Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

An integrated Fuzzy MCDM Approach for Evaluation of Barriers in Implementing LARS Paradigms in Supply Chain

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Soft Computing for Problem Solving

Part of the book series: Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing ((AISC,volume 1393))

Abstract

Swift growth in industry and continuously increasing competitiveness around the world have necessitated the industries to adopt new paradigms. In today’s competitive scenario, all firms need to be more efficient, responsive, reliable, resilient, and sustainable. The need for the adoption of these paradigms has increased manifold due to the current pandemic. In the current situation where the Supply Chains (SC) all over the world are affected, a strategic and innovative rethinking is required by the business community to conduct their operations smoothly. For this purpose, simultaneous adoption of a combination of Lean, Agile, Resilient, and Sustainable (LARS) practices may provide the expected result. The consolidated execution of these four different practices on the existing SC will result in huge benefits from a strategic perspective since (i) lean focuses on minimizing cost and elimination of waste, (ii) agility results in fast response to customer demands, (iii) resilience focuses on the longevity of the SC, and (iv) sustainability is achieved by adopting triple bottom line (TBL) approach. However, there are numerous barriers which make it difficult to implement the LARS paradigms jointly in any SC. The aim of the present study is to identify and determine the inter-relationships between various barriers and classify them into “cause” and “effect” groups. An Integrated Multi-Criteria Decision-Making (MCDM) approach has been used for the analysis of barriers, and the fuzzy set theory has been used to deal with the uncertainty in terms of vague and imprecise available information. The fuzzy-Delphi method has been used for the selection of critical barriers by taking experts’ opinions. The fuzzy Decision-Making Trial and Evaluation Laboratory (Fuzzy-DEMATEL) method is used to find relationships between the barriers, highlighting the hidden dependencies between them which provides a clear understanding of the areas which should be carefully planned while adopting LARS paradigms in SCM. The findings of the present analysis can be used by practitioners of any industry.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Agarwal A, Shankar R, Tiwari MK (2006) Modeling the metrics of lean, agile and leagile supply chain: an ANP-based approach. Eur J Oper Res 173(1):211–225

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  2. Womack JP, Jones DT, Roos D (2007) The machine that changed the world: the story of lean production–Toyota’s secret weapon in the global car wars that is now revolutionizing world industry. Simon and Schuster

    Google Scholar 

  3. Gunasekaran A, Patel C, McGaughey RE (2004) A framework for supply chain performance measurement. Int J Prod Econ 87(3):333–347

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Panizzolo R (1998) Applying the lessons learned from 27 lean manufacturers: the relevance of relationships management. Int J Prod Econ 55(3):223–240

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Sanchez LM, Nagi R (2001) A review of agile manufacturing systems. Int J Prod Res 39(16):3561–3600

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Blome C, Schoenherr T, Rexhausen D (2013) Antecedents and enablers of supply chain agility and its effect on performance: a dynamic capabilities perspective. Int J Prod Res 51(4):1295–1318

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Gligor DM, Esmark CL, Holcomb MC (2015) Performance outcomes of supply chain agility: when should you be agile? J Oper Manag 33:71–82

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Zobel CW (2011) Representing perceived tradeoffs in defining disaster resilience. Decis Support Syst 50(2):394–403

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Blackhurst J, Dunn KS, Craighead CW (2011) An empirically derived framework of global supply resiliency. J Bus Logist 32(4):374–391

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Pettit TJ, Fiksel J and Croxton KL (2010) Ensuring supply chain resilience: development of a conceptual framework. J Bus Logist 31(1):1–21

    Google Scholar 

  11. Closs DJ, Speier C, Meacham N (2011) Sustainability to support end-to-end value chains: the role of supply chain management. J Acad Mark Sci 39(1):101–116

    Google Scholar 

  12. Linton JD, Klassen R, Jayaraman V (2007) Sustainable supply chains: an Introduction. J Oper Manag 25(6):1075–1082

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Yaakub S, Mustafa HK (2015) Supply chain risk management for the SME’s. Acad J Interdiscip Stud 4(1 S2):151

    Google Scholar 

  14. Cabrita M, Duarte S, Carvalho H, Cruz-Machado V (2016) Integration of lean, agile, resilient and green paradigms in a business model perspective: theoretical foundations. IFAC-PapersOnLine 49(12):1306–1311

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Rachid B, Roland D, Sebastien D, Ivana R (2017) Risk management approach for lean, agile, resilient and green supply chain. World Acad Sci Eng Technol Int J Soc Behav Educ Econ Bus Ind Eng 11(4):742–750

    Google Scholar 

  16. Carvalho H, Azevedo S (2014) Trade-offs among lean, agile, resilient and green paradigms in supply chain management: a case study approach. In: Proceedings of the seventh international conference on management science and engineering management, Springer, Berlin, pp 953–968

    Google Scholar 

  17. Cherrafi A, Elfezazi S, Reyes JA, Benhida K, Mokhlis A (2017) Barriers in Green Lean implementation: a combined systematic literature review and interpretive structural modelling approach. Prod Plan Control 28(10):829–842

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Rajesh R (2018) Measuring the barriers to resilience in manufacturing supply chains using Grey Clustering and VIKOR approaches. Measurement 126:259–273

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Sindhwani R, Malhotra V (2015) Lean and agile manufacturing system barriers. Int J Adv Res Innov 3(1):110–112

    Google Scholar 

  20. Nidumolu R, Prahalad CK, Rangaswami MR (2009) Why sustainability is now the key driver of innovation. Harv Bus Rev 87

    Google Scholar 

  21. Jack EP, Powers TL, Skinner L (2010) Reverse logistics capabilities: antecedents and cost savings. Int J Phys Distrib Logist Manag 40:228–246

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Kumar A (2014) A qualitative study on the barriers of lean manufacturing implementation: an Indian context (Delhi ncr region). Int J Eng Sci 3(4):21–28

    Google Scholar 

  23. Bajjou MS, Chafi A (2018) Barriers of lean construction implementation in the Moroccan construction industry. In: AIP conference proceedings, vol 1952, No 1. AIP Publishing LLC, p 020056

    Google Scholar 

  24. Vachon S, Klassen RD (2007) Supply chain management and environmental technologies: the role of integration. Int J Prod Res 45:401–423

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Latif AZ, Malkh HN, Khalidi A (2019) Impact of supply chain governance on financial reporting: evidence from Iraq. Int J Supply Chain Manag 8(1)

    Google Scholar 

  26. Martek I, Hosseini MR, Shrestha A, Edwards DJ, Durdyev S (2019) Barriers inhibiting the transition to sustainability within the Australian construction industry: an investigation of technical and social interactions. J Clean Prod 211:281–292

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Biddle J (2006) The lean benchmark report-closing the reality gap. Aberdeen Group. www.synergyresources.net/pdf/ra_lean_wp.pdf. Accessed 1 June 2012

  28. Aid G, Eklund M, Anderberg S, Baas L (2017) Expanding roles for the Swedish waste management sector in inter-organizational resource management. Resour Conserv Recycl 124:85–97

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Turker D, Altuntas C (2014) Sustainable supply chain management in the fast fashion industry: an analysis of corporate reports. Eur Manag J 32:837–849

    Google Scholar 

  30. Jadhav JR, Mantha SS, Rane SB (2014) Exploring barriers in lean implementation. Int J Lean Six Sigma 5(2):122–148

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Wang Z, Mathiyazhagan K, Xu L, Diabat A (2015) A decision making trial and evaluation laboratory approach to analyze the barriers to Green Supply Chain Management adoption in a food packaging company. J Clean Prod

    Google Scholar 

  32. Moktadir MA, Ali SM, Rajesh R, Paul SK (2018) Modeling the interrelationships among barriers to sustainable supply chain management in leather industry. J Clean Prod 181:631–651

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Kumar R, Kumar V (2014) Barriers in implementation of lean manufacturing system in Indian industry: a survey. Int J Latest Trends in Eng Technol 4(2):243–251

    Google Scholar 

  34. Chaple AP, Narkhede BE, Akarte MM, Raut R (2018) Modeling the lean barriers for successful lean implementation: TISM approach. J Lean Six Sigma, Int

    Google Scholar 

  35. Yukalang N, Clarke B, Ross K (2017) Barriers to effective municipal solid waste management in a rapidly urbanizing area in Thailand. Int J Environ Res Public Health 14(9):1013

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Govindan K, Kaliyan M, Kannan D, Haq AN (2014) Barriers analysis for green supply chain management implementation in Indian industries using analytic hierarchy process. Int J Prod Econ 147(B):555–568

    Google Scholar 

  37. Li Y (2014) Environmental innovation practices and performance: moderating effect of resource commitment. J Clean Prod 66:450–458

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Johansson F, Rusu L (2019) Barriers to agility in a large company’s IT organization. Int J Innov Digital Econ (IJIDE) 10(1):1–17

    Google Scholar 

  39. Lin CT, Chiu H, Chu PY (2006) Agility index in the supply chain. Int J Prod Econ 100(2):285–299

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Dubey R, Gunasekaran A (2015) Shortage of sustainable supply chain talent: an industrial training framework. Ind Commer Train 47:86–94

    Google Scholar 

  41. Christopher M (2000) The agile supply chain, competing in volatile markets. Ind Mark Manag 29:37–44

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Potdar PK, Routroy S, Behera A (2017) Analyzing the agile manufacturing barriers using fuzzy DEMATEL. Benchmarking Int J 24(7):1912–1936

    Google Scholar 

  43. Singh PK, Sarkar P (2020) A framework based on fuzzy Delphi and DEMATEL for sustainable product development: a case of Indian automotive industry. J Clean Prod 246:

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Operational Research, University of Delhi, Delhi, India

    Dixita Barua & Akansha Jain

  2. Department of Operational Research, Deen Dayal Upadhyaya College, University of Delhi, Delhi, India

    Veena Jain

Authors
  1. Dixita Barua
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Akansha Jain
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Veena Jain
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Computer Science and Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Indore, Indore, Madhya Pradesh, India

    Aruna Tiwari

  2. Computer Science and Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Indore, Indore, Madhya Pradesh, India

    Kapil Ahuja

  3. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar National Institute of Technology, Jalandhar, India

    Anupam Yadav

  4. Department of Mathematics, South Asian University, New Delhi, India

    Jagdish Chand Bansal

  5. Department of Mathematics, Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee, Roorkee, India

    Kusum Deep

  6. School of Mathematics, Computer Science and Engineering, Liverpool Hope University, Liverpool, UK

    Atulya K. Nagar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Barua, D., Jain, A., Jain, V. (2021). An integrated Fuzzy MCDM Approach for Evaluation of Barriers in Implementing LARS Paradigms in Supply Chain. In: Tiwari, A., Ahuja, K., Yadav, A., Bansal, J.C., Deep, K., Nagar, A.K. (eds) Soft Computing for Problem Solving. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, vol 1393. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-2712-5_52

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation