## 3 Results
### MaMoRes Proposal  
From the analysis results, it is possible to state that supply chain resilience concepts are popular in the literature. However, there is a scarcity of systematically structured MMs available for assessing SC resilience. In turn, this may lead to models that do not consider all the relevant dimensions related to resilience. To address this gap, the model proposed in Figure 10 fulfills this assessment on a five-level scale described by five dimensions. The five-level scale was chosen since it is the most popular scale emerged from the literature. Moreover, it is one of the most popular choices when considering a Likert scale. Indeed, it offers a good balance between the user-friendliness of the model and the level of discretization. This enables useful insights and comparisons across different organizations. The five distinct levels are classified as follows: L1 (fully immature), L2 (partially immature), L3 (neither immature nor mature), L4 (partially mature), and L5 (fully mature). Considering the dimensions, the model integrates all the dimensions found through the SLR. Thus, the user of the model must evaluate the following five dimensions: \"Risk Management\" (D1), \"Agility, Flexibility, and Adaptability\" (D2), \"Redundancy and Robustness\" (D3), \"Transparency and Visibility\" (D4), and \"Collaboration and Relationships\" (D5). It is worth noting that the decision maker's capacity to leverage the identified dimensions and the comprehension of the context directly correlate to the former five levels. Specifically, a higher number of levels and dimensions may hinder the adoption and comprehension of the model by smaller organizations. These organizations may need simple assessment tools due to a lack of knowledge and skills. To ease the application of the model, an in-depth description of each sub-dimension is provided (see Table A1 in Appendix A). This may alleviate the burden encountered by small or medium organizations. In the following paragraphs, a more in-depth description of how the dimensions and sub-dimensions were defined is provided. Considering the sub-dimensions, they were identified either through the SLR or by analyzing the most relevant documents in terms of citations emerged from the SLNA. Supply chain resilience deals with various risks at different stages of the risk management process within the supply chain unit of analysis [15]. The increasing complexity of modern systems increases the number of interactions among technical, social, and organi  
Figure 10: Conceptual representation of the proposed MaMoRes. zational elements [66], leading to more stringent risk requirements. Hence, the concept of supply chain risk management holds significance. Several proposed frameworks in this discipline encompass diverse steps, including risk identification, evaluation, and management through various strategies [24; 67]. Risk prevention, as the set of proactive activities to avoid disruption, is also relevant [68]. Therefore, the identified elements of the risk management dimension are the following ones: _risk identification and assessment_ (S1.1), _risk management and mitigation_ (S1.2), and _risk prevention and recovery_ (S1.3). The former three sub-dimensions are aligned with previous works related to resilience. For instance, risk mitigation strategies are treated by [69]. Moreover, as mentioned by [70], managing the risk of disruptions requires identifying system vulnerabilities (i.e., risk identification and assessment) and solutions to increase the resilience (i.e., risk mitigation, risk prevention, and recovery). Another strategic element involves adding flexibility to the supply chain, incurring costs only during disruptions [71]. Flexibility involves organizational capabilities to sense threats and respond swiftly [1]. Often, flexibility is overlapped with agility, denoting an organization's ability to respond rapidly to demand changes [72]. Within this study, flexibility and agility are considered equally aligned with the literature.