Corrigendum to “Revealing the hidden potentials of Internet of Things (IoT) - An integrated approach using agent-based modelling and system dynamics to assess sustainable supply chain performance” [J. Clean. Prod. 421 (2023) 138558]

Abstract

Refers to

Revealing the hidden potentials of Internet of Things (IoT) - An integrated approach using agent-based modelling and system dynamics to assess sustainable supply chain performance

Journal of Cleaner Production, Volume 421, 1 October 2023, Pages 138558 Suiting Ding, Hauke Ward, Stefano Cucurachi, Arnold Tukker After publication of the paper, it was brought to our attention there could be a potential unclarity/inconsistency in the time steps used in the ABM and SD parts of the modelling. We have checked them and updated the figures. Besides, we would like to add to section 4 (the third paragraph) the following text (in italics): Other parameter settings are listed in the following Table 1. In some cases, we use the same values for IoT and conventional supply chain to control extraneous variables and get consistency analysis results. To ensure consistency of the time steps between the SD part and the AB part, one day is defined as the model time step in the SD part. An event generator will update the time. It updates inventory levels of each supply node based on supply and demand rates, and then calculates production and shipping schedules. In the AB part (that models the specific behavior of each supply node), decisions and actions are executed within one time step. Each retailer agent checks its inventory and places orders based on demand forecasts. Manufacturer agents receive orders and adjust their production schedules (up to a maximum production capacity of 1600 units/day). Manufacturer agents interact with other agents and make decisions such as shipment orders (the shipment will arrive at the next time step). Then the event generator moves to the next day and repeats the above steps. The model is realized in Anylogic 8.7.11, see Appendix B. While this adjustment in principle leads to a recalculation of Figure 6 and 7 in the paper, there is visually no difference between original and recalculated figures, see below. The adjustment has hence no implications for the results or conclusions of the paper. We apologize again for making this mistake.