## 5 Conclusions and Limitations  
The main purpose of this study was to provide an alternative in delineating vulnerable supplier and proposing prioritization approach to supply network management. Aligned with the dual objectives of resilience approaches against disruptions [87], this study proposes an integrative perspective to achieve a desirable level of SC capabilities in adopting and recovering post-disruption, and to mitigate the uncertainty level of risk through the network structural relationships. The proposed approach is similar to the node-place model in transportation studies, in which the model utilizes each station's node value (the train station's capacity) and place value (surrounding environmental attributes) to identify and provide a means of improving the stations with a balanced level of node and place values [88; 89]. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Supplier** & \(\pi^{+}\)**(_i_)** & \(\pi^{-}\)**(_i_)** & \(\chi^{+}\)**(_i_)** & \(\chi^{-}\)**(_i_)** & **Gap** & **Observation** \\ \hline
1 & 9.33 & 4.33 & 522.67 & 112.67 & & 410.00 & Concordant \\
2 & 8.17 & 5.50 & 400.17 & 181.50 & & 218.67 & Concordant \\
3 & 5.17 & 8.50 & 160.17 & 433.50 & – & 273.33 & Discordant \\
4 & 12.50 & 0.83 & 937.50 & 4.17 & & 933.33 & Concordant \\
5 & 9.00 & 8.33 & 486.00 & 416.67 & & 69.33 & Concordant \\
6 & 11.33 & 1.83 & 770.67 & 20.17 & & 750.50 & Concordant \\
7 & 8.83 & 5.00 & 468.17 & 150.00 & & 318.17 & Concordant \\
8 & 6.50 & 7.50 & 253.50 & 337.50 & – & 84.00 & Discordant \\
9 & 7.17 & 6.17 & 308.17 & 228.17 & & 80.00 & Concordant \\
10 & 6.17 & 7.33 & 228.17 & 322.67 & – & 94.50 & Discordant \\
11 & 6.83 & 7.00 & 280.17 & 294.00 & – & 13.83 & Discordant \\
12 & 4.00 & 9.33 & 96.00 & 522.67 & – & 426.67 & Discordant \\
13 & 8.33 & 5.17 & 416.67 & 160.17 & & 256.50 & Concordant \\
14 & 8.33 & 4.83 & 416.67 & 140.17 & & 276.50 & Concordant \\
15 & 6.00 & 11.17 & 216.00 & 748.17 & – & 532.17 & Discordant \\
16 & 4.17 & 12.67 & 104.17 & 962.67 & – & 858.50 & Discordant \\
17 & 4.33 & 12.83 & 112.67 & 988.17 & – & 875.50 & Discordant \\
18 & 4.00 & 10.83 & 96.00 & 704.17 & – & 608.17 & Discordant \\
19 & 7.00 & 8.00 & 294.00 & 384.00 & – & 90.00 & Discordant \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Final concordant and discordant pair matrix and prioritization order. Resultantly, an integrative model that encompasses both the operational and environmental attributes of supply networks was proposed. Each firm carries a certain potential for performance based on its existing SC capabilities. Most importantly, the effectiveness of a firm's performance with respect to the entire SC may increase or decrease based on its embeddedness and connectivity within the supply network. Therefore, the bicriterion model was introduced to encourage a comprehensive assessment to inform supply network management. Second, the concordance-discordance approach was incorporated to identify firms that are uniquely conflicted (high discordance) in terms of performance levels with respect to other connected firms. This approach is useful when delineating firms that may impose an unexpected level of disruption for given levels of capabilities. This study contributes to theory as well as practice by increasing the understanding of how to integrate resilience capabilities and network values to determine the supply network resilience level in preparation for disruptions. Moreover, for practical application, this study proposed a network resilience model along with a concordance and discordance approach that can be used to prioritize firms to create a balanced and resilient network system. While numerous traditional studies on SCs have attempted to identify the key SC capabilities that enable resilience and the implications of the structural relationships in a network, an integrative outlook can provide a stepping-stone to create a theory-based prioritization model.