Skip to main content
PMC home page
Springer Nature - PMC COVID-19 Collection logoLink to Springer Nature - PMC COVID-19 Collection
. 2021 Jun 30:1–27. Online ahead of print. doi: 10.1007/s10479-021-04107-y

A structured literature review on the interplay between emerging technologies and COVID-19 – insights and directions to operations fields

Maciel M Queiroz 1,2,✉, Samuel Fosso Wamba 3
PMCID: PMC8243624  PMID: 34226781

Abstract

In recent years, emerging technologies have gained popularity and being implemented in different fields. Thus, critical leading-edge technologies such as artificial intelligence and other related technologies (blockchain, simulation, 3d printing, etc.) are transforming the operations and other traditional fields and proving their value in fighting against unprecedented COVID-19 pandemic outbreaks. However, due to this relation's novelty, little is known about the interplay between emerging technologies and COVID-19 and its implications to operations-related fields. In this vein, we mapped the extant literature on this integration by a structured literature review approach and found essential outcomes. In addition to the literature mapping, this paper's main contributions were identifying literature scarcity on this hot topic by operations-related fields; consequently, our paper emphasizes an urgent call to action. Also, we present a novel framework considering the primary emerging technologies and the operations processes concerning this pandemic outbreak. Also, we provided an exciting research agenda and four propositions derived from the framework, which are collated to operations processes angle. Thus, scholars and practitioners have the opportunity to adapt and advance the framework and empirically investigate and validate the propositions for this and other highly disruptive crisis.

Keywords: COVID-19, Emerging technologies, Artificial intelligence, Structured literature review

Introduction

The COVID-19 pandemic outbreak has caused unparallel disruptions in practically all fields and organizations' business models (Dubey, Bryde et al., 2020; Ivanov, 2020a; Pan & Zhang, 2020; Queiroz, Ivanov et al., 2020). In consequence, traditional industries like automotive (Forbes, 2020), food supply chain (Butu et al., 2020; Singh et al., 2020), information systems and education (Dwivedi et al., 2020), medical supplies (Manero et al., 2020; Pacheco & Laguna, 2020), hospital operations (Bauer et al., 2020; Marin-Garcia et al., 2020; Mileder et al., 2020), and the transportation sector (Baveja et al., 2020), among others, experimented exceptional disruptions and challenges (Ruel et al., 2021).

In this context, industry practitioners (Delloite, 2020; McKinsey, 2020) and scholars (Ivanov, 2020b; Remko, 2020; Sarkis et al., 2020; Sodhi et al., 2021) has agreed about the decisive role of technologies in to fight against COVID-19 and other future disruptive events and emergency situations (Amaratunga et al., 2021). More specifically, the emerging technologies (Grover et al., 2020; Queiroz, Fosso Wamba et al., 2020), also known as cutting-edge technologies, refer to a set of disruptive technologies that present fast growth, major impact, and in various cases, radical novelty, but with its potential under development (Akter et al., 2020; Rotolo et al., 2015).

In this vein, organizations and the whole society can benefit from a wide range of disruptive digital technologies (M. Gupta et al., 2021; Spanaki et al., 2021) to face an exceptional event like COVID-19. These include artificial intelligence (Belhadi et al., 2021; Fosso Wamba, Bawack, et al., 2021), blockchain (Dubey, Gunasekaran, Bryde, et al., 2020; Wamba & Queiroz, 2020), big data analytics (Dubey, Gunasekaran, Childe, et al., 2020; Fosso Wamba, Queiroz, et al., 2020), the internet of things (A. Sinha et al., 2019), 5G (Siriwardhana et al., 2020), 3d printing (Belhouideg, 2020), virtual reality (Mao et al., 2020), augmented reality (Sahu et al., 2020), digital twin applications (Ivanov & Dolgui, 2020), as well as the Industry 4.0 applications (Kumar & Singh, 2021; Queiroz, Ivanov et al., 2020).

While the literature exploring COVID-19 in different operations, management, and information systems perspectives have made significant progress (Chesbrough, 2020; Dwivedi et al., 2020; Y. Li et al.,2020; Manero et al., 2020; Queiroz, Ivanov et al., 2020; Remko, 2020; Sarkis, 2020; Sodhi et al., 2021; Ivanov, 2020a, b), there is still a huge gap when we consider a systemization about the role of emerging technologies to fight against this pandemic outbreak, the lessons, insights, and directions for other future emergency situations (Choi, 2021; Ivanov, 2021).

In this line of thought, the literature dealing with the interplay between technologies approaches and COVID-19 shows a lack of a structured integration of key emerging technologies for COVID-19 control (Ivanov, 2020b; S. Kumar et al.,2021; Queiroz, Ivanov et al., 2020). For example, despite the recent, rapid increase in the number of reviews (Chowdhury et al., 2021; Ranjbari et al., 2021; Surabhi & Anders, 2020), most of them are limited to fully explore the integration between emerging technologies and COVID-19 as a primary approach. In this regard, Surabhi and Anders (2020) presented a bibliometric analysis integrating business and management perspectives. Ranjbari et al. (2021) provided a systematic literature review with a focus on the issue of sustainability and COVID-19, and concluded by drawing an agenda considering sustainable development. In the supply chain field, Chowdhury et al. (2021) made a systematic literature review and presented interesting research opportunities on this integration.

In addition, some literature reviews have predominantly focused on only one of these elements (Choi, 2021; Queiroz, Ivanov et al., 2020). For instance, Choi (2021) presented a well-articulated literature analysis exploring the COVID-19 in the lens of operations management. Queiroz, Ivanov et al., (2020) explored the COVID-19 and other epidemic outbreaks using a structured literature approach and focusing on supply chain-related fields. Katsaliaki et al. (2021) provided a literature review on supply chain disruptions, including the COVID-19, but without any focus on emerging technologies.

In order to minimize this gap, our study follows a structured literature review strategy approach (Queiroz, Ivanov et al., 2020) to explore the dynamics of the relationship between emerging technologies in the COVID-19 pandemic outbreak. Thus, the following research questions (RQs) emerge:

RQ1. What is the dynamics used for publications dealing with the interplay between COVID-19 and emerging technologies?

RQ2. What technologies are being used to fight against COVID-19?

RQ3. What are the main lessons about the application of emerging technologies to emergency events such as COVID-19?

Regarding this study's main contributions, we expect to provide a well-articulated systematization about the main emerging technologies and their role in the fight against COVID-19. This study intends to unlock new research streams by presenting a novel categorization and an insightful research agenda to support industry practitioners and scholars in their efforts to understand the contributions and role of key technologies applied in emergency situations.

This paper is organized as follows. Section 2 presents the methodology approach, followed by the analysis of the results in Sect. 3. In sequence, Sect. 4 points out the discussion and implications. Section 5 introduce a novel framework and research directions. Finally, Sect. 6 is dedicated to highlighting the concluding remarks and the main contributions.

Methodology approach

Following recent studies (Beydoun et al., 2019; Kapoor et al., 2018; Mishra et al., 2018), we adopted a bibliometric approach to capture the literature's dynamics regarding the interaction between emerging technologies and COVID-19. Bibliometric analysis is considered a robust approach to map a particular field by providing different metrics in order to support a more in-depth comprehension of the topic (Beydoun et al., 2019; Mishra et al., 2018; Nunes & Pereira, 2021). Besides, we applied a structured strategy to manage a research protocol and provide new categorization to the literature (Queiroz, Ivanov et al., 2020). This mixed strategy can be considered a structured literature review by integrating these two literature review techniques (bibliometric and systematic) (Queiroz, Ivanov et al., 2020) (Table 1).

Table 1.

Research protocol

Dimension Description
Keywords (TS = (“covid-19” OR “Covid19” OR “Covid” OR “coronavirus” OR “Sars-CoV-2” OR “SarsCoV2”) AND TS = ("Internet of things" OR “IoT” OR "artificial intelligence" OR "machine learning" OR "deep learning" OR 5G OR "Serverless Computing" OR blockchain OR Robotics OR Biometrics OR "3D Printing" OR “Additive Manufacturing” OR "Virtual Reality" OR "Augmented Reality" OR Drone OR “Digital twin”))
Timespan 2020
Web of Science databases SCI-EXPANDED, SSCI, A&HCI, CPCI-S, CPCI-SSH, ESCI
Fields Title, Abstract, and Keywords
Inclusion criteria Papers published in the WoS database
Complete information about the article's data
Exclusion criteria Non-English language articles
Incomplete information about the article
Data extraction and analysis Biblioshiny and VOSviewer
Open in a new tab

Firstly, we identified the leading and reliable, and trustworthy database to support the search. Thus, we used the Web of Science database (Clarivate Analytics, 2020) as the main source to search. Secondly, in order to organize the amount of data, we adopted two well-known software. For this reason, we employed Biblioshiny (Aria & Cuccurullo, 2017; Queiroz, Ivanov et al., 2020) and VOSviewer (Mishra et al., 2018; Nunes & Pereira, 2021). We selected the keywords by screening on Google Scholar different previous studies exploring COVID-19 and proposing emerging technologies to fight against this pandemic outbreak.

Results analysis

Main information of the search

By applying the keywords mentioned in the research protocol, we identified 1,297 papers. In sequence, we employed the inclusion and exclusion criteria, which in turn resulted in 1247 papers to analyze. Regarding some basic metrics, the average citations per paper are 3.76. A total of 3,406 keywords were used for 1,247 papers. Also, 6,473 authors appeared in these articles, and only 114 papers were single-authored papers. The average number of authors per document was 5.19. These initial numbers are highlighted in Table 2, and show an interesting interaction and contribution between the authors.

Table 2.

Main information

Description Results
Timespan 2020
Sources (Journals, Books, etc.) 613
Documents 1247
Average citations per documents 3.763
Average citations per year per doc 2.056
Document contents
Author's Keywords (DE) 3406
Authors
Authors 6473
Author Appearances 7437
Authors of single-authored documents 108
Authors of multi-authored documents 6365
Authors collaboration
Single-authored documents 114
Documents per Author 0.193
Authors per Document 5.190
Open in a new tab

Sources indicators

In Table 3, we present the top 20 sources based on a number of publications (NP) and total citations (TC). We found the dominance of the journals from the computer fields, medical and medical informatics. In this vein, the first ranked was the IEEE Access (NP = 57), a multidisciplinary and open access journal, which publishes several papers on the interplay between computer science and engineering. However, when considering the TC, the most ranked journal is the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health (TC = 215), which is focused on the interactions between environmental science and medicine. While these three categories (computer fields, medical and medical informatics) dominate the most relevant sources considering the output and citations, journals from traditional areas like operations management/research, production systems, logistics, supply chain, information systems and business management do not appear in the ranking.

Table 3.

Most relevant sources and impact

Rank Source h_index g_index m_index TC NP PY_start
1 IEEE Access 6 10 3.0 119 57 2020
2 Journal of Medical Internet Research 5 9 2.5 99 48 2020
3 Chaos Solitons & Fractals 6 10 3.0 134 29 2020
4 PLOS ONE 3 6 1.5 43 25 2020
5 Applied Sciences-Basel 4 5 2.0 33 22 2020
6 International Journal of Pervasive Computing and Communications 2 2 12 22 2020
7 International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 5 14 2.5 215 21 2020
8 Applied Intelligence 2 6 37 17 2020
9 Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems 0 0 0.0 0 13 2020
10 Sustainability 1 1 0.5 6 13 2020
11 Journal of Clinical Medicine 3 4 1.5 21 11 2020
12 IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics 1 2 0.5 4 10 2020
13 European Radiology 2 2 12 9 2020
14 Journal of Medical Systems 4 8 2.0 65 9 2020
15 Scientific Reports 1 1 0.5 4 9 2020
16 Sensors 2 3 1.0 12 9 2020
17 CMC-Computers Materials & Continua 2 7 1.0 58 8 2020
18 Computers in Biology and Medicine 5 8 2.5 127 8 2020
19 PEERJ 1 3 0.5 11 8 2020
20 Diabetes & Metabolic Syndrome-Clinical Research & Reviews 5 7 2.5 66 7 2020
Open in a new tab

Authors indicators

To explore the indicators from the authors, Table 4 presents the top 20 ranked authors based on the output of papers. Also, we added the fractional authorship indicator, which computes an individual author's contributions to a group of papers published (Geunes & Su, 2020). The most contributed author was Li (10), followed by Wang (8), Duong (6), and Kumar (6). It is interesting to note that four authors outperformed five papers.

Table 4.

Most relevant authors

Rank Authors Articles Articles Fractionalized
1 Li L 10 0.74
2 Wang J 8 0.91
3 Duong TQ 6 0.89
4 Kumar S 6 2.45
5 Das R 5 0.66
6 Hossain Ms 5 1.16
7 Kumar A 5 1.86
8 Lee J 5 0.70
9 Li Hf 5 0.69
10 Liu J 5 0.30
11 Peng CZ 5 0.83
12 Pirouz B 5 1.00
13 Sharma A 5 1.39
14 Wang L 5 0.37
15 Wang Yl 5 1.16
16 Ye Rz 5 0.83
17 Zhang Y 5 0.46
18 Zhu Ts 5 0.88
19 Abdulkareem KH 4 0.33
20 Ali S 4 0.56
Open in a new tab

Affiliations information

Considering the outcomes by affiliations (Table 5), the first five of the ranking were Chinese and American institutions. The most productive was Huazhong University of Science and Technology, a Chinese university, with 47 papers, followed by the Americans Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai (39 papers), Harvard Medical School (32 papers), Stanford University (27 papers), and again a Chinese institution with Fudan University (26 papers). Furthermore, considering the top 20, this behavior is similar, with a few exceptions: the University of Toronto (sixth position), King Saud University (eighth), the University of Milan (eleventh), followed by the University of Oxford (twelfth), and the University of Cambridge (seventeenth).

Table 5.

Most relevant affiliations

Rank Affiliations Articles
1 Huazhong Univ Sci and Technol 47
2 Icahn Sch Med Mt Sinai 39
3 Harvard Med Sch 32
4 Stanford Univ 27
5 Fudan Univ 26
6 Univ Toronto 24
7 Natl Univ Singapore 22
8 King Saud Univ 21
9 Zhejiang Univ 21
10 China Med Univ 19
11 Univ Milan 19
12 Univ Oxford 19
13 Shanghai Jiao Tong Univ 18
14 Univ Hong Kong 18
15 Johns Hopkins Univ 16
16 Michigan State Univ 16
17 Univ Cambridge 16
18 Univ Penn 16
19 Wuhan Univ 16
20 Univ Calif Los Angeles 15
Open in a new tab

Information about countries production

Regarding the countries' papers production (Table 6), the USA (1,047), China (804), India (382), Italy (360), and the United Kingdom (262) rank the top five. In this outlook, only two countries outperformed 500 papers. Moreover, the ranking comprises another North America country (Canada) that achieved great performance. While countries from Asia and Europe reached excellent participation, countries from underrepresented regions did not appear in the top-10 list. For instance, it should be noticed the stark absence of Central Africa’s countries. Surprisingly, a Latin American country, namely Brazil, achieved the eighteenth position.

Table 6.

Country scientific production

Rank Country Frequency
1 USA 1047
2 China 804
3 India 382
4 Italy 360
5 United Kingdom 262
6 Canada 152
7 Spain 127
8 South Korea 126
9 Germany 117
10 Australia 96
11 France 80
12 Saudi Arabia 80
13 Singapore 74
14 Turkey 72
15 Iran 71
16 Egypt 65
17 Pakistan 60
18 Brazil 59
19 Netherlands 49
20 Vietnam 43
Open in a new tab

Citations per countries

In Table 7, we consider the countries' citations. It can be seen that although China and the USA are practically tied in a number of citations, with 1,129 and 1024, respectively, the performance of the average article citations of China is better. In addition, these two countries were the only ones that outperformed 1,000 citations. The third in the rank, India, raised only 298 citations. On the one hand, China and the USA led the total citations; surprisingly, the average citations were dominated by Mauritius (40.000), Belgium (30.889), and Croatia (15.500). However, it is important to note that a small number of papers can benefit from the average article's citations.

Table 7.

Most cited countries

Rank Country Total Citations Average Article Citations
1 China 1129 6.103
2 USA 1024 4.016
3 India 298 2.463
4 Belgium 278 30.889
5 Canada 277 6.756
6 Italy 208 3.200
7 United Kingdom 200 2.564
8 Germany 181 7.870
9 Turkey 159 6.360
10 Greece 96 7.385
11 Iran 77 5.133
12 Korea 62 1.676
13 Netherlands 58 7.250
14 Australia 47 1.424
15 Brazil 43 2.867
16 Mauritius 40 40.000
17 Qatar 40 10.000
18 Egypt 39 1.696
19 Spain 38 1.086
20 Croatia 31 15.500
Open in a new tab

Top 20 papers based on the number of citations

Table 8 shows the 20 papers most cited, their respective first authors, and the journal. The top-ranked was a systematic review and critical analysis of prediction models for COVID-19. While the second paper did not focalize on any specific utilization of an AI-related technology, the authors highlight the role of IoT in to fight against COVID-19 and other epidemic outbreaks; in the third most ranked, the authors used machine learning integrated with different approaches to explore the mental’s health of the people during COVID-19. In general, papers exploring AI techniques like machine learning, deep learning, deep neural networks, convolutional neural networks, and other data-driven mechanisms were the most popular approaches. Predicting models for diagnosis, psychological treatments, image trials, and health monitoring were the most popular issues explored. Surprisingly, we found an exception outside from the healthcare perspective. A paper exploring COVID-19 from the lens of operations and supply chains (Ivanov, 2020a) achieved the citations' seventh position. The paper focuses on the epidemic outbreaks prediction by a simulation approach, considering the supply chains. Finally, we can see that only six papers exceeded 100 citations.

Table 8.

Most global cited documents

Rank First author and Journal Paper DOI Total Citations
1 Wynants L, 2020, Bmj-Brit Med J Prediction models for diagnosis and prognosis of covid-19: systematic review and critical appraisal 10.1136/bmj.m1328 250
2 Peeri NC, 2020, Int J Epidemiol The SARS, MERS and novel coronavirus (COVID-19) epidemics, the newest and biggest global health threats: what lessons have we learned? 10.1093/ije/dyaa033 231
3 Li SJ, 2020, Int J Env Res Pub He The Impact of COVID-19 Epidemic Declaration on Psychological Consequences: A Study on Active Weibo Users 10.3390/ijerph17062032 168
4 Yang ZF, 2020, J Thorac Dis Modified SEIR and AI prediction of the epidemics trend of COVID-19 in China under public health interventions 10.21037/jtd.2020.02.64 148
5 Li L, 2020, Radiology Using Artificial Intelligence to Detect COVID-19 and Community-acquired Pneumonia Based on Pulmonary CT: Evaluation of the Diagnostic Accuracy 10.1148/radiol.2020200905 116
6 Li DS, 2020, Korean J Radiol False-Negative Results of Real-Time Reverse-Transcriptase Polymerase Chain Reaction for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2: Role of Deep-Learning-Based CT Diagnosis and Insights from Two Cases 10.3348/kjr.2020.0146 115
7 Ivanov D, 2020, Transport Res E-Log Predicting the impacts of epidemic outbreaks on global supply chains: A simulation-based analysis on the coronavirus outbreak (COVID-19/SARS-CoV-2) case 10.1016/j.tre.2020.101922 97
8 Ton AT, 2020, Mol Inform Rapid Identification of Potential Inhibitors of SARS‐CoV‐2 Main Protease by Deep Docking of 1.3 Billion Compounds 10.1002/minf.202000028 88
9 Ozturk T, 2020, Comput Biol Med Automated detection of COVID-19 cases using deep neural networks with X-ray images 10.1016/j.compbiomed.2020.103792 71
10 Shen B, 2020, Cell Proteomic and Metabolomic Characterization of COVID-19 Patient Sera 10.1016/j.cell.2020.05.032 70
11 Yan L, 2020, Nat Mach Intell An interpretable mortality prediction model for COVID-19 patients 10.1038/s42256-020–0180-7 66
12 Apostolopoulos ID, 2020, Phys Eng Sci Med Covid-19: automatic detection from X-ray images utilizing transfer learning with convolutional neural networks 10.1007/s13246-020–00,865-4 65
13 Jiang XG, 2020, Cmc-Comput Mater Con Towards an Artificial Intelligence Framework for Data-Driven Prediction of Coronavirus Clinical Severity 10.32604/cmc.2020.010691 54
14 Vigneswaran Y, 2020, J Gastrointest Surg What Is the Appropriate Use of Laparoscopy over Open Procedures in the Current COVID-19 Climate? 10.1007/s11605-020–04,592-9 49
15 Mccall B, 2020, Lancet Digit Health COVID-19 and artificial intelligence: protecting health-care workers and curbing the spread 10.1016/S2589-7500(20)30,054–6 49
16 Mei XY, 2020, Nat Med Artificial intelligence–enabled rapid diagnosis of patients with COVID-19 10.1038/s41591-020–0931-3 44
17 Ciotti M, 2020, Crit Rev Cl Lab Sci The COVID-19 pandemic 10.1080/10408363.2020.1783198 42
18 Santosh KC, 2020, J Med Syst-a AI-Driven Tools for Coronavirus Outbreak: Need of Active Learning and Cross-Population Train/Test Models on Multitudinal/Multimodal Data 10.1007/s10916-020–01,562-1 42
19 Allam Z, 2020, Healthcare-Basel On the Coronavirus (COVID-19) Outbreak and the Smart City Network: Universal Data Sharing Standards Coupled with Artificial Intelligence (AI) to Benefit Urban Health Monitoring and Management 10.3390/healthcare8010046 40
20 Eccleston C, 2020, Pain Managing patients with chronic pain during the COVID-19 outbreak: considerations for the rapid introduction of remotely supported (eHealth) pain management services 10.1097/j.pain.0000000000001885 38
Open in a new tab

Keywords frequency—authors versus keywords plus

In Table 9, we provide the most frequent keywords. On the left side, we have the keywords given by the authors, and on the right side, the keywords plus, which were not provided by the authors (found by an algorithm approach). Considering the authors’ side, it is clear that the keywords used in the search (protocol) were the top-ranked “covid-19”, “machine learning”, “artificial intelligence”, “deep learning”, “coronavirus”, etc. In addition, words that denote important operations supported by technologies like “telemedicine”, “prediction”, and “classification”, appear in this list. Finally, other cutting-technologies like “internet of things”, “3d printing”, and “big data”, also were protagonists.

Table 9.

Most frequent words

Rank Author's keywords Occurrences Keywords plus Occurrences
1 covid-19 677 pneumonia 51
2 machine learning 181 coronavirus 50
3 artificial intelligence 157 prediction 37
4 deep learning 141 china 35
5 coronavirus 134 internet 33
6 sars-cov-2 113 health 32
7 pandemic 81 wuhan 32
8 computed tomography 40 classification 31
9 pneumonia 39 artificial-intelligence 30
10 learning 38 system 30
11 internet of things 37 disease 27
12 telemedicine 36 model 27
13 lung 31 impact 25
14 3d printing 30 outbreak 25
15 big data 30 covid-19 24
16 prediction 26 diagnosis 24
17 classification 24 risk 23
18 diseases 24 management 22
19 intelligence 24 sars 22
20 artificial 22 design 21
Open in a new tab

Regarding the keywords plus, the term “prediction” appeared in the top three, suggesting one of the main features and concerns that the emerging technologies could improve. Also, influential keywords that participated in the author’s keywords, like “classification” and “artificial-intelligence”, populates the top ten. Furthermore, other keywords emerged and reinforce the needs for the usage of leading-edge technologies to fight against epidemic outbreaks. The keywords were “model”, “impact”, “diagnosis”, “risk”, “management”, and “design”.

Treemap dynamics

To finalize the analysis of the keywords dynamics, in Fig. 1 we present a TreeMap taking into account the abstracts. The size rectangle denotes the frequency of the term. In this vein, “covid”, “patients”, “data”, “pandemic”, and “learning”, were the most frequent topics. Regarding the emerging technologies outlook, we recognize that related topics like “data”, “learning”, “models”, “machine”, “methods”, “system”, “artificial”, “deep”, “accuracy”, “analysis”, “ai”, “detection”, “intelligence”, achieved good participation. Therefore, it bolsters the suggestion that emerging technologies play an essential role to tackle epidemic outbreaks and other emergency situations.

Fig. 1.

Fig. 1

Open in a new tab

TreeMap based on abstracts

Cluster analysis

We performed a cluster analysis to explore the topic’s similarities characteristics (Hosseini & Ivanov, 2020; Kafeza et al., 2020). In order to ensure reliability and replicability, Table 10 highlights the protocol adopted. Thus, we found six interesting clusters (Fig. 2).

Table 10.

Cluster protocol

Type of analysis Co-occurrence
Unit of analysis All keywords
Counting type Full counting
Minimum number of occurrences of a keyword 9
Meet the threshold 123
Open in a new tab

Fig. 2.

Fig. 2

Open in a new tab

Cluster analysis

In this respect, cluster one (red) is a mixed cluster, with emerging technologies (AI, augmented reality, big data, blockchain, IoT, robotics, simulation, virtual reality, etc.), operations medical approaches (contact tracing, digital health, telehealth), and business management (framework, innovation, management). Cluster 2 (green), is governed by deep learning and other AI approaches (convolutional neural network, neural network) applied mainly in the diagnosis process, diseases, image segmentation, recognition, segmentation, x-ray, etc. Cluster 3 (dark blue) is dedicated to sars-cov-2 dynamics (identification, infection, mortality, outbreak, etc.). In sequence, cluster 4 (yellow) concentrates on social network approaches (networks, sentiment analysis, social media, Twitter, etc.) and other technology approaches (AI, natural language processing, 5G) to support the evolution of the pandemic outbreak. Next, cluster 5 (purple) is concentrated on technical aspects of the technologies (algorithm, forecasting, machine learning, model, neural networks, prediction, long short-term memory (LSTM), etc.). Lastly, cluster 6 (light blue) is focused on equipment supply (3d printing/additive manufacturing, personal protective equipment, etc.).

Discussion and implications

Following the main aim of this study, regarding the investigation of the relationship between emerging technologies and COVID-19 by the lens of operations-related fields, our structured literature review revealed interesting behavior. Firstly, considering one year of time horizon, we found 1,247 papers, and 6,473 authors; this is an impressive output. The papers resulting from a collaboration between several authors suggest an interesting effort between authors and countries to provide insights against this pandemic. Thus, resulting in a good average citation per article (3.763).

Given the journals' performance, while journals from the computer, medical, and medical informatics fields dominate the top 20 journals from production and operations management fields do not appear in the ranking. Thus, it can be seen as an alert for these fields to engage the community on this topic. From the author’s productivity side, four authors exceeded five papers — Li (10), Wang (8), Duong (6), and Kumar (6). Regarding the most productive institutions, China and the USA dominate the list. The same behavior was found in most cited countries' analysis. However, taking into account the average article citations, other countries appear more ranked (Mauritius, Belgium, and Croatia). It could be seen that due to a large number of papers from the USA and China, the average citation is minimized.

Regarding the performance of the top-cited papers, we found that machine learning, deep learning, deep neural networks, convolutional neural networks, and data-driven were the most popular techniques (Apostolopoulos & Mpesiana, 2020; Jiang et al., 2020; D. Li et al., 2020; Wynants et al., 2020; Yan et al., 2020). Although these techniques were predominantly applied in healthcare-related themes, we found an outlier representing the production and operations management field. A paper investigating the dynamics of the epidemic outbreaks on supply chains (Ivanov, 2020a), supported by the simulation approach, ranked in the seventh position.

The keywords analysis revealed interesting behavior in the literature. By comparing the authors versus keywords plus, we found similarities and some different words. From the author’s lens, besides the popularity of the words used in our search (machine learning, artificial intelligence, deep learning, etc.), no keywords concerning a direct connection to operations and production management fields were found. Considering the keywords plus, the ranking was dominated by related-pandemic words. Furthermore, “prediction” appeared in both rankings, showing the need to use some emerging technologies to improve the response and the operations as a whole.

In order to explore other perspectives from the dynamics of the word, we performed a TreeMap analysis based on the abstracts. While we found that AI-related technologies reached good participation in the frequency, words that evidence a direct application to the production and operations management were scarce. However, it is important to note that there was an indirect connection of the keywords when it considered the angle from healthcare operations. For instance, “data”, “learning”, “models”, “methods”, “system”, “artificial”, “accuracy”, “analysis”, “detection”, etc.

In relation to the cluster analysis, we found six clusters. The first, although being miscellaneous, it was dominated by emerging technologies that are related to AI (virtual reality, augmented reality, blockchain, big data, IoT, robotics, simulation, etc.), that are used to support operations medical approaches (contact tracing, digital health, telehealth). We found that cluster 2 was focused on deep learning and other AI approaches (convolutional neural network, neural network) to operations related to diagnosis, recognition diseases, etc. While cluster 3 did not present any production and operations perspective, cluster 4 emphasized social networks and other technologies like 5G to follow the evolution of the pandemic. Finally, cluster 5 emphasized the technical approaches (i.e., algorithms) of the emerging technologies, and cluster 6 concentrated on medical supply using technologies (i.e., 3d printing).

Theoretical implications

Our results unveiled intriguing behavior regarding the dynamics of the interplay between emerging technologies and COVID-19. Firstly, while journals from the computer, medical and medical informatics literature were protagonists in exploring emerging technologies (Hao-Chih et al., 2020; Jiang et al., 2020; McCall, 2020; Ozturk et al., 2020), there is a huge gap concerning journals from production and operations-related fields, regarding the output’s perspective. In this vein, an exception was Ivanov (2020a), with his paper “Predicting the impacts of epidemic outbreaks on global supply chains: A simulation-based analysis on the coronavirus outbreak (COVID-19/SARS-CoV-2) case”, published on Transportation Research Part E. Thus, it suggests a more engagement by the scholars and journals of these fields to advance on this hot topic, increasing the output and the influence of the papers published.

From the emerging technologies angle, AI technologies like machine learning and deep learning were the most common approaches (D. Li et al., 2020; S. Li et al., 2020) but mainly applied to diagnosis, telemedicine, and prediction on hospital’s operations. Other disruptive technologies like blockchain, virtual reality, 5G, 3d printing, big data, simulation, and IoT were found less frequent that the aforementioned AI technologies, but all can be integrated with AI technologies in order to leverage the power of the solutions to fight against epidemic outbreaks. Surprisingly, words related to “serverless computing”, “biometrics”, “drone”, and “digital twin” did not appear in the keywords or cluster analysis. Thus, it suggests that these topics are embroidery in this perspective (AI and COVID-19), mainly regarding the production and operations fields.

Furthermore, in Sect. 5, we provide valuable research directions considering different and the most adherent operations approaches and organizational theories that can be used to explore the interplay between emerging technologies, COVID-19 and other emergency situations.

Practical implications

Regarding the practical and managerial implications, our study highlights that managers and practitioners should consider the adoption of AI-related technologies to improve their operations, independently of the segment of the organization (Dwivedi et al., 2019). For instance, machine learning, deep learning, and data-driven are powerful approaches to improve the prediction’s capabilities of the organizations and, consequently, develop strategies to anticipate, respond, and improve their operations during and after complex crisis such as COVID-19. Moreover, other leading-edge technologies like blockchain, 5G, 3d printing and IoT, represent opportunities to managers integrate into their operations in order to improve the traceability of the goods, as well as replace some of the essential equipment by employing 3d printing.

Besides, as we consider that it is not trivial to integrate various emerging technologies under a holistic framework as an attempt to better inform practitioners, the next section proposes a framework that highlights key emerging technologies and their usage level, as well as some activities that could be supported by them in relation to emergency situations. Furtermore, the digital twin approach (Ivanov & Dolgui, 2020) appears as another valuable approach to combining different technologies in the same framework for the same purpose.

Framework and research directions

Based on the findings and the lack of literature, in this section, we provide a novel framework (Fig. 3) considering the interplay between AI, complex emergency situations like COVID-19, and the integration with production and operations-related fields. The framework has four AI perspectives.

Fig. 3.

Fig. 3

Open in a new tab

Emerging technologies framework

First, the “Emerging technologies relative mature level”, which is related to technologies that are already being used in different COVID-19 operations through the organization’s network. In this category, machine learning, deep learning and big data analytics have been used to improve the predictions/forecasting regarding diagnosis, thus supporting the optimization of the resources planning (Allam & Jones, 2020; Jiang et al., 2020; D. Li et al., 2020; S. Li et al.,2020).

The second category is the “Emerging technologies early use level”, which is about the technologies required at the first stage of operations focused on COVID-19. For example, of the use of simulation techniques (Ivanov, 2020a) contributes to improving on supply chain, thereby enhancing the effectiveness of the achieved responses. This is partcularly true with 3d printing, the use of which enables a quick replacement of critical medical supplies (Manero et al., 2020).

The third category is compounded by “Emerging technologies awareness level”, that is, technologies with a high potential to support operations in pandemic and other types of crisis, but managers and practitioners are still gaining knowledge about its applications in operations. This category has emerging technologies like digital twin (Ivanov, 2020a), 5G (Allam & Jones, 2020), among others.

The “Emerging technologies operations processes view” forms the last category. It encompasses the main operations that are enabled by the AI (emerging)-related technologies. Hence, we point out that with the use of the technologies from the aforementioned categories, processes related to contact tracing, telemedicine/telehealth, diagnosis, recognition, drug repurposing, forecasting, and production of critical supplies, can be significantly improved.

In order to better scrutinize this framework and provide valuable research directions, we derived four intriguing propositions that could be empirically investigated.

Proposition 1

‘Emerging technologies relative mature level’ is positively associated with the operations' agility during and after a prolonged emergency situation.

Proposition 2

‘Emerging technologies early use level’ is positively associated with the operations adaptability during and after a prolonged emergency situation.

Proposition 3

‘Emerging technologies awareness level’ can positively or negatively affect the operations performance during and after a prolonged emergency situation.

Proposition 4

‘Emerging technologies operations processes view’ is positively associated with the organization’s capabilities in using different technologies to support their operations during and after a prolonged emergency situation.

Research agenda for COVID-19 and emerging technologies

Based on S. Gupta et al. (2019) and Queiroz, Ivanov et al., (2020a), this section shows the emergence of integrative research directions in relation to emerging technologies, COVID-19 and key theories. Besides, it examines the integration challenges, privacy, security and organizational change management issues with regard to the application of these emerging technologies (Hensmans, 2021; Wilson, 2020). In this vein, in Table 11 we report important research gaps concerning emerging technologies and digital transformation in the COVID-19 outlook. Moreover, in order to support scholars and practitioners, we suggest classic organizational theories, key operations approaches, and some recent literature on operations and related fields.

Table 11.

Future research directions supported by key organizational theories and OR/OM approaches

Research gaps and future research opportunities Key organizational theories Key operations approach Suggested literature on operations and related fields
To explore how AI can support organizations and their SC in order to develop operations capability to fight against highly disruptive environments Dynamic capabilities theory (Teece & Pisano, 1994; Teece et al., 1997) Simulation techniques for modeling the organizations and their SC with a view to adequate operations and resources monitoring during complex events Ivanov (2020b); Mitręga & Choi, (2021)
To explore how digital transformation has been supporting the creation of resources capabilities during and after disruptive events Resource-based view (RBV) (Barney, 1991, 2001; Wernerfelt, 1984) Structural equation modeling for understanding the digital capabilities that exert more influence and contribution to the management of emergency situations El Baz & Ruel (2021); Nandi et al.(2020)
To investigate how emerging technologies can support operations management according to the emergency situation (evolution) stage Contingency theory (Lawrence & Lorsch, 1967; Van de Ven et al., 2013) Fuzzy and AI models to explore different strategies to respond to the crisis Hassan & Abbasi(2021); A. Kumar, Mangla, et al. (2021); Kumar, Xu, et al.(2021)
To explore the reconfiguration of SCs enabled by emerging technologies Resilience theory (RT) (Duchek, 2019; Horne, 1997) Development of digital twin to support the decision-making process in the context of SC reconfiguration and viability Ivanov (2020b); Remko (2020)
To explore vaccine distribution blockchain Organizational information processing theory (OIPT) (Burns & Wholey, 1993; Galbraith, 1974) Exploration of vaccine distribution models using blockchain to minimize the uncertainty and instability of the SC behavior Benzidia et al. (2021); P. Sinha et al. (2021); Yu et al. (2021)
To explore the organizations and the SC operations adaptation behavior supported by emerging technologies Complexity theory and Complex adaptive systems (Burnes, 2005; Holland John, 2006) Big data analytics and AI to enable models to understand critical activities, vulnerabilities, and responses planning in the SC Angeli & Montefusco (2020); Guo et al. (2021)
To explore how the organizations and their SC reconfigure their structures supported by emerging technologies Institutional theory (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983) Digital twins and AI approaches to understand and improve the reconfiguration processes of the organization's operations Hwang & Höllerer (2020); Ivanov & Dolgui (2020); Karpen & Conduit (2020)
To explore how organizations share their digital capabilities to improve their response and resilience in the SC Social network theory (Freeman, 1978; Granovetter, 1973) AI and social networks models to understand critical relationships weak, and strength nodes in the SC Bassett et al. (2021); Santosh et al. 2021)
To explore the challenges and main issues concerning the integration of the emerging technologies Organizational change management (Appelbaum et al., 2012; By, 2005) To identify the main issues related to emerging technologies (Fig. 3), and integration during and after disruptive events (i.e., privacy, security and organizational change), as well as the impacts on operations management Allam & Jones(2021); Baptista et al. (2020); Fletcher & Griffiths (2020); Lee & Trimi(2021); Papagiannidis et al. (2020)
Open in a new tab

Limitations

This study harbors a number of limitations. The first is related to the unprecedented characteristics of the COVID-19 pandemic outbreak, which leads to some natural delays in some fields, with possible impacts on the journals' output concerning this topic. As a result, the search on the databases can also be affected. This is why we could not be able to obtain papers from important journals in due time. This negative impact can be upset if scholars and practitioners further use AI and big data techniques to monitor the literature on the interplay between emerging technologies and COVID-19. The second limitation derives from the fact that the keywords used for the search may not have considered some potential papers (Mishra et al., 2018), for one reason or the other. We suggest future literature reviews on this topic to expand the keywords to use in the databases. The third limitation comes from our using only the Web of Science database to perform the search, as multiple sources of data would have inevitably led to more convincing results. By combining the Web of Science database with other databases including Scopus, future research will definitely fill such a gap. The various research avenues outlined from these limitations, coupled with the proposed framework and its propositions, represent a significant opportunity to advance the literature, especially as regards the production and operations-related fields. Furthermore, managers and practitioners are henceforth offered the opportunity to explore our framework in order to better grasp how emerging technologies get integrated with their firms’ operations.

Concluding remarks and contributions

In this study, we explored the interplay between emerging technologies and COVID-19 by means of a structured literature review, taking into account the operations-related fields. Thus, our findings showed that cutting-edge AI technologies like machine learning and deep learning are the most popular approaches to support operations in this pandemic outbreak, but that other related technologies—like big data analytics, blockchain, simulation, AR/VR, 3d printing, etc.—are also increasingly since the outbreak of COVID-19. Findings also indicate that a group of leading-edge technologies (i.e., digital twin, 5G, drones, etc.) remain at their infancy stage when it comes to interventions or applications in emergency situations. Similarly, it appears that all these technologies, together with more others, are mainly used in operations related to contact tracing, telemedicine, diagnosis, drug repurposing, forecasting, etc.

In terms of contributions, this study appears as one of the first papers that have mapped the literature exploring key emerging technologies in the COVID-19 outlook. Secondly, we found that traditional journals featured very few papers dealing with the production and operations fields. This therefore reinforces the need for scholars and practitioners to call for action so that this gap be filled. Thirdly, we provided a novel framework that synthesizes the main emerging technologies that can be used in the context of a huge epidemic outbreak. Fourthly, the four propositions derived from the framework can be a rich avenue for scholars and practitioners to investigate and empirically validate the role of emerging technologies in emergency situations. Lastly, we suggest other exciting future research directions supported by key organizational theories and OR/OM approaches.

Footnotes

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Contributor Information

Maciel M. Queiroz, Email: [email protected], Email: [email protected]

Samuel Fosso Wamba, Email: [email protected].

References

  1. Akter S, Michael K, Rajib M, Mccarthy G, Rahman M. Transforming business using digital innovations : The application of AI, blockchain, cloud and data analytics. Annals of Operations Research. 2020 doi: 10.1007/s10479-020-03620-w. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  2. Allam Z, Jones DS. On the Coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak and the smart city network: universal data sharing standards coupled with Artificial Intelligence (AI) to benefit urban health monitoring and management. Healthcare. 2020;8(1):46. doi: 10.3390/healthcare8010046. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Allam Z, Jones DS. Future (post-COVID) digital, smart and sustainable cities in the wake of 6G: Digital twins, immersive realities and new urban economies. Land Use Policy. 2021 doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.105201. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  4. Amaratunga D, Cabrera J, Ghosh D, Katehakis MN, Wang J, Wang W. Socio-economic impact on COVID-19 cases and deaths and its evolution in New Jersey. Annals of Operations Research. 2021 doi: 10.1007/s10479-021-03941-4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Angeli F, Montefusco A. Sensemaking and learning during the Covid-19 pandemic: A complex adaptive systems perspective on policy decision-making. World Development. 2020 doi: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2020.105106. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Apostolopoulos ID, Mpesiana TA. Covid-19: Automatic detection from X-ray images utilizing transfer learning with convolutional neural networks. Physical and Engineering Sciences in Medicine. 2020;43(2):635–640. doi: 10.1007/s13246-020-00865-4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Appelbaum SH, Habashy S, Malo J, Shafiq H. Back to the future: Revisiting Kotter’s 1996 change model. Journal of Management Development. 2012;31(8):764–782. doi: 10.1108/02621711211253231. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  8. Aria M, Cuccurullo C. Bibliometrix : An R-tool for comprehensive science mapping analysis. Journal of Informetrics. 2017;11(4):959–975. doi: 10.1016/j.joi.2017.08.007. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  9. Baptista J, Stein MK, Klein S, Watson-Manheim MB, Lee J. Digital work and organisational transformation: Emergent Digital/Human work configurations in modern organisations. Journal of Strategic Information Systems. 2020 doi: 10.1016/j.jsis.2020.101618. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  10. Barney J. Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management. 1991;17(1):99–120. doi: 10.1177/014920639101700108. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  11. Barney JB. Resource-based theories of competitive advantage: A ten-year retrospective on the resource-based view. Journal of Management. 2001;27(6):643–650. doi: 10.1016/S0149-2063(01)00115-5. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  12. Bassett HR, Lau J, Giordano C, Suri SK, Advani S, Sharan S. Preliminary lessons from COVID-19 disruptions of small-scale fishery supply chains. World Development. 2021 doi: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2021.105473. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Bauer J, Brüggmann D, Klingelhöfer D, Maier W, Schwettmann L, Weiss DJ, Groneberg DA. Access to intensive care in 14 European countries: A spatial analysis of intensive care need and capacity in the light of COVID-19. Intensive Care Medicine. 2020 doi: 10.1007/s00134-020-06229-6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Baveja A, Kapoor A, Melamed B. Stopping Covid-19: A pandemic-management service value chain approach. Annals of Operations Research. 2020;289(2):173–184. doi: 10.1007/s10479-020-03635-3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Belhadi A, Mani V, Kamble SS, Khan SAR, Verma S. 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. 2021 doi: 10.1007/s10479-021-03956-x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Belhouideg S. Impact of 3D printed medical equipment on the management of the Covid19 pandemic. International Journal of Health Planning and Management. 2020;35(5):1014–1022. doi: 10.1002/hpm.3009. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Benzidia S, Makaoui N, Bentahar O. The impact of big data analytics and artificial intelligence on green supply chain process integration and hospital environmental performance. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. 2021 doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120557. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  18. Beydoun G, Abedin B, Merigó JM, Vera M. Twenty years of information systems frontiers. Information Systems Frontiers. 2019;21(2):485–494. doi: 10.1007/s10796-019-09925-x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  19. Burnes B. Complexity theories and organizational change. International Journal of Management Reviews. 2005;7(2):73–90. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2370.2005.00107.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  20. Burns LR, Wholey DR. Adoption and abandonment of matrix management programs: Effects of organizational characteristics and interorganizational networks. Academy of Management Journal Academy of Management. 1993;36(1):106–138. doi: 10.2307/256514. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Butu A, Brumă IS, Tanasă L, Rodino S, Vasiliu CD, Doboș S, Butu M. The impact of COVID-19 crisis upon the consumer buying behavior of fresh vegetables directly from local producers. Case study: The quarantined area of Suceava County, Romania. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2020;17(15):1–25. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17155485. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. By RT. Organisational change management: A critical review. Journal of Change Management. 2005;5(4):369–380. doi: 10.1080/14697010500359250. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  23. Chesbrough H. To recover faster from Covid-19, open up: Managerial implications from an open innovation perspective. Industrial Marketing Management. 2020;88:410–413. doi: 10.1016/j.indmarman.2020.04.010. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  24. Choi TM. Fighting against COVID-19: What operations research can help and the sense-and-respond framework. Annals of Operations Research. 2021 doi: 10.1007/s10479-021-03973-w. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Chowdhury P, Paul SK, Kaisar S, Moktadir MA. COVID-19 pandemic related supply chain studies: A systematic review. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review. 2021 doi: 10.1016/j.tre.2021.102271. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Clarivate Analytics. (2020). Web of Science. https://clarivate.com/webofsciencegroup/solutions/web-of-science/
  27. Delloite. (2020). COVID-19: Shaping the future through digital business - Leveraging technology to support the recovery and produce lasting change. https://www2.deloitte.com/global/en/pages/about-deloitte/articles/covid-19/shaping-the-future-through-digital-business.html
  28. DiMaggio PJ, Powell WW. The Iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review. 1983;48(2):147. doi: 10.2307/2095101. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  29. Dubey R, Bryde DJ, Foropon C, Graham G, Giannakis M, Mishra DB. Agility in humanitarian supply chain: An organizational information processing perspective and relational view. Annals of Operations Research. 2020 doi: 10.1007/s10479-020-03824-0. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Dubey R, Gunasekaran A, Bryde DJ, Dwivedi YK, Papadopoulos T. Blockchain technology for enhancing swift-trust, collaboration and resilience within a humanitarian supply chain setting. International Journal of Production Research. 2020 doi: 10.1080/00207543.2020.1722860. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  31. Dubey R, Gunasekaran A, Childe SJ, Bryde DJ, Giannakis M, Foropon C, Roubaud D, Hazen BT. Big data analytics and artificial intelligence pathway to operational performance under the effects of entrepreneurial orientation and environmental dynamism: A study of manufacturing organisations. International Journal of Production Economics. 2020;226(October 2019):107599. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpe.2019.107599. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  32. Duchek S. Organizational resilience: A capability-based conceptualization. Business Research. 2019;13(1):215–246. doi: 10.1007/s40685-019-0085-7. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  33. Dwivedi YK, Hughes DL, Coombs C, Constantiou I, Duan Y, Edwards JS, Gupta B, Lal B, Misra S, Prashant P, Raman R, Rana NP, Sharma SK, Upadhyay N. Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on information management research and practice: Transforming education, work and life. International Journal of Information Management. 2020 doi: 10.1016/J.IJINFOMGT.2020.102211. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  34. Dwivedi YK, Hughes L, Ismagilova E, Aarts G, Coombs C, Crick T, Duan Y, Dwivedi R, Edwards J, Eirug A, Galanos V, Ilavarasan PV, Janssen M, Jones P, Kar AK, Kizgin H, Kronemann B, Lal B, Lucini B, Williams MD. Artificial Intelligence (AI): Multidisciplinary perspectives on emerging challenges, opportunities, and agenda for research, practice and policy. International Journal of Information Management. 2019 doi: 10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2019.08.002. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  35. El Baz J, Ruel S. Can supply chain risk management practices mitigate the disruption impacts on supply chains’ resilience and robustness? Evidence from an empirical survey in a COVID-19 outbreak era. International Journal of Production Economics. 2021 doi: 10.1016/j.ijpe.2020.107972. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Fletcher G, Griffiths M. Digital transformation during a lockdown. International Journal of Information Management. 2020 doi: 10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2020.102185. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Forbes. (2020). The Coronavirus’ Impact On The Global Automotive Supply Chain. https://www.forbes.com/sites/laurieharbour1/2020/03/13/the-coronavirus-impact-on-the-global-automotive-supply-chain/?sh=1317691444ec. Accessed 10 Dec 2020
  38. Fosso Wamba, S., Bawack, R. E., Guthrie, C., Queiroz, M. M., & Carillo, K. D. A. (2021). Are we preparing for a good AI society? A bibliometric review and research agenda. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 164, 1–27. 10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120482
  39. Fosso Wamba S, Queiroz MM, Wu L, Sivarajah U. Big data analytics-enabled sensing capability and organizational outcomes: Assessing the mediating effects of business analytics culture. Annals of Operations Research. 2020 doi: 10.1007/s10479-020-03812-4. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  40. Freeman LC. Centrality in social networks conceptual clarification. Social Networks. 1978;1(3):215–239. doi: 10.1016/0378-8733(78)90021-7. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  41. Galbraith JR. Organization design: An information processing view. Interfaces. 1974;4(3):28–36. doi: 10.1287/inte.4.3.28. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  42. Geunes J, Su Y. Single-period assortment and stock-level decisions for dual sales channels with capacity limits and uncertain demand. International Journal of Production Research. 2020;58(18):5579–5600. doi: 10.1080/00207543.2019.1693648. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  43. Granovetter MS. The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology. 1973;78(6):1360–1380. doi: 10.1086/225469. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  44. Grover P, Kar AK, Dwivedi YK. Understanding artificial intelligence adoption in operations management: Insights from the review of academic literature and social media discussions. Annals of Operations Research. 2020 doi: 10.1007/s10479-020-03683-9. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  45. Guo X, Kapucu N, Huang J. Examining resilience of disaster response system in response to COVID-19. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction. 2021;59:102239. doi: 10.1016/j.ijdrr.2021.102239. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Gupta M, Shoja A, Mikalef P. Toward the understanding of national culture in the success of non-pharmaceutical technological interventions in mitigating COVID-19 pandemic. Annals of Operations Research. 2021 doi: 10.1007/s10479-021-03962-z. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Gupta S, Altay N, Luo Z. Big data in humanitarian supply chain management: A review and further research directions. Annals of Operations Research. 2019;283(1–2):1153–1173. doi: 10.1007/s10479-017-2671-4. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  48. Hao-Chih L, Kai-Yue D, Lin B, Liu C, Robson P, Chung M, Bernheim A, Calcagno C, Li S, Hong S, Long Q, Steinberger S, Jacobi A, Liu F, Little B, Fayad Z, Yang Y. Artificial intelligence–enabled rapid diagnosis of patients with COVID-19. Nature Medicine. 2020;26(8):1224–1228. doi: 10.1038/s41591-020-0931-3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. Hassan NM, Abbasi MN. A review of supply chain integration extents, contingencies and performance: A post Covid-19 review. Operations Research Perspectives. 2021 doi: 10.1016/j.orp.2021.100183. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  50. Hensmans M. Exploring the dark and bright sides of Internet democracy: Ethos-reversing and ethos-renewing digital transformation. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. 2021;168:120777. doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2021.120777. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  51. John H. Studying complex adaptive systems. Journal of Systems Science and Complexity. 2006;19(1):1–8. doi: 10.1007/s11424-006-0001-z. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  52. Horne JF. The coming age of organizational resilience. Business Forum. 1997;22:24–29. [Google Scholar]
  53. Hosseini S, Ivanov D. Bayesian networks for supply chain risk, resilience and ripple effect analysis: A literature review. Expert Systems with Applications. 2020;161:113649. doi: 10.1016/j.eswa.2020.113649. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  54. Hwang H, Höllerer MA. The COVID-19 crisis and its consequences: Ruptures and transformations in the global institutional fabric. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science. 2020;56(3):294–300. doi: 10.1177/0021886320936841. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  55. Ivanov D. Predicting the impacts of epidemic outbreaks on global supply chains: A simulation-based analysis on the coronavirus outbreak. Transportation Research Part E. 2020;136(March):101922. doi: 10.1016/j.tre.2020.101922. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  56. Ivanov D. Viable supply chain model: Integrating agility, resilience and sustainability perspectives—lessons from and thinking beyond the COVID-19 pandemic. Annals of Operations Research. 2020 doi: 10.1007/s10479-020-03640-6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  57. Ivanov D. Exiting the COVID-19 pandemic: after-shock risks and avoidance of disruption tails in supply chains. Annals of Operations Research. 2021 doi: 10.1007/s10479-021-04047-7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  58. Ivanov D, Dolgui A. A digital supply chain twin for managing the disruption risks and resilience in the era of Industry 4. 0. Production Planning and Control. 2020 doi: 10.1080/09537287.2020.1768450. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  59. Jiang X, Coffee M, Bari A, Wang J, Jiang X, Huang J, Shi J, Dai J, Cai J, Zhang T, Wu Z, He G, Huang Y. Towards an Artificial Intelligence Framework for Data-Driven Prediction of Coronavirus Clinical Severity. Computers Materials & Continua. 2020;62(3):537–551. doi: 10.32604/cmc.2020.010691. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  60. Kafeza E, Makris C, Rompolas G, Al-Obeidat F. Behavioral and migration analysis of the dynamic customer relationships on Twitter. Information Systems Frontiers. 2020 doi: 10.1007/s10796-020-10033-4. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  61. Kapoor KK, Tamilmani K, Rana NP, Patil P, Dwivedi YK, Nerur S. Advances in social media research: Past, present and future. Information Systems Frontiers. 2018;20(3):531–558. doi: 10.1007/s10796-017-9810-y. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  62. Karpen IO, Conduit J. Engaging in times of COVID-19 and beyond: Theorizing customer engagement through different paradigmatic lenses. Journal of Service Management. 2020;31(6):1163–1174. doi: 10.1108/JOSM-05-2020-0156. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  63. Katsaliaki K, Galetsi P, Kumar S. Supply chain disruptions and resilience: A major review and future research agenda. Annals of Operations Research. 2021 doi: 10.1007/s10479-020-03912-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  64. Kumar A, Mangla SK, Kumar P, Song M. Mitigate risks in perishable food supply chains: Learning from COVID-19. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. 2021 doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2021.120643. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  65. Kumar P, Singh RK. Application of Industry technologies for effective coordination in humanitarian supply chains: A strategic approach. Annals of Operations Research. 2021 doi: 10.1007/s10479-020-03898-w. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  66. Kumar S, Xu C, Ghildayal N, Chandra C, Yang M. Social media effectiveness as a humanitarian response to mitigate influenza epidemic and COVID-19 pandemic. Annals of Operations Research. 2021 doi: 10.1007/s10479-021-03955-y. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  67. Lawrence PR, Lorsch JW. Differentiation and integration in complex organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly. 1967;12(1):1. doi: 10.2307/2391211. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  68. Lee SM, Trimi S. Convergence innovation in the digital age and in the COVID-19 pandemic crisis. Journal of Business Research. 2021;123:14–22. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.09.041. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  69. Li D, Wang D, Dong J, Wang N, Huang H, Xu H, Xia C. False-negative results of real-time reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2: Role of deep-learning-based CT diagnosis and insights from two cases. Korean Journal of Radiology. 2020;21(4):505. doi: 10.3348/kjr.2020.0146. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  70. Li S, Wang Y, Xue J, Zhao N, Zhu T. The impact of covid-19 epidemic declaration on psychological consequences: A study on active weibo users. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2020 doi: 10.3390/ijerph17062032. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  71. Li Y, Chen K, Collignon S, Ivanov D. Ripple effect in the supply chain network: Forward and backward disruption propagation, network health and firm vulnerability. European Journal of Operational Research. 2020 doi: 10.1016/j.ejor.2020.09.053. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  72. Manero A, Smith P, Koontz A, Dombrowski M, Sparkman J, Courbin D, Chi A. Leveraging 3D printing capacity in times of crisis: Recommendations for COVID-19 distributed manufacturing for medical equipment rapid response. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2020;17(13):1–17. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17134634. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  73. Mao C, Koide R, Brem A, Akenji L. Technology foresight for social good: Social implications of technological innovation by 2050 from a global expert survey. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. 2020;153:119914. doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2020.119914. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  74. Marin-Garcia JA, Garcia-Sabater JP, Ruiz A, Maheut J, Garcia-Sabater J. Operations management at the service of health care management: Example of a proposal for action research to plan and schedule health resources in scenarios derived from the COVID-19 outbreak. Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management. 2020;13(2):213–227. doi: 10.3926/jiem.3190. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  75. McCall B. COVID-19 and artificial intelligence: protecting health-care workers and curbing the spread. The Lancet Digital Health. 2020;2(4):e166–e167. doi: 10.1016/s2589-7500(20)30054-6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  76. McKinsey. (2020). The COVID-19 recovery will be digital: A plan for the first 90 days. https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/mckinsey-digital/our-insights/the-covid-19-recovery-will-be-digital-a-plan-for-the-first-90-days
  77. Mileder LP, Schüttengruber G, Prattes J, Wegscheider T. Simulation-based training and assessment of mobile pre-hospital SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic teams in Styria. Austria Medicine. 2020;99(29):e21081. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000021081. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  78. Mishra D, Gunasekaran A, Papadopoulos T, Childe SJ. Big data and supply chain management: A review and bibliometric analysis. Annals of Operations Research. 2018;270(1–2):313–336. doi: 10.1007/s10479-016-2236-y. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  79. Mitręga M, Choi TM. How small-and-medium transportation companies handle asymmetric customer relationships under COVID-19 pandemic: A multi-method study. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review. 2021 doi: 10.1016/j.tre.2021.102249. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  80. Nandi S, Sarkis J, Hervani A, Helms M. Do blockchain and circular economy practices improve post COVID-19 supply chains? A resource-based and resource dependence perspective. Industrial Management and Data Systems. 2020;121(2):333–363. doi: 10.1108/IMDS-09-2020-0560. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  81. Nunes RMS, Pereira SCF. Intellectual structure and trends in the humanitarian operations field. Annals of Operations Research. 2021 doi: 10.1007/s10479-021-04022-2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  82. Ozturk T, Talo M, Yildirim EA, Baloglu UB, Yildirim O, Rajendra Acharya U. Automated detection of COVID-19 cases using deep neural networks with X-ray images. Computers in Biology and Medicine. 2020 doi: 10.1016/j.compbiomed.2020.103792. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  83. Pacheco J, Laguna M. Vehicle routing for the urgent delivery of face shields during the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Heuristics. 2020 doi: 10.1007/s10732-020-09456-8. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  84. Pan SL, Zhang S. From fighting COVID-19 pandemic to tackling sustainable development goals: An opportunity for responsible information systems research. International Journal of Information Management. 2020 doi: 10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2020.102196. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  85. Papagiannidis S, Harris J, Morton D. WHO led the digital transformation of your company? A reflection of IT related challenges during the pandemic. International Journal of Information Management. 2020 doi: 10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2020.102166. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  86. Queiroz MM, Ivanov D, Dolgui A, Fosso Wamba S. Impacts of epidemic outbreaks on supply chains: Mapping a research agenda amid the COVID-19 pandemic through a structured literature review. Annals of Operations Research. 2020 doi: 10.1007/s10479-020-03685-7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  87. Queiroz MM, Fosso Wamba S, Machado MC, Telles R. Smart production systems drivers for business process management improvement: An integrative framework. Business Process Management Journal. 2020;26(5):1075–1092. doi: 10.1108/BPMJ-03-2019-0134. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  88. Ranjbari M, Shams Esfandabadi Z, Zanetti MC, Scagnelli SD, Siebers PO, Aghbashlo M, Peng W, Quatraro F, Tabatabaei M. Three pillars of sustainability in the wake of COVID-19: A systematic review and future research agenda for sustainable development. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2021 doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126660. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  89. Rotolo D, Hicks D, Martin BR. What is an emerging technology? Research Policy. 2015;44(10):1827–1843. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2015.06.006. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  90. Ruel S, El Baz J, Ivanov D, Das A. Supply chain viability: Conceptualization, measurement, and nomological validation. Annals of Operations Research. 2021 doi: 10.1007/s10479-021-03974-9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  91. Sahu CK, Young C, Rai R. Artificial intelligence (AI) in augmented reality (AR)-assisted manufacturing applications: A review. International Journal of Production Research. 2020 doi: 10.1080/00207543.2020.1859636. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  92. Santosh N, Joseph S, Aref Aghaei H, Marilyn MH. Redesigning supply chains using blockchain-enabled circular economy and COVID-19 experiences. Sustainable Production and Consumption. 2021;27:10–21. doi: 10.1016/j.spc.2020.10.019. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  93. Sarkis J. Supply chain sustainability: Learning from the COVID-19 pandemic. International Journal of Operations and Production Management. 2020;41(1):63–73. doi: 10.1108/IJOPM-08-2020-0568. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  94. Sarkis J, Cohen MJ, Dewick P, Schröder P. A brave new world: Lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic for transitioning to sustainable supply and production. Resources, Conservation and Recycling. 2020 doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.104894. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  95. Singh S, Kumar R, Panchal R, Tiwari MK. Impact of COVID-19 on logistics systems and disruptions in food supply chain. International Journal of Production Research. 2020 doi: 10.1080/00207543.2020.1792000. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  96. Sinha A, Kumar P, Rana NP, Islam R, Dwivedi YK. Impact of internet of things (IoT) in disaster management: A task-technology fit perspective. Annals of Operations Research. 2019;283(1–2):759–794. doi: 10.1007/s10479-017-2658-1. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  97. Sinha P, Kumar S, Chandra C. Strategies for ensuring required service level for COVID-19 herd immunity in indian vaccine supply chain. European Journal of Operational Research. 2021 doi: 10.1016/j.ejor.2021.03.030. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  98. Siriwardhana Y, De Alwis C, Gur G, Ylianttila M, Liyanage M. The fight against COVID-19 pandemic with 5G technologies. IEEE Engineering Management Review. 2020 doi: 10.1109/EMR.2020.3017451. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  99. Sodhi, M., Tang, C., & Willenson, E. (2021). Research Opportunities in Preparing Supply Chains of Essential Goods for Future Pandemics. International Journal of Production Research. 10.1080/00207543.2021.1884310
  100. Spanaki K, Sivarajah U, Fakhimi M, Despoudi S, Irani Z. Disruptive technologies in agricultural operations: A systematic review of AI-driven AgriTech research. Annals of Operations Research. 2021 doi: 10.1007/s10479-020-03922-z. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  101. Surabhi V, Anders G. Investigating the emerging COVID-19 research trends in the field of business and management: A bibliometric analysis approach. Journal of Business Research. 2020;118:253–261. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.06.057. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  102. Teece DJ, Pisano G, Shuen AMY. Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal. 1997;18(7):509–533. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199708)18:7<509::AID-SMJ882>3.0.CO;2-Z. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  103. Teece D, Pisano G. The dynamic capabilities of firms: An introduction. Industrial and Corporate Change. 1994;3(3):537–556. doi: 10.1093/icc/3.3.537-a. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  104. Van de Ven AH, Ganco M, Hinings CR, (BOB). Returning to the frontier of contingency theory of organizational and institutional designs. Academy of Management Annals. 2013;7(1):393–440. doi: 10.5465/19416520.2013.774981. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  105. van Remko H. Research opportunities for a more resilient post-COVID-19 supply chain – closing the gap between research findings and industry practice. International Journal of Operations and Production Management. 2020;40(4):341–355. doi: 10.1108/IJOPM-03-2020-0165. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  106. Wamba SF, Queiroz MM. Industry and the supply chain digitalisation: A blockchain diffusion perspective. Production Planning and Control. 2020 doi: 10.1080/09537287.2020.1810756. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  107. Wernerfelt B. A resource-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal. 1984;5(2):171–180. doi: 10.1002/smj.4250050207. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  108. Wilson S. The pandemic, the acceleration of digital transformation and the impact on cyber security. Computer Fraud and Security. 2020;2020(12):13–15. doi: 10.1016/S1361-3723(20)30128-7. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  109. Wynants L, Van Calster B, Collins GS, Riley RD, Heinze G, Schuit E, Bonten MMJ, Dahly DL, Damen JA, Debray TPA, de Jong VMT, De Vos M, Dhiman P, Haller MC, Harhay MO, Henckaerts L, Heus P, Kammer M, Kreuzberger N, van Smeden M. Prediction models for diagnosis and prognosis of covid-19: Systematic review and critical appraisal. BMJ. 2020 doi: 10.1136/bmj.m1328. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  110. Yan L, Zhang H-T, Goncalves J, Xiao Y, Wang M, Guo Y, Sun C, Tang X, Jing L, Zhang M, Huang X, Xiao Y, Cao H, Chen Y, Ren T, Wang F, Xiao Y, Huang S, Tan X, Yuan Y. An interpretable mortality prediction model for COVID-19 patients. Nature Machine Intelligence. 2020;2(5):283–288. doi: 10.1038/s42256-020-0180-7. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  111. Yu W, Zhao G, Liu Q, Song Y. Role of big data analytics capability in developing integrated hospital supply chains and operational flexibility: An organizational information processing theory perspective. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. 2021 doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120417. [DOI] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Annals of Operations Research are provided here courtesy of Nature Publishing Group

RESOURCES