## 3 Results
### SLR on Resilience MMs  
The 15 ResMMs underwent detailed analysis to discern principles, elements, and gaps; the data are presented in Table 3. In Table 3, the criteria and the values mentioned in Section 2.2 are reported. The symbol \"#\" means number of throughout all the text. It is worth mentioning that the identified MMs present differences in terms of dimensions, modeling approach, and type of considered disruption and resilience dimensions. This diversity may indicate good coverage of the results, potentially contributing to the development of a sufficiently broad and comprehensive model. To improve the readability of  
Figure 3: Flowchart representing the steps required to apply the MaMoReS. Table 3, the following acronyms are used: risk management (RM), agility, flexibility, and adaptability (AFA), redundancy and robustness (RR), transparency and visibility (TV), and collaboration and relationships (CR). Figure 4 shows the differences among the dimensions considered by distinct MMs. The MaMoReS is denoted by the green dashed line, while the orange dashed lines refers to [25]. Concerning the architecture of these models, most propose 5-level assessment tools (11 out of 15, 73%) encompassing 8 or fewer dimensions (9 out of 15, 60%). Only one paper considered three levels [50]. Similarly, 9 levels [58] and 4 levels [26; 51] were adopted by one document and two documents, respectively. This is illustrated in Figure 5. Considering the number of dimensions adopted by the identified documents, it is worth noting that there is a higher level of variability compared to the levels, as depicted in Figure 6. The number of considered dimensions ranges from a minimum of two [25] to a maximum of 26 [57]. Regarding the types of disruptions addressed, those predominantly treated are caused by natural disasters (4 out of 15, 27%) and cybersecurity threats (4 out of 15, 27%), as illustrated in Figure 7. Supply issues were also considered by 3 studies (20%). Over the years, the models have shifted focus toward specific disruptions, transitioning from natural [55; 56; 57] to supply issues [31; 54; 51], cybersecurity threats [26; 49; 52; 53], and more recently, health-related concerns [50]. However, none of these MMs address disruptive phenomena related to demand fluctuations, network issues, and regulatory changes, which have become increasingly pertinent for medium- and long-term objectives in industrial process optimization. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Reference** & **\# Levels** &
\begin{tabular}{c} **\#** \\ **Dimensions** \\ \end{tabular} & **Type of Disruption** & **RM** & **AFA** & **RR** & **TV** & **CR** & **Modeling Approach** \\ \hline
[48] & 5 & 7 & General & X & & & & & Theory-based (critical review) \\
[49] & 5 & 13 & Cybersecurity threats & X & & & & & Hybrid \\
[50] & 3 & - & Health crises & & & & X & & & Intertitien-based (online interviews) \\
[51] & 4 & - & Supply issues & & X & & & & - \\
[52] & 5 & 4 & Cybersecurity threats & X & & & & Hybrid \\
[26] & 4 & 6 & Cybersecurity threats & X & X & X & & & Theory-based (critical review) \\
[31] & 5 & 5 & Supply issues & X & & & & Theory-based (critical review) \\
[53] & 5 & 4 & Cybersecurity threats & & & & & - \\
[54] & 5 & 5 & Supply issues & & & & & X & - \\
[33] & 5 & 4 & Natural disasters & X & & & & Theory-based (critical review) \\
[55] & 5 & 19 & Natural disasters & X & X & & & Hybrid \\
[56] & 5 & 8 & Natural disasters & X & X & & X & & - \\
[57] & 5 & 26 & Natural disasters & & X & X & & X & Theory-based (critical review) \\
[58] & 9 & - & General & & X & & X & X & Theory-based (critical review) \\
[25] & 5 & 2 & General & & X & X & X & X & Theory-based (critical review) \\ MaMoReS & & & & & & & & & \\ (our & 5 & 5 & General & X & X & X & X & Theory-based (critical review) \\ model) & & & & & & & & & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Resilience MM classification according to the selected criteria.