## 4 Discussion
### Contributions of the Developed Model  
The MMs may be developed through a theory-based, a practitioner-based, or hybrid-based (combining the first two categories) approach. The developed MaMoReS falls within the category of theory-based models. These are the most common models when assessing the resilience maturity level in different contexts [25, 26, 31, 33, 48, 57, 58] (see Table 3). These models have the advantage of considering the available literature to define the dimensions and sub-dimensions that should be included for the evaluation process. This neglects insights from the practical field. On the other hand, practitioner-based models consider experts of the field for the model design [50], but they neglect available academic studies. Hybrid models are the most complete, since they combine academic and practical insights [49, 52, 55]. When considering theory-based and hybrid approaches, the critical  
Figure 12: Sub-dimensions’ scoring of the MaMoReS application. review usually analyzes papers without considering a systematic approach (e.g., following the PRISMA protocol). Moreover, there is no validation of the identified dimensions and sub-dimensions. On the other hand, the developed MaMoReS considers the dimensions included in works that evaluate the resilience maturity level of different contexts. These dimensions are validated through the SLNA to depict whether they are considered in the context of supply chain resilience. This process has possibly led to an extension of previous MMs related to supply chain resilience. Indeed, compared to the model of [31; 48; 50; 51; 54], additional dimensions of key resilience principles are included. Anyway, it is worth noting that most of the former works were explicitly focused on a specific niche based on the type of disruption for assessing the SC resilience maturity level. To provide a more in-depth overview of the obtained results, the MaMoReS is compared with the ResMMs that emerged from the SLR (i.e., the ones listed in Table 3). The comparison is focused on the differences regarding the considered dimensions. On the other hand, the same sub-dimensions are considered for all the models. Specifically, the sub-dimensions of the MaMoReS are considered. This choice was made since all the models deal with resilience, but not all of them are related to supply chain. Since different MMs consider different dimensions, the resulting maturity level may vary. The variations in maturity level, depending on the considered dimensions, are shown in Figures 13 and 14 for Company Alpha and Company Beta, respectively. The results are also summarized in Table 4. The references of each MM are shown in Figures 13 and 14 as well. The color of the bars identifies the number of considered dimensions. The models with one dimension are represented through red bars, while a yellow bar is associated with models characterized by two dimensions. [PERSON] and light blue bars denote models with three and four dimensions respectively. Finally, the blue bars indicate the maturity level depicted by the MaMoReS. This model includes \"Agility, Flexibility, and Adaptability\" (D2) and \"Redundancy and Robustness\" (D3). Company Alpha has the highest performance with respect to these dimensions, leading to a high maturity level. The other MMs assign a maturity level of three to Company Alpha. This result is aligned with the MaMoReS. Considering Company Beta, the variation in maturity level across different MMs is lower compared to Company Alpha. This indicates that Company Beta has more similar scores across dimensions compared to Company Alpha. Indeed, it is less sensitive to variation in the considered dimensions. Most of the models provide a maturity level of four for Company Beta, aligning with the MaMoReS. Only three MMs depict a maturity level of three. Two of these MMs consider only one dimension. The first considers \"Agility, Flexibility, and Adaptability\" (D2), while the other includes only \"Transparency and Visibility\" (D4).