
289 Multidisciplinary Journal Epistemology of the Sciences | Vol. 2, Issue 4, 2025, October–December
deployment of agile digital supply chains, more efficient decision-making, enhanced innovation
capacity, and the identification of new business opportunities amid disruptions (Pennetta, 2025;
Ivanov, 2022; Zhang et al., 2025).
Finally, RQ4 shows that barriers include resistance to change, cultural shortcomings,
financial constraints, and the so-called “digital paradox” (Castillo et al., 2025; Sagala & Őri,
2025; Zhang et al., 2025). Facilitators comprise proactive digital leadership, dynamic capabilities
(including ACAP), an adaptive organizational culture, and investment in human and
technological capital. Contextual factors — such as firm size, life-cycle stage, factor intensity
(e.g., capital- vs. labor-intensive), and geographic location — moderate the effectiveness of TD
in improving agility and resilience (Kwiotkowska, 2024; Zhang et al., 2025)
Conflict of interest statement:
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest related to this research.
Author contributions:
Yesica Lorena Estrada Chica (first author): Conceptualization; Data curation; Formal
analysis; Research; Methodology; Project administration; Supervision; Validation; Writing of the
original draft.
Carlos Alberto Jiménez Vera (second author): Conceptualization; Data curation; Formal
analysis; Research; Methodology; Software; Writing — review & editing.
Diana Marcela Gómez Ramírez (third author): Research; Methodology; Validation;
Visualization; Writing — review & editing.
Declaration of artificial intelligence use:
Declaration of artificial intelligence use: The authors confirm that they used artificial
intelligence tools to assist with the preparation of this article. These tools did not replace any of
the authors' intellectual work. Following rigorous checks using multiple plagiarism-detection
tools, the results of which are documented in the supporting evidence, the authors confirm that
DOI: https://doi.org/10.71112/s6e6s531
290 Multidisciplinary Journal Epistemology of the Sciences | Vol. 2, Issue 4, 2025, October–December
this manuscript is the product of their own intellectual work and has not been generated or
published by any electronic or AI platform.
REFERENCES
Adam, G., & Kopanaki, E. (2025). Strategies for Shaping and Implementing Digital
Transformation in the Retail Value Chain. Procedia Computer
Science. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2025.02.146
Ahmed, H. A. M., Al-Romeedy, B. S., Badwy, H. E., & Abdelghani, A. A. A. (2025). The effect of
transformational entrepreneurship on competitive advantage in tourism and hospitality
organizations through organizational support and employee resilience. Research Journal
in Advanced Humanities. https://doi.org/10.58256/d09d8c80
Aljawazneh, B. E. (2024). The mediating role of supply chain digitization in the relationship
between supply chain agility and operational performance. Uncertain Supply Chain
Management, 12(2), 669–684. https://doi.org/10.5267/j.uscm.2024.1.017
Ameen, N., & Tarba, S. (2025). Organisational agility for new industrial marketing management
models in turbulent times. Industrial Marketing
Management. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2025.06.001
Amrani-Zouggar, A. Z., Cormican, K., & Ruiz-Hernández, D. R. (2024). Artificial Intelligence
Reshapes Supply Chain and Lean: Framework and Main Insights. En D. R. Ruiz-
Hernández, M. J. López-Hernández, G. Marrone, M. L. G. García, & V. P. G. Gómez
(Eds.), Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems: Vol. 883.
Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-71629-4_5
Assal, M. A. (2024). Crafting Value Based Digital Transformation Journey for Oil and Gas
4.0. Society of Petroleum Engineers - SPE/IADC Middle East Drilling Technology
Conference and Exhibition. https://doi.org/10.2118/223180-MS
DOI: https://doi.org/10.71112/s6e6s531
291 Multidisciplinary Journal Epistemology of the Sciences | Vol. 2, Issue 4, 2025, October–December
Bai, B., Um, K.-H., & Lee, H. (2025). Optimizing manufacturing efficiency: exploring the impact
of social media, supply chain agility, and knowledge transfer in a moderated mediation
model. Journal of Manufacturing Technology
Management. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMTM-06-2024-0335
Belhadi, A., Mani, V., Kamble, S. S., Khan, S. A. R., & Verma, S. (2024). Artificial intelligence-
driven innovation for enhancing supply chain resilience and performance under the effect
of supply chain dynamism: An empirical investigation. Annals of Operations
Research, 333(2), 627–652. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-021-03956-x
Berawi, M. A., Suwartha, N., Asvial, M., Harwahyu, R., Suryanegara, M., Setiawan, E. A.,
Surjandari, I., Zagloel, T. Y. M., & Maknun, I. J. (2020). Digital Innovation: Creating
Competitive Advantages. International Journal of Technology, 11(6), 1076–
1080. https://doi.org/10.14716/IJTECH.V11I6.4581
Boumsisse, I., Benhadou, M., & Haddout, A. (2025). Study of the impact of Industry 5.0
technologies on operational excellence: Insights into agility, innovation, and
sustainability. International Journal of Innovative Research and Scientific
Studies, 8(3). https://doi.org/10.53894/ijirss.v8i3.6798
Castillo, C., Otero-Romero, T., & Alvarez-Palau, E. J. (2025). Navigating the transition to
industry 5.0: advancing sustainability, resilience, and human centricity in Spanish supply
chain management. Discover Sustainability, 6(1), 331. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43621-
025-01190-0
Centobelli, P., Cerchione, R., & Ertz, M. (2020). Agile supply chain management: Where did it
come from and where will it go in the era of digital transformation? Industrial Marketing
Management, 89, 18–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2020.07.011
Chatterjee, S., Chaudhuri, R., Vrontis, D., & Giovando, G. (2023). Digital workplace and
organization performance: Moderating role of digital leadership capability. Journal of
Innovation and Knowledge, 8(1), 100334. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jik.2023.100334
DOI: https://doi.org/10.71112/s6e6s531
292 Multidisciplinary Journal Epistemology of the Sciences | Vol. 2, Issue 4, 2025, October–December
Chavarnakul, T., Xu, L. D., Bi, Z., Shankar, A., Dhiman, G., Viriyasitavat, W., & Hoonsopon, D.
(2025). A Systematic Literature Review on Resilient Digital Transformation, Examining
How Organizations Sustain Digital Capabilities. HighTech and Innovation Journal, 6(2),
21. https://doi.org/10.28991/HIJ-2025-06-02-21
Chirumalla, K. (2021). Building digitally-enabled process innovation in the process industries: A
dynamic capabilities approach. Technovation, 105,
102256. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2021.102256
Corvello, V., Verteramo, S., Nocella, I., & Ammirato, S. (2023). Thrive during a crisis: The role of
digital technologies in fostering antifragility in small and medium-sized
enterprises. Journal of Ambient Intelligence and Humanized Computing, 14, 1–
13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12652-022-03816-x
Cosa, M., & Torelli, R. (2024). Digital Transformation and Flexible Performance Management: A
Systematic Literature Review of the Evolution of Performance Measurement
Systems. Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, 25(3), 445–
466. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40171-024-00409-9
Dąbrowska, J., Almpanopoulou, A., Brem, A., Chesbrough, H., Cucino, V., Di Minin, A., Giones,
F., Hakala, H., Marullo, C., Mention, A. L., Mortara, L., Nørskov, S., Nylund, P. A., Oddo,
C. M., Radziwon, A., & Ritala, P. (2022). Digital transformation, for better or worse: a
critical multi-level research agenda. R&D Management, 52(5), 930–
954. https://doi.org/10.1111/radm.12531
Debnath, B., Shakur, M. S., Bari, A. B. M. M., Saha, J., Porna, W. A., Mishu, M. J., Islam, A. R.
M. T., & Rahman, M. A. (2023). Assessing the critical success factors for implementing
industry 4.0 in the pharmaceutical industry: Implications for supply chain sustainability in
emerging economies. PLoS One, 18(6),
e0287149. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0287149
DOI: https://doi.org/10.71112/s6e6s531
293 Multidisciplinary Journal Epistemology of the Sciences | Vol. 2, Issue 4, 2025, October–December
Del Giudice, M., Scuotto, V., Papa, A., Tarba, S. Y., Bresciani, S., & Warkentin, M. (2021). A
self-tuning model for smart manufacturing SMEs: Effects on digital innovation. Journal of
Product Innovation Management, 38(1), 68–89. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12560
Doukidis, G., Farmakis, T., & Fraidaki, K. (2024). The Digital Readiness of Small Businesses
Times of Crisis: The Case of COVID-19. En S. H. L. K. M. L. O. Z. R. K. B. C. M. L. S. T.
E. M. L. M. E. T. C. P. W. T. E. L. (Eds.), The Digital Readiness of Small Businesses
Times of Crisis: The Case of COVID-19. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-
65782-5_7
Eriksson, K. M., & Lycke, L. (2025). May the force of lifelong learning be with you – sustainable
organizational learning in HEIs meeting competence needs in industry. Learning
Organization. https://doi.org/10.1108/TLO-12-2022-0158
Gallego Cossio, L. C., Hernández Aros, L., Rodríguez Perdomo, D., & Rodríguez Barrero, M. S.
(2025). Financial and Administrative Management Models for Digital Ventures: A
Literature Review. Journal of Risk and Financial Management, 18(4),
214. https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm18040214
Ghabak, V., & Chaugule, R. (2024). Digital Twin Framework in Supply Chain Governance. 2024
International Conference on Communication, Computing and Power Technology
(IC2PT). https://doi.org/10.1109/IC2PCT60090.2024.10486732
Ghezzi, A., & Cavallo, A. (2020). Agile business model innovation in digital entrepreneurship:
Lean startup approaches. Journal of Business Research, 110, 519–
537. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.06.013
Gomaa, A. H. (2025). Leading with excellence: Critical leadership dimensions in Lean Six
Sigma for business excellence. Human Resources Management and
Services. https://doi.org/10.18282/hrms4399
Hamieddine, C., & Akioud, M. (2025). Agility for Resilience: A Qualitative Exploration of
Companies’ Strategies in a Volatile, Uncertain, Complex, and Ambiguous
DOI: https://doi.org/10.71112/s6e6s531
294 Multidisciplinary Journal Epistemology of the Sciences | Vol. 2, Issue 4, 2025, October–December
Environment. Corporate and Business Strategy
Review, 6(2). https://doi.org/10.22495/cbsrv6i2art11
Han, H., & Trimi, S. (2022). Towards a data science platform for improving SME collaboration
through Industry 4.0 technologies. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 174,
121242. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.121242
Hayes, P. M. (2025). How Integrated Assurance transforms enterprise security architecture into
a strategic execution
capability. EDPACS. https://doi.org/10.1080/07366981.2025.2516366
Ivanov, D. (2022). Viable supply chain model: Integrating agility, resilience and sustainability
perspectives—lessons from and thinking beyond the COVID-19 pandemic. Annals of
Operations Research, 319, 1411–1431. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-020-03640-6
Jelisic, E., Kulvatunyou, B., Ivezic, N., & Oh, H. (2024). Towards Novel Standard Based
Approach To Flexible Supply Chain Integration. Proceedings of the ASME Design
Engineering Technical Conferences, Paper No. DETC2024-
145668. https://doi.org/10.1115/DETC2024-145668
Joshi, S., & Sharma, M. (2022). Sustainable performance through digital supply chains in
industry 4.0 era: Amidst the pandemic experience. Sustainability, 14(24),
16726. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142416726
Kiani, A. (2024). Artificial intelligence in entrepreneurial project management: a review,
framework and research agenda. International Journal of Managing Projects in
Business. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJMPB-03-2024-0068
Kioskli, K., Grigoriou, E., Islam, S., Yiorkas, A. M., Christofi, L., & Mouratidis, H. (2025). A risk
and conformity assessment framework to ensure security and resilience of healthcare
systems and medical supply chain. International Journal of Information
Security. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10207-025-01009-z
DOI: https://doi.org/10.71112/s6e6s531
295 Multidisciplinary Journal Epistemology of the Sciences | Vol. 2, Issue 4, 2025, October–December
Korobkinа, T., & Dashenkova, N. (2025). Culture of dignity as the foundation of organizational
culture of humanistic management. Technology Audit and Production Reserves, 2(4
(82)), 42–47. https://doi.org/10.15587/2706-5448.2025.327079
Kowalska, A., Lingham, S., Maye, D., & Manning, L. (2023). Food Insecurity: Is Leagility a
Potential Remedy? Foods, 12(16), 3138. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods12163138
Kumar, S., & Singh, V. (2025). Strategic navigation of supply chain ambidexterity for resilience
and agility in the digital era: A review. International Journal of Production
Economics. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2024.109514
Kwiotkowska, A. (2024). Creating Organizational Resilience through Digital Transformation and
Dynamic Capabilities. Findings from Fs/QCA Analysis on the Example of Polish CHP
Plants. Preprints. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202406.2078.v1
Lakhouil, H., & Soulhi, A. (2024). Supply Chain Resilience Assessment in the 4.0 Era. 2024 4th
International Seminar on Intelligent Systems and Vision Computing
(ISIVC). https://doi.org/10.1109/ISIVC61350.2024.10577939
Li, L. X., Ye, F., Zhan, Y. Z., Kumar, A., Schiavone, F., & Li, Y. N. (2022). Unraveling the
performance puzzle of digitalization: Evidence from manufacturing firms. Journal of
Business Research, 149, 54–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.04.071
Maalouf, J., Chahine, L., Abi Aad, A., & Kertechian, K. S. (2025). Determinants of business
resilience: Investigating the roles of business agility, digitalization, and environmental
hostility during the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of International
Entrepreneurship. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10843-024-00357-6
Martusewicz, J., Wierzbic, A., & Łukaszewicz, M. (2024). Strategic Transformation and
Sustainability: Unveiling the EFQM Model 2025. Sustainability, 16(20),
9106. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16209106
Moser, T., Leitenbauer, L., Ruiz-Torrubiano, R. R., Reiner, M., Sorko, S. R., & Wolfartsberger, J.
(2025). XPERTISE 5.0: A Deep-Tech Based Research Agenda for Increasing Individual
DOI: https://doi.org/10.71112/s6e6s531
296 Multidisciplinary Journal Epistemology of the Sciences | Vol. 2, Issue 4, 2025, October–December
and Organizational Resilience in Industrial Settings. 2025 IEEE/IFIP Network Operations
and Management Symposium
(NOMS). https://doi.org/10.1109/NOMS57970.2025.11073674
Mutambik, I. (2024). The Role of Strategic Partnerships and Digital Transformation in Enhancing
Supply Chain Agility and Performance. Systems, 12(11),
456. https://doi.org/10.3390/systems12110456
Nolte, I. M., & Lindenmeier, J. (2024). Creeping crises and public administration: a time for
adaptive governance strategies and cross-sectoral collaboration?. Public Management
Review, 26(2), 291–311. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2023.2200459
Nugraha, R., Rusu, L., & Perjons, E. (2025). Organizational Culture Values for a Successful
Digital Transformation: A Systematic Literature Review. En J. K. M. L. W. M. M. K. S. B.
(Eds.), Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing: Vol. 556.
Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-81325-2_8
Pennetta, S., Anglani, F., Joham, C., & Boyle, S. (2025). Entrepreneurial Agility in a Disrupted
World: Redefining Entrepreneurial Resilience for Global Business Success. International
Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation, 34(2), 227–
265. https://doi.org/10.1177/09713557251352283
Piprani, A. Z., Khan, S. A. R., & Yu, Z. (2024). Driving success through digital transformation:
influence of Industry 4.0 on lean, agile, resilient, green supply chain practices. Journal of
Manufacturing Technology Management. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMTM-05-2023-0179
Ramírez-Soto, A. N., Ríos, J. E. S., Puican Rodríguez, V. H. P., Vite, I. P. Y., & Castaneda, P.
E. R. (2024). Models of strategic management in smes in the period of the covid 19
pandemic in metropolitan lima. Revista de Gestao Social e
Ambiental, 18(1). https://doi.org/10.24857/rgsa.v18n1-085
DOI: https://doi.org/10.71112/s6e6s531
297 Multidisciplinary Journal Epistemology of the Sciences | Vol. 2, Issue 4, 2025, October–December
Rana, J., Daultani, Y., Goswami, M., & Kumar, S. (2025). Exploring the Impact of Supply Chain
Digital Transformation on Supply Chain Performance: An Empirical
Investigation. Business Strategy and the Environment. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.4157
Razzak, M. R., Al-Kharusi, S., Umrani, W. A., & Al Riyami, S. (2025). Digital leadership and
adaptive capacity of family firms: intervening roles of sensing capability and
organizational agility. Journal of Family Business
Management. https://doi.org/10.1108/JFBM-01-2025-0016
Rincón-Guio, C., Rico, A., Triana-Garcia, R., Jaramillo, O., & Mendoza Daultani, D. (2025).
Strengthening Resilience in the Manufacturing Sector: A Capabilities-Based Approach.
En C. Rincón-Guio, A. Rico, R. Triana-Garcia, O. Jaramillo, & D. Mendoza Daultani
(Eds.), Lecture Notes in Mechanical Engineering: Vol. 16.
Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-95211-1_17
Rizana, A. F., Wiratmadja, I. I., & Akbar, M. (2024). Exploring the Role of Digital Transformation
for Agile and Resilience Business: A Conceptual Model Based on Dynamic Capabilities
View. 2024 IEEE International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Engineering
Management (IEEM). https://doi.org/10.1109/IEEM62345.2024.10857225
Sagala, G. H., & Őri, D. (2025). Exploring digital transformation strategy to achieve SMEs
resilience and antifragility: a systematic literature review. Journal of Small Business &
Entrepreneurship, 37(3), 495–524. https://doi.org/10.1080/08276331.2024.2392080
Santhi, A. R., & Muthuswamy, P. (2022). Pandemic, War, Natural Calamities, and Sustainability:
Industry 4.0 Technologies to Overcome Traditional and Contemporary Supply Chain
Challenges. Logistics, 6(4), 81. https://doi.org/10.3390/logistics6040081
Seknametla, P. R. (2025). Autonomous cloud infrastructure in the food industry: Leveraging AI
for intelligent orchestration and monitoring.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.71112/s6e6s531
298 Multidisciplinary Journal Epistemology of the Sciences | Vol. 2, Issue 4, 2025, October–December
Sharma, M., Antony, R., Sharma, A., & Daım, T. (2025). Can smart supply chain bring agility
and resilience for enhanced sustainable business performance?. International Journal of
Logistics Management. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJLM-09-2023-0381
Shatila, K., Aránega, A. Y., Soga, L. R., & Hernández-Lara, A. B. (2025). Digital literacy, digital
accessibility, human capital, and entrepreneurial resilience: a case for dynamic business
ecosystems. Journal of Innovation and
Knowledge. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jik.2025.100709
Siddique, M. S., Mohd Zin, M. L. B., & Ismail, S. A. b. (2025). Advancing Sustainable Digital
Transformations Through HRIS Effectiveness: Examining the Role of Information
Quality, Executives’ Innovativeness, and Staff IT Capabilities via IS
Ambidexterity. Sustainability, 17(13), 5784. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17135784
Sjödin, D. R., Parida, V., Leksell, M., & Petrovic, A. (2018). Smart factory implementation and
process innovation: A preliminary maturity model for leveraging digitalization in
manufacturing. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 123, 294–
308. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2018.09.003
Slaiby, W., Bejjani, G., & Noun, R. (2025). Business Management in the Era of Distributed
Networks: Enhancing Organizational Performance and Innovation in Virtual
Teams. Journal of Wireless Mobile Networks, Ubiquitous Computing, and Dependable
Applications, 16(2). https://doi.org/10.58346/JOWUA.2025.I2.032
Starke, S., & Ludviga, I. (2025). Unlocking Digital Potential—The Impact of Innovation and Self-
Determined Learning. Systems, 13(5), 396. https://doi.org/10.3390/systems13050396
Sutar, P. S., Kolte, G., Yamini, S., & Kaliyan, K. (2024). Food supply chain resilience in the
digital era: a bibliometric analysis and development of conceptual framework. Journal of
Business and Industrial Marketing. https://doi.org/10.1108/JBIM-10-2023-0587
DOI: https://doi.org/10.71112/s6e6s531
299 Multidisciplinary Journal Epistemology of the Sciences | Vol. 2, Issue 4, 2025, October–December
Syamsir, S., Saputra, N., & Mulia, R. A. (2025). Leadership agility in a VUCA world: a
systematic review, conceptual insights, and research directions. Cogent Business and
Management. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2025.2482022
Zabraoui, O., Chafi, A., & Alami, S. K. (2026). Leveraging Supply Chain Analytics in the Era of
Industry 4.0: A Comprehensive Guide to Data-Driven Optimization and Decision-Making.
En H. G. P. K. A. V. S. B. A. J. M. S. C. (Eds.), Intelligent Systems Reference Library:
Vol. 288. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-93601-2_10
Zhang, J., Li, H., & Zhao, H. (2025). The Impact of Digital Transformation on Organizational
Resilience: The Role of Innovation Capability and Agile Response. Systems, 13(2),
75. https://doi.org/10.3390/systems13020075
Ziari, M., & Taleizadeh, A. A. (2025). Integrated data-driven and artificial intelligence framework
to develop digital twins in distribution system of supply chains: A real industrial
case. International Journal of Production
Economics. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2025.109743
Zouari, D., Ruel, S., & Viale, L. (2021). Does digitalising the supply chain contribute to its
resilience? International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 51(2),
149–180. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPDLM-01-2020-0038
