Resilient Capacity Sharing under Disruptions: Integrating Trust, Reciprocity, and Intelligent Decision-Making Models

Authors

  • Leonaird Janes Department of Computer Science, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, USA.
  • Jerome Lindberg Department of Computer Science, University of North Texas, Denton, TX, USA.
  • Ashwin L. Verma Department of Computer Science, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA.

Keywords:

capacity sharing, resilience, trust, reciprocity, intelligent decision-making, disruptions, socio-technical systems

Abstract

Capacity sharing among autonomous yet interdependent entities constitutes a foundational mechanism for managing demand volatility and resource scarcity across supply chains, cloud computing platforms, energy grids, and humanitarian logistics. When facing disruptive events, ranging from natural disasters to cyberattacks and geopolitical shocks, the capacity-sharing systems that underpin these infrastructures are pushed far beyond their design envelopes. This paper develops a comprehensive system-level analysis of resilient capacity sharing under disruptions, arguing that robustness and adaptive recovery cannot be achieved by technical optimization alone. Instead, they demand the systematic integration of three pillars: trust, reciprocity, and intelligent decision-making models. Drawing on interdisciplinary perspectives spanning operations management, multi-agent systems, organizational theory, and resilience engineering, the paper examines how trust and reciprocity reshape the incentive landscape for resource pooling, how intelligent algorithms can learn dynamic allocation policies in high-uncertainty environments, and how the governance architecture of capacity-sharing networks must balance central coordination with decentralized autonomy. The analysis foregrounds structural trade-offs among efficiency, fairness, transparency, and adaptability, and discusses the socio-technical implications of embedding algorithmic decision-making into shared infrastructure. Policy considerations regarding accountability, algorithmic auditing, and polycentric governance are elaborated to ensure that resilient capacity sharing remains both operationally effective and normatively legitimate. The paper concludes by identifying pathways for future research that fuse behavioral models of inter-organizational cooperation with self-adapting computational mechanisms, thereby contributing to a more holistic framework for critical resource exchange under stress.

References

1. Holling, C. S. (1973). Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 4(1), 1–23.

2. Sheffi, Y. (2005). The resilient enterprise: Overcoming vulnerability for competitive advantage. MIT Press.

3. Christopher, M., & Peck, H. (2004). Building the resilient supply chain. International Journal of Logistics Management, 15(2), 1–14.

4. Tomlin, B. (2006). On the value of mitigation and contingency strategies for managing supply chain disruption risks. Management Science, 52(5), 639–657.

5. Sodhi, M. S., Son, B. G., & Tang, C. S. (2012). Researchers’ perspectives on supply chain risk management. Production and Operations Management, 21(1), 1–13.

6. Cachon, G. P., & Lariviere, M. A. (2005). Supply chain coordination with revenue-sharing contracts: Strengths and limitations. Management Science, 51(1), 30–44.

7. Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709–734.

8. Nowak, M. A., & Sigmund, K. (1998). Evolution of indirect reciprocity by image scoring. Nature, 393(6685), 573–577.

9. Hu, X., & Caldentey, R. (2023). Trust and reciprocity in firms’ capacity sharing. Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, 25(4), 1436-1450.

10. Das, T. K., & Teng, B. S. (2001). Trust, control, and risk in strategic alliances: An integrated framework. Organization Studies, 22(2), 251–283.

11. Fehr, E., & Gächter, S. (2000). Cooperation and punishment in public goods experiments. American Economic Review, 90(4), 980–994.

12. Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge University Press.

13. Sutton, R. S., & Barto, A. G. (2018). Reinforcement learning: An introduction (2nd ed.). MIT Press.

14. Mnih, V., Kavukcuoglu, K., Silver, D., Rusu, A. A., Veness, J., Bellemare, M. G., ... & Hassabis, D. (2015). Human-level control through deep reinforcement learning. Nature, 518(7540), 529–533.

15. Oroojlooyjadid, A., Nazari, M., Snyder, L. V., & Takáč, M. (2021). A deep Q-network for the beer game: Deep reinforcement learning for inventory optimization. Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, 24(1), 285–304.

16. Bertsimas, D., & Thiele, A. (2006). A robust optimization approach to inventory theory. Operations Research, 54(1), 150–168.

17. Ramchurn, S. D., Huynh, T. D., & Jennings, N. R. (2004). Trust in multi-agent systems. The Knowledge Engineering Review, 19(1), 1–25.

18. Dubey, R., Gunasekaran, A., Bryde, D. J., Dwivedi, Y. K., & Papadopoulos, T. (2020). Blockchain technology for enhancing swift-trust, collaboration and resilience within a humanitarian supply chain setting. International Journal of Production Research, 58(11), 3381–3398.

19. Anupindi, R., Bassok, Y., & Zemel, E. (2001). A general framework for the study of decentralized distribution systems. Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, 3(4), 349–368.

20. Giannoccaro, I., & Pontrandolfo, P. (2004). Supply chain coordination by revenue sharing contracts. International Journal of Production Economics, 89(2), 131–139.

21. Hollnagel, E., Woods, D. D., & Leveson, N. (Eds.). (2006). Resilience engineering: Concepts and precepts. Ashgate Publishing.

22. Perrow, C. (1984). Normal accidents: Living with high-risk technologies. Basic Books.

23. Dyer, J. H., & Chu, W. (2000). The determinants of trust in supplier–automaker relationships in the US, Japan, and Korea. Journal of International Business Studies, 31(2), 259–285.

24. Dwork, C., Hardt, M., Pitassi, T., Reingold, O., & Zemel, R. (2012). Fairness through awareness. Proceedings of the 3rd Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science Conference, 214–226.

Downloads

Published

2026-07-15