The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

www.emeraldinsight.com/1463-5771.htm

Model for
A model for supply SCRM in the
chain risk management in the automotive
industry
automotive industry using
fuzzy analytic hierarchy 3831

process and fuzzy TOPSIS Received 4 November 2016

Revised 8 September 2017
Accepted 12 April 2018
Samira Salehi Heidari
Department of Industrial Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Technology,
Islamic Azad University, Saveh, Iran
Mohammad Khanbabaei
Department of Information Technology Management, Islamic Azad University,
Science and Research Branch, Tehran, Iran, and
Majid Sabzehparvar
Department of Industrial Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Technology,
Islamic Azad University, Karaj, Iran

Abstract
Purpose – One of the most important issues in supply chain (SC) management is the identification and
management of the risk involved in it. The purpose of this paper is to propose a comprehensive model of
supply chain risk management (SCRM) in the product life cycle (PLC) and the operational process cycle (OPC).
To decrease the risks in a fuzzy environment, the model considers the organizational performance factors
(OPF) and the risk operational practices (ROP).
Design/methodology/approach – Fuzzy analytic hierarchy process is used to determine the weights of the
relationships between the PLC, OPC and OPF in the hierarchical structure of the decision problem.
In addition, the fuzzy technique for order preference by similarity to ideal solution is employed to recognize
the priority of ROPs in dealing with the performance factors. The integrated framework is evaluated using
the case study of an automotive company in Iran.
Findings – The results demonstrated that the proposed model can be used to formulate an appropriate
method for prioritizing defined alternatives to decrease risk and improve the organizational performance in
SCRM under fuzzy conditions.
Research limitations/implications – A major limitation of the study is that a few of the selected criteria
for risk assessment are focused only on economic factors. Another limitation of the current study is related to
the PLC, OPC and OPF being based on the work of Xia and Chen (2011).
Practical implications – The current study identified the more important stage in the PLC. More
significant process in each stage of the PLC and weightier risk factors in each process of the OPC were
determined. Some strategies for reducing risk in each stage of the PLC were presented. The best alternatives
for reducing risks in SC were indicated.
Originality/value – It is worth mentioning that previous studies have not applied multiple criteria and
alternatives to decrease the risks involved in the PLC and OPC parts of the SC under fuzzy conditions. However, it
should be stated that some academics have used these techniques separately, in other specialized areas of the SC.
Keywords Fuzzy TOPSIS, Supply chain, Supply chain risk management, Risk management,
Fuzzy analytic hierarchy process
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
Benchmarking: An International
Supply chain risk management (SCRM) is considered as a popular research area in recent times Journal
(Vanany et al., 2009). A better performance in the supply chain (SC) is a significant competitive Vol. 25 No. 9, 2018
pp. 3831-3857
advantage that can reduce the costs of production and improve the quality of products and © Emerald Publishing Limited
1463-5771
services. Under various uncertainties, risk management plays a crucial role in SCs (Ho et al., 2015). DOI 10.1108/BIJ-11-2016-0167
BIJ Several studies have considered the risk concepts and concentrated on the related
25,9 definitions, operationalization issues and mitigation practices in the domain of SCRM
(Ho et al., 2015). In general, an effective supply chain management (SCM) can enhance
organizational performance and competitive advantage according to (Li et al., 2006) and
(Childerhouse et al., 2003). Faisal et al. (2006) and Tang (2006) believed that an effective
SCRM can weaken the uncertainties and risks involved in SCs.
3832 There are many definitions of an SC. Douglas et al. (1998) defined an SC as a way for
companies to provide their products and services to markets. An SC consists of all the steps
that are directly or indirectly related to customer demand and involves manufacturers,
suppliers, customers, transportation, warehousing and retailers (Chopra and Meindl, 2007).
Currently, there are a variety of issues related to the risks involved in an SC system
(Chopra and Sodhi, 2004); for example, the increased number of suppliers, the unstable
relationships between suppliers, the growing complexity and uncertainty as a consequence
of the crossover processes of production, and the long logistic cycle that influences the
availability of materials and raises the stock risk.
In recent years, the performance of companies has been decreased in some cases due to
the SC disruptions. Some examples are provided here:
(1) Disruption in the production of Ericsson Co., due to a fire in the semiconductor plant
of Koninklijke Philips N.V. in 2000, which resulted in a $400m loss for Ericsson
(Chopra and Sodhi, 2004).
(2) The earthquake, tsunami and consequent nuclear crisis in Japan in 2011, which
caused Toyota’s production to drop by 40,000 vehicles, leading to a $72m loss per
day (Pettit et al., 2013).
(3) The catastrophic floods of 2011 in Thailand increased the hard risks in the SCs of
computer manufacturers and disturbed the SCs of Japanese automotive companies
working with plants in Thailand (Chopra and Sodhi, 2014).
As a result of such disruptions, an extensive number of studies have taken SCRM into
meticulous consideration. According to Tang (2006), many researchers have developed
different strategic models to manage SC risks and alleviate the problems associated with
different types of risks.
Kern et al. (2012) found that viable risk identification can support risk assessment outputs,
which can lead to better risk mitigation. Furthermore, several researchers have expanded the
conceptual frameworks of risk identification, assessment, and mitigation processes (Ritchie and
Brindley, 2007; Foerstl et al., 2010; Bandaly et al., 2012; Kern et al., 2012; Ghadge et al., 2013).
Li et al. (2015) identified risk information sharing and risk sharing mechanism as two
important SCRM practices. Lavastre et al. (2014) demonstrated a framework for SCRM in the
manufacturing sector with a focus on the inter-organizational management of SC risks. Thun
and Hoenig (2011) investigated the key risk factors in an SC and evaluated the identified risks
using the probability of failure and their effect on the SC. They also investigated the impact of
SCRM on the organization’s performance in the manufactures of the German automotive
industry. Moreover, Liu et al. (2011) studied SCRM in the domain of vendor selection.
The product life cycle (PLC), which is one of the most important factors of SCRM, is
usually divided into four stages as follows: introduction, growth, maturity and decline
(Xia and Chen, 2011) ( further details are provided in Section 3.1). There are many risks
involved in the PLC, with specific risk in every stage (Florida, 1996).
Further, the operational process cycle (OPC), which is another effective element,
supports the strategic purposes of the different stages of the PLC. The OPC in the SC
usually includes processes such as procurement, production, distribution, logistics and
service (Xia and Chen, 2011).
 In addition, there are many organizational performance factors (OPF) in organizations Model for
that determine the strategic direction against the variety of SC risks in the PLC and OPC. SCRM in the
In a typical SC, there are many risk profiles that may be changed throughout the process. automotive
Xia and Chen (2011) identified four forms of SC risks that influence organizational
performance. They are time, cost, quantity and quality. industry
To decrease the risk factors in an SC, there are several risk operational practices (ROP),
which includes (described in Section 4.1 in detail): admission, weakening, transfer and 3833
avoidance. In an SC, these alternatives can be applied alone or together. The selection of
these alternatives can depend on the viewpoints of experts in each company. The selection
of alternatives is related to the relative importance of each element embedded in the PLC,
OPC and ROP, which are explained above.
From another point of view, fuzzy multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) techniques have
been used to solve the decision-making problems in the evaluation of SCRM in many previous
studies. It is clear that most of the existing real-world knowledge is sometimes inaccurate and
imprecise. This inaccuracy and ambiguity, caused by unmeasured, incomplete and
unattainable information, is one of the largest disadvantages of the MCDM techniques.
The classical fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (AHP) and technique for order preference
by similarity to ideal solution (TOPSIS) could not reflect human thoughts completely and
precisely due to the lack of access to the exact needs of the decision-makers (DM). Therefore,
the linguistic expressions applied in fuzzy numbers became the appropriate tools for
describing linguistic variables as the inputs for AHP and TOPSIS to clearly express the
DMs’ requirements (Shih et al., 2007).
With respect to the abovementioned problems, the main contribution of this paper is to
develop a hybrid AHP–TOPSIS model with respect to the PLC and OPC, OPF and ROP of
SCRM under fuzzy environment along with a group decision-making condition. It is worth
mentioning that previous studies have not applied several criteria and alternatives for
decreasing the risks involved in the PLC and OPC parts of an SC under fuzzy condition.
However, some academics have used these techniques separately in the other specialized
areas of an SC. Further, the proposed model employs a hierarchical structure to describe the
relations between the PLC, OPC, OPF and ROP levels.
The model proposed in this paper applies some parts of the study, carried out by Xia and
Chen (2011). This model develops a fuzzy AHP and TOPSIS decision-making framework to
determine the weights of the relationships between the components of SCRM and rank the
alternatives of decreasing SC risks. In the other words, fuzzy AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS are
integrated to prioritize the ROPs in an SC.
In the proposed model, several OPFs and ROPs can be compared to each other to
decrease SC risks with respect to the PLC and OPC. In addition, the model can determine the
relative importance of the relationships between the PLC, OPC, OPF and ROP based on the
hierarchical structure of the decision problem (HSDP).
The aim of the present paper is to develop a model for determining the weights of
performance factors and prioritizing the alternatives of risk practices to improve SCRM under
a fuzzy decision-making environment. A case study of the automotive industry is applied to
assess the results and evaluate the effectiveness of the proposed model. For this purpose,
the PLC (case study: automotive industry), OPC, as well as the factors related to organizational
performance and the strategies dealing with risks in an SC are employed. These factors and
the related definitions have been obtained from Xia and Chen (2011).
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. Section 2 presents the related works.
Section 3 provides a background on the PLC, OPC, OPF, fuzzy set theory in MCDM, fuzzy
AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS. Section 4 describes the proposed model as an integrated approach
to SCRM. A case study of the proposed model in the automotive industry is demonstrated in
Section 5. Sections 6 and 7 depict the implications and conclusions, respectively.
BIJ 2. Related works
25,9 There are many studies on SCs and the risks related to SCM. In addition, many researchers
have applied fuzzy theories in their studies. Other studies have considered the combination
of related concepts in the some previous studies to solve new emerging problems. In the
other words, these studies have considered fuzzy concepts in their computations, where
decision-making concepts are applied for SCRM procedures. Table I presents some of these
3834 studies and their related contributions.

Author (s) (year) Contribution

Ramanathan et al. (2011) Proposing a conceptual framework and a standard set of metrics to assess
the performance of an SC collaboration
Datta et al. (2013) Enhancing a selection procedure in the robot industry, using MCDM, grey set
and multi-objective optimization theories
Sahu et al. (2014) Emphasizing an effective supplier evaluation system using green
performance measures, in fuzzy situation
Sahu et al. (2015a) Appraising and benchmarking of 3PLs service provider based on risk indices
and using fuzzy AHP
Sahu et al. (2015b) Enhancing an appropriate appraisal system for choosing the proper 3PLs
service provider using interval-valued fuzzy numbers in a MCDM situation
Sahu et al. (2016a) Using a novel fuzzy mathematical equation along with TOPSIS for ranking
the order of supplier alternatives
Sahu et al. (2016b) Appraising partner enterprises using MCDM and generalized trapezoidal
fuzzy number set in an agile SC
Pandari and Azar (2017) Developing a model for evaluating service SC performance based on fuzzy
cognitive mapping
Kumar and Garg (2017) Applying fuzzy AHP method for evaluating sustainable SC indicators in a
case study of Indian automotive industry
Sahu et al. (2017a) Proposing a green, lean and agile SC for estimating the performance of the
firms in the fuzzy environment
Zimmer et al. (2017) Developing a model to estimate and assess social risks along global SCs in the
automotive industry and using fuzzy AHP for weighting the various risks
Sahu et al. (2017b) Developing a fuzzy AHP for solving industrial logistics problems in choosing
the best 3PLs service provider
Farooquie et al. (2017) Managing uncertainties and performance in automotive SCs using a grey-
based approach
Khompatraporn and Determining the causal factor relations of SC competitiveness using fuzzy
Somboonwiwat (2017) DEMATEL (Decision-Making Trial and Evaluation Laboratory) method for
the automotive industry
Park (2017) Proposing a grey-based risk selection model for considering many aspects of
intensity and possibility of risk in a SC
Oner and Oztaysi (2017) Applying a rule based fuzzy inference system approach for modeling a
sustainable SCRM
Khemiri et al. (2017) Employing a fuzzy MCDM approach for managing the performance in SC
under a risk-oriented integrated procurement–production approach
Chand et al. (2017) Representing MCDM approaches to select the best SC which has
minimum risks
Brosas et al. (2017) Enhancing a methodological approach with respect to supply-driven input-
output analysis along with fuzzy parameters for addressing SCRM
Mostafaeipour et al. (2017) Applying fuzzy rank function model for a SCRM
Kazancoglu et al. (2018) Using fuzzy DEMATEL decision-making method for assessing the
Table I. performance of green SC management
Related studies about Yadav and Barve (2018) Applying fuzzy DEMATEL method for segmenting critical success factors
decision making for of humanitarian SCs
supply chain in a Yadav et al. (2018) Presenting an intelligent evaluation of suppliers by fuzzy TOPSIS method
fuzzy environment Rostamzadeh et al. (2018) Using fuzzy TOPSIS method for evaluating a sustainable SCRM
In addition, there are the other studies, with a detailed consideration of the application of Model for
fuzzy decision-making in SCRM, as described below. SCRM in the
Berenji et al. (2011) developed a system of SCRM to reduce the influences of SC risk automotive
factors. They applied fuzzy AHP to allocate weights to the risk factors and fuzzy TOPSIS
for ranking members in order to identify the risks in SCs. Samvedi et al. (2013) captured the industry
SC risk criterion by classifying SCs into four categories: supply risk, demand risk, process
risk and environmental risk. They exploited fuzzy AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS methods to 3835
quantify the risk criterion. Aqlan and Lam (2015) presented an integrated framework for
SCRM where the fuzzy inference system was utilized to calculate the total risk score in a
case study of the server manufacturing environment.
Gold and Awasthi (2015) developed a two-step fuzzy AHP approach for sustainable
global supplier selection, which also considered the sustainability risks of sub-suppliers.
Wu et al. (2013) used an integrated stochastic-fuzzy optimization approach to SC
outsourcing risk management in the presence of both random and fuzzy uncertainty. Xiao
et al. (2012) presented an integrated fuzzy cognitive map and fuzzy soft set theory for
supplier selection in risk evaluation, with the aid of the analytic network process (ANP)
method. Wang et al. (2012) proposed a two-stage fuzzy AHP method to assess the risk of
implementing green initiatives in fashion SCs.
Azadeh and Alem (2010) applied a deterministic, stochastic, and fuzzy data envelopment
analysis approach to vendor selection in SCRM. Wu et al. (2010) proposed a fuzzy multi-
objective programming model for supplier selection by taking risk factors into
consideration. Yang and Liu (2015) designed a fuzzy SC network using the mean-risk
optimization method under uncertainty conditions to reduce expected costs and risks.
Tabrizi and Razmi (2013) developed a mixed-integer non-linear mathematical model to
represent uncertainties in an SC by using the fuzzy set theory.
Yu and Goh (2014) presented a fuzzy multi-objective decision-making approach to
decide on the SC visibility and the involved risks. Ganguly and Guin (2013) provided a
methodology to assess the supply risk of a product category using the fuzzy AHP. Xia and
Chen (2011) presented a decision-making model for the SC risk system using ANP. Jakhar
and Barua (2014) proposed an evaluation and decision-making model to measure and
improve SC performance using structural equation modeling and fuzzy AHP. Chaudhuri
et al. (2013) presented a group decision-making framework and used numeric and
linguistic data to assess the risks in an SC as well as the entire development process of a
new product. Radivojević and Gajović (2014) developed a model for the SC risk using AHP
and fuzzy AHP methods.
The current study is differentiated from the previous mentioned studies as follow.
At first, this study combines four main concepts in its procedures: SC, risk issues, fuzzy
and MCDM. Most previous studies only applied one or two of the abovementioned concepts
in their works.
Second, with respect to the contributions of this paper, previous studies did not apply
decision-making tools such as AHP and TOPSIS to evaluate the risks embedded in
hierarchical structures of the PLC and OPC parts of SCM under a fuzzy environment with a
group decision-making condition. However, they employed these concepts in their works in
an independent manner.

3. Background
This section explains the main elements and techniques applied in the current study. First,
three main elements applied in an SC are explained, including the PLC, OPC and OPF.
Second, fuzzy set theory and its application in MCDM are justified. Further, a fuzzy number
applied in this work is defined. Finally, the steps of fuzzy AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS are
explained in details.
BIJ 3.1 Product life cycle
25,9 As introduced in Section 1, the PLC plays an essential role in SCRM. In the current study, a
PLC consists of four main stages: introduction, growth, maturity and decline.
The product introduction stage begins with the arrival of the product in the market. The
principal objective at this stage is to find new markets and create primary demand for the
product. Advertising, promotion, pricing and demand analysis can be listed as some of the
3836 main activities in this stage (Xia and Chen, 2011).
In the growth stage, the profit from sales grows rapidly and other markets can be
targeted as well. Advertising is one of the core activities that increase the number of early
buyers. If the demand increases, the prices will remain high. However, price reduction can be
an effective approach to achieve more customers.
In the maturity stage, the company needs to adopt a widespread strategy to ensure high
quality of service to become a distinctive brand. These efforts can increase product value
and customer loyalty and at the same time decrease the investment risk for quality
improvement and create an intangible value for the product (Xia and Chen, 2011).
In the decline stage, a successful exit of the product from the market without suffering
negative effects is important. Further, an effective planning of a reutilization system for faulty
and outdated goods should be made. In this regard, organizational responsibilities must be
developed to increase the awareness of environmental issues. A serious burden may probably
be imposed on the company through public media, regulations and laws if the organization
does not take the critical importance of this stage into account (Xia and Chen, 2011).

3.2 Operational process cycle

As depicted in the previous section, the PLC plays an important role in SCRM. On the other
hand, the OPC is the sum of processes in an SC, which can be related to each stage of the PLC.
An OPC consists of five processes: procurement, production, distribution, logistics and service
(Xia and Chen, 2011). The case study of the current study is limited to these five processes.
The procurement process has a major influence on product growth and final product
quality. The procurement process can positively affect the organizational performance by
ensuring the stability of quality and competitive pricing of new products.
In the production process, a number of key points are effective in improving organizational
performance, such as process competence, machine stability, planning capability and
employees’ quality. Overall, it can be said that continuous quality improvement and
appropriate outsourcing can decrease and remove SC risks (Xia and Chen, 2011).
In the distribution and logistics processes, some basic activities should be
considered, including the selection of distribution nodes and transportation methods,
just-in-time delivery and product protection (Xia and Chen, 2011). To decrease the
potential risk of the SC, organizations need to design some policies for their distribution
and transportation processes based on the PLC features and the special characteristics of
their regional markets.
In the end, one of the most effective OPC components in the PLC is offering services to
customers. In other words, service delivery is one of the most important factors in SCRM
(Xia and Chen, 2011).

3.3 OPF for operational risk in an SC

This section defines four main risk factors in SC. There are many OPF for risks involved in
the SC. However, the current study is only limited to four main risk factors introduced by
Xia and Chen (2011). They are time, cost, quantity and quality.
Time is one of the vital factors in SC risks. For instance, outdated technology, delayed
delivery and inventory reduction can increase the risks involved in an SC and decrease the
performance of an organization (Xia and Chen, 2011).
 Cost is another risk factor that can impact the performance of an SC. There are certain Model for
reasons that can lead to an increase in production costs. Further, the procurement and SCRM in the
logistics costs can amplify SC risks. The costs related to employees, lead-time (LT), price of automotive
product, additional inventory and imperfect services to customers can be managed in SCRM
(Xia and Chen, 2011). industry
There are several effective reasons for increasing the risk in the quantity factor of an SC
(Xia and Chen, 2011; Ha et al., 2003), such as uncertainty in quantity, false prediction of 3837
safety stock, unreliability of production and services, deficient plan for production, mistakes
in the prediction of demands, false designs of the SC structure and operation and
unreasonable layout of the inventory.
Finally, high quality can efficiently decrease SC risks. Low quality of the components
and parts that are bought can increase the risk of production, and damage customers’
satisfaction and vision of the organization. In general, quality is greatly influenced by
warranties, after-sales services, just-in-time and inventory management and uselessness of
products (Xia and Chen, 2011; Graves and Tomlin, 2003).

3.4 Fuzzy set theory in MCDM

In many real-life situations, crisp data cannot be used for modeling purposes. In many
circumstances, the human judgments and preferences are often subjective, uncertain and
ambiguous, and they cannot be evaluated with crisp values (Mehrjerdi, 2012). Fuzzy set
theory, which was developed by Zadeh (1965), can be deployed to resolve the imprecision
and ambiguity of human cognitions and judgments. It is a way of providing mathematical
strengths for resolving the uncertainties related to human reasoning by using the partial set
membership functions rather than crisp ones.
On the other hand, fuzzy MCDM theory can be adopted to reinforce the reasonability of
the decision-making process under an MCDM environment (Chen, 2000; Chen et al., 2006).
Bellman and Zadeh (1970) presented some of the applications of fuzzy set theories in
numerous decision-making processes under a fuzzy environment and MCDM conditions.
In this regard, a fuzzy number can be expressed, such as a triangular or a trapezoidal
fuzzy number. In the current paper, triangular fuzzy numbers are used to evaluate the
preferences expressed by experts, as applying, calculating and understanding these types of
fuzzy numbers are easy for DMs (Kannan et al., 2013). A triangular fuzzy number is defined
as (a1, a2, a3), where a1⩽a2⩽a3. The parameters a1, a2 and a3 symbolize the smallest possible
value, the most promising value and the largest possible values, respectively.
Let X be a set of items known as the universe and its elements are denoted by x. A fuzzy
set A in X is represented by a membership function μA(x) and is associated with each
element x in A as well as a real number between 0 and 1. A fuzzy set is defined by its
membership function as Equation (1), which is depicted in Figure 1. The basic definitions of

A(x)

A
1

Figure 1.
Membership
functions of
the triangular
0 (X) fuzzy number A
a1 a2 a3
BIJ the fuzzy method were introduced in Zadeh (1965, 1976) and Zimmermann (2001):
8
25,9 > 0 x oa1
>
>
>
< xa1 a1 px pa2
a a
mA ðxÞ ¼ a23 x1 : (1)
>
> a3 a2 a2 px pa3
>
>
: 0 x 4a
3
3838
3.5 Fuzzy AHP method
Fuzzy AHP is one of the most well-known multi-attribute decision-making techniques under
fuzzy condition. AHP was developed by Saaty (1996) and it is a useful method for a decision-
making process with multiple alternatives and criteria. However, the traditional AHP could not
completely reflect human thoughts. Fuzzy sets are well-matched with human language as well
as ambiguous descriptions and thus, are recommended in making decisions in the real world.
In this paper, a fuzzy AHP method developed by Chang (1996) is applied to determine the
weights of the elements in the SC problem. The steps of the fuzzy AHP are as follows:
(1) Define the decision goal and identify the criteria in a hierarchical structure.
(2) Perform pairwise comparison to determine the relative importance of the criteria.
(3) Apply the geometric mean method to integrate the opinions of the DMs, as depicted
in the following equation:
R ¼ ða; b; cÞ (2)
K ¼ 1; 2; . . .; K ðR : triangular fuzzy number; K : number of DMsÞ;
where a ¼ (a1 × a2 × ⋯ × ak)1/k, b ¼ (b1 × b2 × ⋯ × bk)1/k, c ¼ (c1 × c2 × ⋯ × ck)1/k.
(4) Aggregate the matrix of the entire pairwise comparisons for DMs and synthesize
them to achieve the set of overall priorities.
(5) Determine the consistency ratio (CR) to ensure that the judgment of the DMs is true
for weighting the criteria. If the CR is less than 0.1, the judgment will be true for
weighting the criteria.
(6) Transform the pairwise comparison matrix into linguistic variables based on Table II.
In continuance, the steps of fuzzy AHP for determining the triangular fuzzy number weights
are presented (Kandakoglu et al., 2009; Ganguly and Guin, 2013; Kannan et al., 2013):
j
(1) Let M 1g i ; M 2gi ; . . .; M m
g i be m extent analysis values, where i ¼ 1, 2, …, n, and M gi is
the triangular fuzzy number, where j ¼ 1, 2, …, m. The value of fuzzy synthetic
extent with respect to the ith object is demonstrated in the following equation:
" #1
Xm
j
X n Xm
j
Si ¼ M gi  M gi ; (3)
j¼1 i¼1 j¼1

Linguistic expressions Equivalent fuzzy numbers Triangular fuzzy numbers (l, m, u)

Extreme importance 9 (7, 9, 9)

Table II. Very strong importance 7 (5, 7, 9)
Linguistic expressions Strong importance 5 (3, 5, 7)
for pairwise Little importance 3 (1, 3, 5)
comparisons Equal importance 1 (1, 1, 3)
 where the fuzzy addition operation Pmof mj extent Panalysis
m Pvalues
m
can be conducted for
P m
Model for
aPspecific matrix such that j¼1 M g i ¼ ð j¼1 l j ; j¼1 mj ; j¼1 uj ÞP
P to acquire SCRM in the
m j j n m j
Pj¼1 M gPj
. The fuzzy
Pnaddition operation of M gi values,Pn Pmsuch that i¼1 i¼1 M g i ¼ automotive
n n j 1
ð i¼1 l i ; i¼1 mi ; i¼1 ui Þ is performed to obtain ½ i¼1 j¼1P M g i P. The inverse industry
n m j 1
of
 Pn the determined
Pn vector
Pn  can be expressed as ½ i¼1 i¼1 M g i  ¼
1= i¼1 ui ; 1= i¼1 mi ; 1= i¼1 l i .
(2) After determining Si, the degree of possibility of M2 ¼ (l2, m2, n2)⩾M1 is computed as
3839
depicted in the following equation and represented in Figure 2:
8
> 1 if m2 Xm1
<
V ðM 2 XM 1 Þ ¼ hgt ðM 1 \M 2 Þ ¼ lM 2 ðdÞ ¼ 0 if l 1 Xu2 ; (4)
>
: ðl 1 u2 Þ
ðm2 u2 Þðm1 l 1 Þ o:w

where d is the ordinate of the highest intersection point between mM 1 and mM 2 .

(3) The degree of possibility for a convex fuzzy number to be greater than k convex
fuzzy numbers Mi (i ¼ 1, 2, …, k) can be defined as:
V ðM XM 1 ; M 2 ; . . .; M k Þ ¼ V ½ðM XM 1 Þ and  ðM XM 1 Þ. . . and ðM X M k Þ

min V ðM XM ki Þ i ¼ 1; 2; 3; . . .; k: (5)
(4) The weight vector is calculated by Equation (7) with the assumption of Equation (6):
0  
d ðAi Þ ¼ min V ðS i XS k Þ ; (6)
where k ¼ 1, 2, …, n; k≠i.
0
n 0 0 0
oT
W ¼ d ðA1 Þ; d ðA2 Þ; . . .; d ðAn Þ ; (7)

where Ai (i ¼ 1, 2, …, n) are n elements.

(5) The normalized weight vector is calculated using the following equation:
 T
W ¼ dðA1 Þ; dðA2 Þ; . . .; dðAn Þ ; (8)

where W is a non-fuzzy number that assigns priority weight to an attribute over the
other attributes.

M2 M1
1

V(M2M1) D
Figure 2.
Degree of possibility
between M1 and M2
0 l2 m2 l1 d u2 m1 u1
BIJ All of the steps cited above are carried out for all the judgment matrices in the study to
25,9 obtain the weights based on normalized vectors.

3.6 Fuzzy TOPSIS method

The TOPSIS is one of the classical methods that work with a simple computation process for
solving MCDM problems based on the rationale of human choice. It was developed by
3840 Hwang and Yoon (1981). A more complete explanation of the TOPSIS can be found in an
investigation by Shih et al. (2007).
While the TOPSIS includes an unrestrained range of the criteria and performance attributes,
it allows explicit trade-offs between attributes n contrast to the AHP, the TOPSIS does not
require pairwise comparisons (Shih et al., 2007; Wang and Chang, 2007). The TOPSIS considers
the distances from both the positive-ideal solution (PIS) and the negative-ideal solution (NIS)
simultaneously by defining “the relative closeness to the ideal solution.” Ultimately, the closest
and the farthest ideal solutions from the PIS and the NIS will be achieved, respectively.
The fuzzy TOPSIS method, developed by Chen (2000), is presented in this section.
The ratings of the attributes in this paper are demonstrated as linguistic variables that can
be explained by positive triangular fuzzy numbers. They are presented in Table III. It is
important to note that, in the proposed model, the relative importance of the weights of the
elements have been calculated by using the fuzzy AHP, as explained in Section 3.5.
The main weakness of the TOPSIS, in contrast to the AHP, is that it neither offers the
weights of the criteria nor does it examine the consistency index of judgments. Hence, this
technique needs to determine the relative importance of different criteria (Rao and Davim, 2008):
(1) Designing the decision matrix: the fuzzy decision matrix and the weighting matrix
can be presented as below, where m and n denote the number of alternatives and
criteria, respectively. As expressed above, to explain the weights of the criteria in the
proposed model, triangular fuzzy numbers are not used; instead, the relative
importance of the weights are computed by using fuzzy AHP:
 
D ¼ xij mn i ¼ 1; 2; . . .; m j ¼ 1; 2; . . .; n;

 
W ¼ wj 1n j ¼ 1; 2; . . .; n; (9)

where xij ¼ (aij, bij, cij) and wj ¼ (wj1, wj2, wj3) are linguistic variables described by
triangular fuzzy numbers. The elements of the normalized fuzzy decision-making
matrix (R ¼ [rij]m×n) for cost and benefit criteria are calculated by Equations (10) and
(11), respectively. B and C are presented as separate sets of benefit and cost criteria,
respectively:
   
aj aj aj
r ij ¼ ; ; ; j A C a j ¼ MIN aij ; if j A C; (10)
cij bij aij

Very poor (VP) (0, 0, 1)

Poor (P) (0, 1, 3)
Medium poor (MP) (1, 3, 5)
Table III. Fair (F) (3, 5, 7)
Linguistic expressions Medium good (MG) (5,7, 9)
for rating of the Good (G) (7, 9, 10)
attributes Very good (VG) (9, 10, 10)
 !
aij bij cij Model for
r ij ¼ ; ; ; j A B cnj ¼ MAX C ij ; if j AB: (11)
cnj cnj cnj SCRM in the
automotive
industry
(2) Determining the weighted normalized decision matrix vij: it is calculated by
multiplying the normalized matrix by the weights of the criteria:
  3841
V ¼ vij mn i ¼ 1; 2; . . .; m j ¼ 1; 2; . . .; n; (12)
where Vij ¼ rij × wj and wj.
The fuzzy weighted decision-making matrix was obtained in the following form:
2 3
v11    v1j    v1n
6^ ^ ^ 7
6 7
6 7
6
V ¼ 6 i1
v    v    v in 7: (13)
ij
7
6^ ^ ^ 7
4 5
vm1    vmj    vmn
With respect to Equation (12), vij for the positive and negativiteria is determined
using Equations (14) and (15), respectively:
!
aij bij cij  
vij ¼ r ij  wj ¼ n ; n ; n  wj1 ; wj2 ; wj3
cj cj cj
!
aij bij cij
¼ n  wj1 ; n  wj2 ; n  wj3 ; (14)
cj cj cj

a  
j aj aj  
vij ¼ r ij  wj ¼ ; ;  wj1 ; wj2 ; wj3
cij bij aij

a
j a
j a
j
¼  wj1 ;  wj2 ;  wj3 : (15)
cij bij aij
(3) Defining the “fuzzy positive-ideal solution (FPIS, A+)” and the “fuzzy negative-ideal
solution (FNIS, A−),” which can be, respectively, calculated as under:
 
A þ ¼ vn1 ; vn2 ; . . .; vnn ; (16)
 
A ¼ v  
1 ; v2 ; . . .; vn ; (17)
where:
vnj ¼ ð1; 1; 1Þ; (18)

v
j ¼ ð0; 0; 0Þ: (19)
(4) Calculating the distance between each alternative from A+ and A− via following
equations, respectively:
X
n
d ni ¼ d vij ; vnj i ¼ 1; 2; . . .; m; (20)
j¼1
BIJ X
n
d
i ¼ d vij ; v
j i ¼ 1; 2; . . .; m: (21)
25,9 j¼1

It should be noted that if the fuzzy numbers are of a triangular type, the distance
between the triangular numbers M1 ¼ (a1, b1, c1) and M2 ¼ (a2, b2, c2) will be in
following form:
3842 s
ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
1 h i
d ðM 1 ; M 2 Þ ¼ ða1 a2 Þ2 þ ðb1 b2 Þ2 þ ðc1 c2 Þ2 : (22)
3
(5) The closeness coefficient (CC) of each alternative can be calculated using the
following equation:
d
CC i ¼ i
i ¼ 1; 2; . . .; m: (23)
d ni þdi
(6) Finally, the alternatives are ranked according to the CC, so that the alternatives with
a higher value of CC will have a higher rank than the others.

4. The proposed model of SCRM

The present study intends to integrate the fuzzy AHP and the fuzzy TOPSIS to determine the
relative importance of performance factors and rank the alternatives of risk practices. It can lead
to the improvement of the risk index for each part of the PLC and the OPC in the field of SCRM.
This is the first study that employs a combined fuzzy MCDM, which includes both the
fuzzy AHP and the fuzzy TOPSIS tools for decreasing risks in a SC environment under a
hierarchical structure including PLC, OPC, OPF and ROP. There are some main
characteristics of the proposed model in the current work as follows:
First, there are two main elements, the PLC and OPC, and they have an important role in
an SC. On the other hand, there are a variety of risks involved in an SC. These risks are
related to the PLC and OPC in the SC. Finally, each company can employ a variety of
alternatives (ROPs) to decrease risks in SCs. Therefore, there can be a structure for solving
risk problems in SCs in a hierarchical manner. Hence, the proposed model applies an MCDM
tool with the AHP and TOPSIS for weighting the attributes and prioritizing the alternatives
for risk reduction in SCs. Naturally, a group decision-making procedure is applied to
contribute seven experts in solving the problems of SCs.
Second, in an SC environment, there are many inaccuracies, imprecision and ambiguities.
In addition, when risk issues and related concepts are considered in an SC, these issues
increase. On the other hand, when organizations are confronted with a hierarchical mode of
problem solving in SC, these imprecisions and uncertainties grow due to a mutual
relationship between the attributes at each level of the hierarchical structure. The proposed
model uses fuzzy set theory in MCDM to overcome inaccuracies and ambiguities in SCRM.
With respect to abovementioned model justifications, first, the fuzzy AHP is used to
determine the relative weights of the organizational performance criteria and the
relationships between the elements of the HSDP. Second, the fuzzy TOPSIS is employed
to rank the alternatives of ROPs according to the selected criteria and their weights
extracted from fuzzy AHP (see Section 3.6). Figure 3 displays the main steps in the
proposed model of SCRM.

4.1 Identifying the effective elements of SCRM

To draw the HSDP, the effective factors of the problem should be identified and placed in a
hierarchical structure. In this study, the significant factors (elements) of SCRM were
 Identifying the effective elements of SCRM Model for
SCRM in the
automotive
Defining the hierarchical structure of the decision problem industry

Creating the pairwise comparison matrix 3843

Determining the weights of the elements using fuzzy AHP Figure 3.

Main steps in the
proposed model
of SCRM in the
Ranking the alternatives of ROPs using fuzzy TOPSIS current study

obtained from Xia and Chen (2011), and categorized into three elements: PLC, OPC, and OPF.
As a noticeable point, the PLC, OPC and OPF levels are based on the work of Xia and Chen
(2011) and this is as a limitation of the analysis of the case study.
The PLC consists of four stages: introduction, growth, maturity and decline. The OPC
includes five value-added activities as follows: procurement, production, distribution,
logistics and service. The OPF includes the strategic direction of the organization for risk
reduction in the SC, and comprises time, cost, quantity and quality.
Figure 4 exhibits the decision-making process in SCRM as an AHP. The purpose of the
decision-making system is to improve the competence of SCRM by improving the risk
performance via the selected alternatives of the ROPs at the last level of the hierarchical structure.

Goal

PLC level Introduction Growth Maturity Decline

OPC level Procurement Production Distribution Logistics Service

OPF level Time Cost Quantity Quality

ROP level Admission Weakening Transfer Avoidance

Admission, Admission, Admission, Weakening, Weakening, Transfer,

Weakening Transfer Avoidance Transfer Avoidance Avoidance
Figure 4.
Hierarchical structure
Admission, Admission, Admission, Admission, Weakening,
of the decision
Weakening, Weakening, Weakening, Transfer, Transfer, problem in the current
Transfer Avoidance Transfer, Avoidance Avoidance Avoidance study
BIJ As can be seen in Figure 4, the variables related to the fourth level of the HSDP include 15
25,9 ROPs that improve the organizational performance of an SC. With respect to four alternative
solutions, admission, weakening, transfer and avoidance, there are 24−1 ¼ 15 types of single,
binary, triple and quadruple compounds of choices, as portrayed in Figure 4. Table IV
describes these four alternative solutions in the current study with the following examples.
Based on Table IV, for instance, to admit risk, organizations can have a smart exposure
3844 in contrast to risks. Further, they can change the budget, time and quality of their plans.
Another example is that the preventive plans can be considered for the weakening of risks.
In addition, insurance and warranty can be selected for transferring risks. Finally, to avoid
risks, the organizations can change their project plans.
The elements of the hierarchical structure and the criteria for reducing SC risks in SCRM
are described in Sections 3.1 to 3.3.

4.2 Model description

The detailed steps of the proposed model are depicted in Figure 5. First, with regard to the
HSDP, after achieving the experts’ opinions, the CR is determined for each matrix. The
company that was studied had seven experts with more than ten years of experience.
Further, these experts are effective and knowledgeable employees of the company.
Then, the opinions of the experts are combined to determine the weights under a unit
matrix using a geometric mean method. The opinions are demonstrated by triangular fuzzy
numbers. Then, the weights of the criteria (elements) and sub-criteria are determined using
the fuzzy AHP. After determining the weights of the criteria, the decision-making matrix for
the fuzzy TOPSIS is constructed with a triangular fuzzy number using the viewpoints of the
experts. In the end, the alternatives (ROPs) for decreasing the risk value are ranked.

Variables at ROP
level Related examples

Admission Including 1. Active admission (smart exposure with risky events); 2. Passive admission
Table IV. (retreat and accepting change in budget implementation, time and quality)
Examples of four Weakening Risk reduction through preventive plans
alternative solutions Transfer Insurance or warranty
in the ROP level Avoidance Through change in the project plan

Using the viewpoints of Determining the CR for all

Determining the triangular
seven experts to fill the pairwise comparison
fuzzy number
pairwise comparison matrix matrices

Aggregating all the

Creating a decision-making Determining the weights of
viewpoints of experts and
matrix using the viewpoints the elements and elements
converting them into a unit
of the experts using the fuzzy AHP
matrix

Figure 5. Determining the triangular

Ranking the alternatives by
Detail steps of the fuzzy number and
using the fuzzy TOPSIS
proposed model aggregating the matrices
5. Case study (numerical example) Model for
In this paper, a case study (numerical example) of a manufacturing company in the SCRM in the
automotive industry of Iran is employed in the proposed model. This Iranian automotive automotive
manufacturing company was established in 1966. In 2011, the company planned the
production of 760,000 cars (including passenger cars, pickups, 4WDs, light and heavy industry
vehicles, minibuses and buses). During recent years, the company has increased its market
share and gained approximately 50 percent of Iran’s passenger car market share. 3845
Currently, this company consists of several stakeholders. Further, more than
65 percent of the stock is assigned to private sector. In recent years, the company
has received several awards in categories such as green industry, quality, work
environment safety, business excellence, productivity, human resources, sales services
and knowledge management.
The results of applying the proposed model in the case study are presented below. In this
regard, first using the fuzzy AHP, the weights of the elements are determined. Second, based
on these weights, the priority of the alternatives (ROPs) for reducing risks in the SC is
determined using the fuzzy TOPSIS.

5.1 Fuzzy AHP for determining the weights of the elements in the hierarchical structure
To make a comprehensive decision-making model for SCRM in the automotive company,
the importance of the elements was determined through interviews with the DMs, who are
experts of the manufacturing sector. They presented their opinions through linguistic
variables (see Table II). Then, the CR for each matrix was computed.
Table V presents the CR for each matrix and related to each expert. The CR is calculated
for all pairwise comparison matrices at the three levels. Figure 4 indicates that there is one
matrix in the first level. Further, there are four and five matrices in the second and third
level, respectively. As indicated in Table V, the values of all the CRs are less and equal than
0.1. Therefore, the opinions of experts are consistent and the estimations can be continued.
Thereafter, the fuzzy pairwise comparison matrices were aggregated using a geometric
mean method (see Equation (2)). Table VI depicts the aggregated pairwise comparison
matrix at the first level of the HSDP.
As indicated by the demonstration of the triangular fuzzy numbers in Table VII, the
value of fuzzy synthetic extent Si for each row of the pairwise comparison matrix at the first

Experts CR in the first level CR in the second level CR in the third level

Expert 1 0.10 0.08 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.07 0.07 0.02 0.04 0.05 Table V.
Expert 2 0.07 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.03 0.01 Consistency ratio for
Expert 3 0.08 0.04 0.07 0.03 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.08 all pairwise
Expert 4 0.06 0.07 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.08 0.05 0.10 0.07 comparison matrices
Expert 5 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.08 0.05 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.03 at the three levels
Expert 6 0.01 0.08 0.05 0.00 0.07 0.08 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.03 with respect
Expert 7 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.07 0.03 0.07 0.00 0.08 to the experts

Goal Introduction Growth Maturity Decline

Table VI.
Introduction 1 1 3 0.38 0.45 1 0.77 1.29 2.65 0.75 0.88 1.13 Aggregated pairwise
Growth 1.73 2.24 4.58 1 1 3 3 5 7 1.18 1.73 3 comparison matrix
Maturity 0.33 0.58 0.85 0.14 0.2 0.33 1 1 3 0.65 1 1.53 at the first level
Decline 0.88 1.13 1.34 0.33 0.58 0.85 0.65 1 1.53 1 1 3 of the HSDP
BIJ level is computed using Equation (3). For example, S1 is calculated as follows:
25,9      
S 1 ¼ 2:9  ½14:811 ; 3:62  ½20:081 ; 7:78  ½37:781 ¼ ð0:077; 0:180; 0:525Þ:

Then, the degree of possibility is obtained using Equation (4) as indicated in Table VIII. For
example, V(S1 ⩾ S2) is determined as follows:
3846 8
> 1 if m1 Xm2
<
V ðS 1 XS 2 Þ ¼ lM 1 ðdÞ 0 if l 2 Xu1 :
>
: ðl 2 u2 Þ ð0:180:53Þ
ðm1 u1 Þðm2 l 2 Þ ¼ ð0:180:53Þð0:50:18Þ ¼ 0:53 o:w

Table IX presents the final weights of the attributes in the first level of the hierarchical
structure.
As depicted in Table IX, the growth stage in the PLC has the highest weight among all
the other stages. In other words, the experts believe that the growth stage in the PLC is more
important than the other stages.
Similarly, the normalized weights of the comparative relationships between the first and
the second levels of the hierarchical structure can be seen in Table X.
As indicated in Table X, in the introduction stage of the PLC, the procurement and
production processes are more important than the other processes in the OPC. In the growth

Table VII.
Value of the fuzzy Si li mi ui
synthetic extent for
each row of the S1 0.077 0.180 0.525
pairwise comparison S2 0.183 0.496 1.187
matrix at the first S3 0.056 0.138 0.385
level of the HSDP S4 0.076 0.185 0.453

V(S1 ⩾ S2) 0.53 V(S1 ⩾ S3) 1.00 V(S1 ⩾ S4) 1.00

V(S2 ⩾ S1) 1.00 V(S2 ⩾ S3) 1.00 V(S2 ⩾ S4) 1.00
Table VIII. V(S3 ⩾ S1) 0.83 V(S3 ⩾ S2) 0.30 V(S3 ⩾ S4) 0.84
Degree of possibility V(S4 ⩾ S1) 0.99 V(S4 ⩾ S2) 0.27 V(S4 ⩾ S3) 1.00

Table IX.
Weights of the
attributes in the first Goal Introduction Growth Maturity Decline
level of the
hierarchical structure Normalized weight 0.251 0.477 0.141 0.13

Table X.
Weights of the Procurement Production Distribution Logistics Service
comparative
relationships between Introduction 0.27 0.24 0.16 0.16 0.16
the first and the Growth 0.11 0.38 0.27 0.11 0.12
second levels Maturity 0.11 0.21 0.31 0.08 0.28
of the HSDP Decline 0.19 0.04 0.19 0.19 0.37
stage, the production process is more essential than the others. As a result, the company Model for
should pay more attention to this process to improve the SC. The distribution and service SCRM in the
processes are more significant than the other processes in the maturity and the decline automotive
stages of the PLC, respectively.
Correspondingly, Table XI illustrates the weights of the comparative relationships industry
between the second and the third levels of the hierarchical structure. In other words, the
OPFs that are more critical than the others in each process of the OPC can be recognized 3847
using Table XI.
As exhibited in Table XI, in the procurement process, time and cost are more important
than the other OPFs. To decrease SC risks, the company should pay sufficient attention to
reducing time and cost in the activities of the procurement process. In the production
process, the strategies for improving the quality and cost factors can alleviate SC risks.
Time and quantity are the two main factors of the distribution process. The company
should make appropriate decisions to lower the risks involved in this process of the SC. In the
logistics process, cost and quantity are the two main factors that influence the organizational
performance. Finally, quality is the most vital factor in the service process in the OPC.

5.2 Using fuzzy TOPSIS to prioritize the risk operational practices

The final stage of the proposed model is using the fuzzy TOPSIS for evaluating and
prioritizing the alternatives (ROPs) to decrease SC risks. The final weight of the criteria
(OPFs) is required as the input in this stage, which is computed using the fuzzy AHP, as
explained in Section 3.5.
Table XII presents the weights of the OPFs. Moreover, the linguistic variables for rating
of the attributes are defined in Table III (see Section 3.6) by the positive triangular fuzzy
numbers. The DMs expressed their opinions about the ratings of the ROPs in a decision-
making matrix, with respect to the four performance factors (time, cost, quantity and
quality), independently.
After that, all the decision-making matrices were aggregated with each other to construct
a unit matrix, using the geometric mean method. The fuzzy weighted decision-making
matrix was computed by multiplying the final weights of the criteria (see Table XII) to the
normalized fuzzy decision-making matrix (see Equations (12)–(15)). The fuzzy weighted
decision-making matrix is exhibited in Table XIII. In addition, Table XIV describes the FPIS
and FNIS calculated using Equations (16) and (17), respectively.
After that, the distance between each alternative from the FPIS and FNIS is calculated using
Equations (20) and (21), respectively. Next, using Equation (23), the CC related to each alternative
is determined. Finally, the alternatives are prioritized based on their value in the CC index.

Time Cost Quantity Quality Table XI.

Weights of the
Procurement 0.42 0.35 0.15 0.08 comparative
Production 0.2 0.31 0.15 0.34 relationships between
Distribution 0.37 0.21 0.27 0.15 the second and the
Logistics 0.17 0.39 0.34 0.1 third levels
Service 0.28 0.14 0.08 0.51 of the HSDP

Criteria Time Cost Quantity Quality Table XII.

Weights of the
Weights 0.29 0.28 0.21 0.22 performance factors
BIJ Risk operational practices (alternatives) Time Cost Quantity Quality
25,9
Admission 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Weakening 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2
Transfer 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0 0.1 0.1 0 0.1 0.2
Avoidance 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
Admission, weakening 0 0.1 0.2 0 0.1 0.2 0 0 0.1 0 0.1 0.1
3848 Admission, transfer 0 0 0.1 0 0 0.1 0 0 0.1 0 0 0.1
Admission, avoidance 0 0.1 0.2 0 0.1 0.2 0 0.1 0.2 0 0.1 0.2
Weakening, transfer 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2
Weakening, avoidance 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
Transfer, avoidance 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2
Admission, weakening, transfer 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0 0 0.1 0 0.1 0.1
Table XIII. Admission, weakening, avoidance 0 0.1 0.2 0 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2
Fuzzy weighted Admission, transfer, avoidance 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0 0.1 0.2 0 0.1 0.2
decision-making Weakening, transfer, avoidance 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2
matrix Admission, weakening, transfer, avoidance 0 0.1 0.2 0 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2

Table XIV. Time Cost Quantity Quality

Value of FPIS and
FNIS for each FPIS 0.23 0.29 0.29 0.22 0.28 0.28 0.17 0.21 0.21 0.18 0.22 0.22
criterion FNIS 0 0 0.03 0 0 0.03 0 0 0.02 0 0 0.02

The distance of each alternative (ROP) from the FPIS and FNIS with respect to each OPF,
the CC of each alternative, and the priority of the alternatives are presented in Table XV.
In the table, the three ROPs that represent the best suggestions for improving the OPFs in
SCRM are: weakening along with avoidance; simultaneous application of weakening,
transfer, and avoidance practices; and avoidance. This is because the value related to their
CC index is higher than that of the other alternatives.
Table XV presents the decreasing risks in SCs, the company in this case study should
employ some ROPs that are placed in the first ranks. With respect to Table IV, some actions
related to the first ROP (weakening along with avoidance) are as follows: preventive plans

Risk operational practice (alternative) d

i d ni CCi Ranking

Admission 0 0.9 0.001 15

Weakening 0.72 0.2 0.786 5
Transfer 0.51 0.46 0.527 8
Avoidance 0.84 0.08 0.912 3
Admission, weakening 0.31 0.63 0.33 13
Admission, transfer 0.13 0.8 0.139 14
Admission, avoidance 0.41 0.57 0.417 11
Weakening, transfer 0.69 0.25 0.731 6
Weakening, avoidance 0.9 0 1 1
Transfer, avoidance 0.81 0.14 0.85 4
Table XV. Admission, weakening, transfer 0.36 0.57 0.386 12
Value of d  n
i , d i and Admission, weakening, avoidance 0.55 0.45 0.551 7
CCi with the priority Admission, transfer, avoidance 0.45 0.5 0.472 10
of each risk practice Weakening, transfer, avoidance 0.86 0.06 0.932 2
(alternative) Admission, weakening, transfer, avoidance 0.51 0.47 0.522 9
for reducing or weakening risks and changes in the project plans to avoid risks in the SC. Model for
The second and third ROPs ranked in Table XV can be selected and the related actions can SCRM in the
be considered for reducing risks in SCs. automotive
industry
6. Implications
This paper contributed a hybrid fuzzy AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS method to determine
the weights of the relationships between the PLC, OPC and OPF components of SCRM 3849
and prioritize the ROPs for decreasing SC risks. Previous works did not employ several
criteria and options for reducing risks involved in an SC (PLC and OPC parts) in a
fuzzy environment.
There is a major difference between the proposed model in the current study and the
methodologies used in previous studies. These studies separately employed issues including
risks in an SC, PLC, OPC, OPF and ROP in an SC, group MCDM techniques in an SC, and SC
under fuzzy conditions. However, the current study combined these issues and presented a
new model of SCRM under fuzzy conditions in a hierarchical structure of the PLC, OPC, OPF
and ROP components using group MCDM.
This study has the following implications with respect to the abovementioned issues.
First, at the first level of the HSDP, the weight of every stage of the PLC was determined
with respect to the goal of improving SCRM. At this level, the growth stage had the highest
weight (see Table IX).
In this regard, Xia and Chen (2011) suggested that the main goal can be to create brand
preference and increase market share. It is indicated that the improvement of product
quality is an essential factor in winning the competition. Moreover, to convert a valueless
product into a new and valuable product, focus on the continuous improvement of the
product design is necessary. It is also important to provide a perfect distribution and
logistics system (Xia and Chen, 2011).
Figure 6 depicts the relative importance (weight) of each activity (process) of OPC in the
stages of the PLC. In other words, Figure 6 indicates the process that should be further
considered by the company in each stage of the PLC until the SC risks can be reduced.
For example, the weight of “procurement” activity of OPC in the “introduction” stage of PLC
is equal to 0.27.
Based on the second implication, as depicted in Figure 6, the procurement and
production processes play a more significant role than the other processes in the
introduction stage of the PLC. In the growth stage, the production and distribution
processes are more important than the other processes. The distribution and service
processes are more valuable in the maturity stage of the PLC level of the HSDP. Finally, the
service process is the most significant process in the decline stage of the PLC in SCRM.

Procurement Production Distribution Logistics Service

0.45
0.40 0.38 0.37
0.35 0.31
0.30 0.27 0.27 0.28
0.25 0.24
0.21
0.19 0.19 0.19
0.20 0.16 0.16 0.16
0.15
0.11 0.11 0.12 0.11
0.10 0.08 Figure 6.
0.04 Weight of each
0.05 process of the OPC in
0.00 the stages of the PLC
Introduction Growth Maturity Decline
BIJ It is worth noting that the second implication is consistent with Xia and Chen (2011), which
25,9 is cited in Section 3.1 of this paper.
Figure 7 depicts the relative importance (weight) of each risk factor of the OPF in each
process of the OPC. In other words, Figure 7 indicates the risk factor that need to be reduced
in each process of the OPC. For example, the weight of the risk factor “time” of the OPF in
the “procurement” process of the OPC is equal to 0.42.
3850 Based on the third implication and Table XI, Figure 7 indicates the most important
performance factors in each process of the OPC.
In the procurement process, time and cost factors are more important than the others
factors. In the production process, quality and cost factors are the most significant risk
factors. Time and quantity factors are more important than the others risk factors in the
distribution process of the OPC. Cost and quantity are the most vital risk factors in the
logistics process. Ultimately, in the service process of the OPC, quality is the most crucial
factor for decreasing SC risks.
These findings confirm and advance the study done by Xia and Chen (2011) as well as
the related issues cited in Section 3.2 of this paper.
Based on the fourth implication, Tables IX–XI, and Figures 6 and 7, each component of
the PLC, OPC and OPF can be compared together. Table XVI indicates the most important
process in each stage of the PLC and the most effective performance factor in each process
of the OPC. In other words, Table XVI indicates the most important process of OPC
considered in each stage of the PLC for reducing SC risks. Then, managers should focus on
the OPC process that it is more significant than others in each stage of PLC. In addition,
Table XVI indicates the risk factors that managers need to consider to decrease SC risks in
each process of the OPC.
As displayed in Table XVI, in the introduction stage, a sufficient attention to a better
implementation of the procurement process can decrease time and cost, and consequently,
improve SC activities. Moreover, as the production process is very critical in the

Time Cost Quantity Quality

0.55
0.51
0.5
0.45 0.42
0.4 0.39
0.37
0.35 0.34 0.34
0.35
0.31
0.3 0.27 0.28
0.25
0.2 0.21
0.2 0.17
0.15 0.15 0.15 0.14
Figure 7. 0.15
Weight of each risk 0.1
0.1 0.08 0.08
factor of the
OPF in each process 0.05
of the OPC 0
Procurement Production Distribution Logistics Service

Table XVI. PLC stages OPC processes OPF risk factors

Relationships between
more weighted Introduction Procurement Time and cost
components in the Growth Production Quality and cost
PLC, OPC and OPF Maturity Distribution Time and quantity
levels of the HSDP Decline Service Quality
growth stage, the company can improve their SC by addressing the quality and cost factors. Model for
In the maturity stage, the distribution process is vital and through an appropriate SCRM in the
consideration of this process, the company can decrease the risks of time and quantity automotive
in their SC. At last, in the decline stage of the PLC, the quality of an SC can be improved
by offering a better service. industry
To improve the OPF in an SC, the company can advance its activities using the strategies
and guidelines cited in Section 3.3 of this paper and the considerations presented by Xia and 3851
Chen (2011). For example, with respect to Table XVI, in each stage of the PLC, some
strategies for mitigating the related risk factors can be provided to improve the processes in
the OPC. Table XVII presents some examples of these strategies.
The fifth implication of this study is related to the ROP for decreasing SC risks.
According to Table XV, Figure 8 presents the ranking of alternatives for dealing with SC
risks. As it can be observed, the three best alternatives for decreasing the risk factors in an
SC are as follows: weakening along with avoidance; simultaneous application of weakening,
transfer and avoidance practices; and avoidance.
Based on Table IV, for instance, with respect to the first alternative, the company in the
case study can provide preventive plans to weaken or change project plan to avoid SC risks.
In addition, with respect to the second alternative, the company can use insurance or
warranty to transfer SC risks along with the two abovementioned actions related to the first
alternative. Finally, with respect to the third alternative, the company can only change the
project plan for avoiding SC risks.
As a noticeable point, these alternatives are ranked based on the consideration of the
PLC, OPC and OPF levels in the HSDP (see Figure 4). In other words, these ROPs are ranked
such that the best of them can decrease SC risks in the stages of the PLC. Further, they are
selected based on the reduction of risks in each process of the OPC. Finally, they employ the
risk factors related to each process of OPC and each stage of the PLC.
The final implication is that managers can take advantage of the proposed model to
decrease the risk involved in an SC under fuzzy multi-criteria group decision-making
conditions. In this regard, they can make suitable decisions to reduce risks in each stage of
the PLC. Further, the managers can select more important performance factors in each
stages of the OPC to reduce the related SC risks. Finally, the managers can select the best
alternatives for decreasing risk factors in the SC.

OPC OPF risk

PLC stages processes factors Strategies for mitigating risk factors

Introduction Procurement Time 1. Managing delays in delivery, 2. Developing inventory control

and cost systems, 3. Managing procurement and logistics costs, 4. Decreasing
lead-time
Growth Production Quality 1. Focus on the quality of the components and parts of product,
and cost 2. Using just-in-time and inventory management systems,
3. Identifying the reasons for increasing the production costs,
4. Managing the price of product, 5. Decreasing the additional
inventory
Maturity Distribution Time and 1. Using new technology for accelerating distribution,
quantity 2. Decreasing delays in the distribution, 3. Using inventory control
and production plan systems for determining quantity of product
for distribution, 4. Planning for deficiencies in production, 5. Using
prediction systems for demands, 6. Designing a suitable structure Table XVII.
for distribution Some examples of the
Decline Service Quality 1. Evaluating customer’s satisfaction about service, 2. Developing strategies for
warranties and after-sales services mitigating risk factors
BIJ 1.000
25,9 1.0
0.932 0.912
CCi
0.850
0.8 0.786
0.731

3852
0.6 0.551
0.527 0.522
0.472
0.417
0.4 0.386
0.330

0.2
0.139

0.001
0.0
ce

ce

ng

n
r

er

er

er
fe
nc

nc

nc

nc

nc

nc
in

io
sf

sf

sf
an

ni
s
en

iss
da

da

da

da

da

a
an

an

an

an
ke
id

d
k
oi

oi

oi

oi

dm
Tr

Tr

Tr

Tr
vo

vo

vo

vo
ea

ea
Av

Av

Av

Av
W

W
,A

,A

,A

dm Adm r, A
g,

g,

n,

A
in

in

io
r,

g,

n,
er

er
ng

n,
fe

e
en

iss
n

o
sf

sf

sf

io
ke
ni

ni

i
ns

iss
k
an

an

an

dm
iss
ke

ke
ea

ea
ra

Tr

Tr

Tr

dm
W

W
,T
ea

ea

A
Figure 8.
W

g,

n,
ng

n,

A
n

io

io
,
ni

ni
n

iss

Ranking of the ROP

iss
io
ke

ke

dm
iss
ea

ea

(alternatives) for
dm
W

A
n,
A

decreasing the risk

io
iss

factors in the SC
dm
A

7. Conclusions
There are several risk factors that are effective in the performance improvement of SCM
processes. In an SCM, there are two main components, the PLC and OPC. This paper referred to
the study conducted by Xia and Chen (2011), to design an SCRM system with the PLC and OPC
components, based on two MCDM methods (AHP and TOPSIS) under a fuzzy environment.
A case study of the automotive industry in Iran was employed to evaluate the
effectiveness of the proposed model. In this model, various combinational risk practices
(ROPs) for decreasing operational risks (OPFs) were selected, which includes time, cost,
quantity and quality. The ROPs are the different combinations of these choices (admission,
weakening, transfer and avoidance), where there are 24−1 ¼ 15 choices.
The proposed model depicted the relationships between the PLC, OPC and OPF with
ROP for reducing the SC risks using the HSDP. To achieve this purpose, two MCDM
techniques under fuzzy condition were applied, that is, the fuzzy AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS.
The proposed model applied the fuzzy AHP to determine the weights of the relationships
between the PLC, OPC and OPF under the HSDP. In addition, fuzzy TOPSIS was employed in
the model in order to rank the ROPs with respect to the weighted OPFs. In general, fuzzy
method considers the real situation of human judgments in the decision-making process without
missing any important information, which is an undesirable consequence in the crisp methods.
Having applied the fuzzy AHP, the three results were demonstrated as follows.
First, the growth stage in the PLC had more weighted importance than the other stages.
Second, the most important process of OPC in each stage of PLC was highlighted. In this
regard, in the introduction stage, the most significant process was “procurement.” In the
growth stage, production process was essential for the company. The distribution process
played a vital role in the maturity stage. Finally, the activities related to service process were Model for
very important in the “decline” stage of the PLC. SCRM in the
Third, for each process in OPC, some performance factors (OPFs) were more essential automotive
than other risk factors. In the procurement process, time and cost risk factors were more
important than the other OPFs. In the production process, quality and cost factors were industry
preferable to other factors. In the distribution process, it is better to concentrate on the time
and quantity risk factors. Finally, in the service process, the company should focus on 3853
improving the quality factor.
Based on the three abovementioned results, the managers in the company (presented as a
case study) can decrease risks in SCM using the importance of the stages in the PLC, the
processes in the OPC, and the risk factors in the OPF elements in the proposed SCRM model.
In addition, a variety of strategies for improving the risk factors can be provided for each
stage of the PLC and each process of the OPC.
With respect to the utilization of the fuzzy TOPSIS, the ROPs for decreasing the SC risks
were prioritized as follows: weakening along with avoidance; simultaneous application of
weakening, transfer and avoidance practices; and avoidance. Using these ROPs, the
company can provide appropriate decisions to decrease risks in SCs.
Future studies can use a larger group of respondents to ensure a higher validity of the
research. Furthermore, in addition to the PLC and OPC, the proposed model can consider
the other issues in the HSDP by reviewing a more extensive literature on SCRM. Similarly,
the proposed model can apply other effective risk factors in the SCM. In this regard, the
other criteria such as environmental and social dimensions can be considered in future
research. This study was implemented as a case study and a numerical example of the
automotive industry in Iran. Future research can apply the proposed model in other
practical fields. In conclusion, it can be suggested that the other MCDM techniques, such as
the ANP, can be employed in the proposed model.

References
Aqlan, F. and Lam, S.S. (2015), “A fuzzy-based integrated framework for supply chain risk
assessment”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 161, pp. 54-63, available at:
www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0925527314003636
Azadeh, A. and Alem, S.M. (2010), “A flexible deterministic, stochastic and fuzzy data envelopment
analysis approach for supply chain risk and vendor selection problem: Simulation analysis”,
Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 37 No. 12, pp. 7438-7448.
Bandaly, D., Satir, A., Kahyaoglu, Y. and Shanker, L. (2012), “Supply chain risk management –
I: conceptualization, framework and planning process”, Risk Management, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 249-271.
Bellman, R.E. and Zadeh, L.A. (1970), “Decision-making in a fuzzy environment”, Management Science,
Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. B-141-B-273.
Berenji, H.R., Anantharaman, R.N. and Karegar, M. (2011), “A New two-stage fuzzy decision making
model in supply chain risk management”, International Conference on Innovation, Management
and Service, Vol. 14, pp. 44-49.
Brosas, M.E., Kilantang, M.A., Li, N.B., Ocampo, L., Promentilla, M.A. and Yu, K.D. (2017), “Novel
approach for manufacturing supply chain risk analysis using fuzzy supply inoperability input-
output model”, Manufacturing Letters, Vol. 12, pp. 1-5, available at: www.sciencedirect.com/
science/article/pii/S2213846317300056
Chand, M., Raj, T., Shankar, R. and Agarwal, A. (2017), “Select the best supply chain by risk analysis
for Indian industries environment using MCDM approaches”, Benchmarking: An International
Journal, Vol. 24 No. 5, pp. 1400-1413.
Chang, D.Y. (1996), “Applications of the extent analysis method on fuzzy AHP”, European Journal of
Operational Research, Vol. 95 No. 3, pp. 649-655.
BIJ Chaudhuri, A., Mohanty, B.K. and Singh, K.N. (2013), “Supply chain risk assessment during new
25,9 product development: a group decision making approach using numeric and linguistic data”,
International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 51 No. 10, pp. 2790-2804.
Chen, C.T. (2000), “Extensions of the TOPSIS for group decision-making under fuzzy environment”,
Fuzzy Sets and Systems, Vol. 114 No. 1, pp. 1-9.
Chen, C.T., Lin, C.T. and Huang, S.F. (2006), “A fuzzy approach for supplier evaluation and selection in
3854 supply chain management”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 102 No. 2,
pp. 289-301.
Childerhouse, P., Hermiz, R., Mason-Jones, R., Popp, A. and Towill, D.R. (2003), “Information flow in
automotive supply chains-identifying and learning to overcome barriers to change”, Industrial
Management & Data Systems, Vol. 103 No. 7, pp. 491-502.
Chopra, S. and Meindl, P. (2007), Supply Chain Management. Strategy, Planning & Operation, Gabler,
London, pp. 265-275.
Chopra, S. and Sodhi, M.S. (2004), “Managing risk to avoid supply-chain breakdown”, MIT Sloan
Management Review, Vol. 46 No. 1, pp. 53-61.
Chopra, S. and Sodhi, M.S. (2014), “Reducing the risk of supply chain disruptions”, MIT Sloan
Management Review, Vol. 55 No. 3, pp. 73-80.
Datta, S., Sahu, N. and Mahapatra, S. (2013), “Robot selection based on grey-MULTIMOORA
approach”, Grey Systems: Theory and Application, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 201-232.
Douglas, L.M., James, S.R. and Lisa, E.M. (1998), Fundamentals of Logistics Management, Editions
McGraw-Hill International Editions, Singapore.
Faisal, M.N., Banwet, D.K. and Shankar, R. (2006), “Supply chain risk mitigation: modeling the
enablers”, Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 535-552.
Farooquie, P., Suhail, A. and Faisal, M.N. (2017), “A grey-based approach for managing uncertainties
and performance in automotive supply chains”, International Journal of Industrial and Systems
Engineering, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 73-89.
Florida, R. (1996), “Lean and green: the move to environmentally conscious manufacturing”, California
Management Review, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 80-105.
Foerstl, K., Reuter, C., Hartmann, E. and Blome, C. (2010), “Managing supplier sustainability risks in a
dynamically changing environment – sustainable supplier management in the chemical
industry”, Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 118-130.
Ganguly, K.K. and Guin, K.K. (2013), “A fuzzy AHP approach for inbound supply risk assessment”,
Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 129-146.
Ghadge, A., Dani, S., Chester, M. and Kalawsky, R. (2013), “A systems approach for modelling supply
chain risks”, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 18 No. 5, pp. 523-538.
Gold, S. and Awasthi, A. (2015), “Sustainable global supplier selection extended towards sustainability
risks from (1+n)th tier suppliers using fuzzy AHP based approach”, IFAC-Papers OnLine,
Vol. 48 No. 3, pp. 966-971.
Graves, S.C. and Tomlin, B.T. (2003), “Process flexibility in supply chains”, Management Science,
Vol. 49 No. 7, pp. 907-919.
Ha, A.Y., Li, L. and Ng, S.M. (2003), “Price and delivery logistics competition in a supply chain”,
Management Science, Vol. 49 No. 9, pp. 1139-1153.
Ho, W., Zheng, T., Yildiz, H. and Talluri, S. (2015), “Supply chain risk management: a literature review”,
International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 53 No. 16, pp. 5031-5069.
Hwang, C.L. and Yoon, K. (1981), Multiple Attribute Decision Making: Methods and Applications,
Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York, NY.
Jakhar, S.K. and Barua, M.K. (2014), “An integrated model of supply chain performance evaluation and
decision-making using structural equation modelling and fuzzy AHP”, Production Planning &
Control, Vol. 25 No. 11, pp. 938-957.
Kandakoglu, A., Celik, M. and Akgun, I. (2009), “A multi-methodological approach for shipping registry Model for
selection in maritime transportation industry”, Mathematical and Computer Modelling, Vol. 49 SCRM in the
No. 3, pp. 586-597.
automotive
Kannan, D., Khodaverdi, R., Olfat, L., Jafarian, A. and Diabat, A. (2013), “Integrated fuzzy multi criteria
decision making method and multi-objective programming approach for supplier selection and industry
order allocation in a green supply chain”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 47, pp. 355-367,
available at: www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652613000590
3855
Kazancoglu, Y., Kazancoglu, I. and Sagnak, M. (2018), “Fuzzy DEMATEL-based green supply chain
management performance: application in cement industry”, Industrial Management & Data
Systems, Vol. 118 No. 2, pp. 412-431.
Kern, D., Moser, R., Hartmann, E. and Moder, M. (2012), “Supply risk management: model development
and empirical analysis”, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management,
Vol. 42 No. 1, pp. 60-82.
Khemiri, R., Elbedoui-Maktouf, K., Grabot, B. and Zouari, B. (2017), “A fuzzy multi-criteria decision-
making approach for managing performance and risk in integrated procurement–production
planning”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 55 No. 18, pp. 5305-5329.
Khompatraporn, C. and Somboonwiwat, T. (2017), “Causal factor relations of supply chain
competitiveness via fuzzy DEMATEL method for Thai automotive industry”, Production
Planning & Control, Vol. 28 Nos 6-8, pp. 538-551.
Kumar, D. and Garg, C.P. (2017), “Evaluating sustainable supply chain indicators using fuzzy
AHP: case of Indian automotive industry”, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 24
No. 6, pp. 1742-1766.
Lavastre, O., Gunasekaran, A. and Spalanzani, A. (2014), “Effect of firm characteristics, supplier
relationships and techniques used on Supply Chain Risk Management (SCRM): an empirical
investigation on French industrial firms”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 52
No. 11, pp. 3381-3403.
Li, G., Fan, H., Lee, P.K. and Cheng, T.C.E. (2015), “Joint supply chain risk management: an agency and
collaboration perspective”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 164, pp. 83-94,
available at: www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0925527315000559
Li, S., Ragu-Nathan, B., Ragu-Nathan, T.S. and Rao, S.S. (2006), “The impact of supply chain
management practices on competitive advantage and organizational performance”, Omega,
Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 107-124.
Liu, L., Zhou, Y. and Zhu, H. (2011), “A conceptual framework for vendor selection based on supply
chain risk management from a literature”, Journal of System and Management Sciences, Vol. 1
No. 3, pp. 1-8.
Mehrjerdi, Y.Z. (2012), “Developing fuzzy TOPSIS method based on interval valued fuzzy sets”,
International Journal of Computer Applications, Vol. 42 No. 14, pp. 7-18.
Mostafaeipour, A., Qolipour, M. and Eslami, H. (2017), “Implementing fuzzy rank function model for a
new supply chain risk management”, The Journal of Supercomputing, Vol. 73 No. 8, pp. 3586-3602.
Oner, S.C. and Oztaysi, B. (2017), “Sustainable supply chains and risk management for e-commerce
companies using fuzzy inference system”, in Kahraman, C. and Sari, İ.U. (Eds), Intelligence
Systems in Environmental Management: Theory and Applications, Springer, Cham, pp. 291-312.
Pandari, A.R. and Azar, A. (2017), “A fuzzy cognitive mapping model for service supply chains
performance”, Measuring Business Excellence, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 388-404.
Park, K. (2017), “A grey-based risk selection model using fuzzy information of a supply chain”,
Multimedia Tools and Applications, Vol. 76 No. 17, pp. 18083-18097.
Pettit, T.J., Croxton, K.L. and Fiksel, J. (2013), “Ensuring supply chain resilience: development and
implementation of an assessment tool”, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 46-76.
Radivojević, G. and Gajović, V. (2014), “Supply chain risk modeling by AHP and Fuzzy AHP methods”,
Journal of Risk Research, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 337-352.
BIJ Ramanathan, U., Gunasekaran, A. and Subramanian, N. (2011), “Supply chain collaboration
25,9 performance metrics: a conceptual framework”, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 18
No. 6, pp. 856-872.
Rao, R.V. and Davim, J.P. (2008), “A decision-making framework model for material selection using a
combined multiple attribute decision-making method”, The International Journal of Advanced
Manufacturing Technology, Vol. 35 Nos 7-8, pp. 751-760, available at: www.sciencedirect.com/
science/article/pii/S0959652617330068
3856 Ritchie, B. and Brindley, C. (2007), “An emergent framework for supply chain risk management and
performance measurement”, Journal of the Operational Research Society, Vol. 58 No. 11, pp. 1398-1411.
Rostamzadeh, R., Ghorabaee, M.K., Govindan, K., Esmaeili, A. and Nobar, H.B.K. (2018), “Evaluation of
sustainable supply chain risk management using an integrated fuzzy TOPSIS-CRITIC
approach”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 175, pp. 651-669.
Saaty, T.L. (1996), The Analytical Hierarchy Process, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Sahu, A.K., Sahu, A.K. and Sahu, N.K. (2016b), “Appraisal of partner enterprises under GTFNS
environment: agile supply chain”, International Journal of Decision Support System Technology,
Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 1-19.
Sahu, A.K., Sahu, N.K. and Sahu, A.K. (2016a), “Application of integrated TOPSIS in ASC index:
partners benchmarking perspective”, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 23 No. 3,
pp. 540-563.
Sahu, A.K., Sahu, N.K. and Sahu, A.K. (2017a), “Performance estimation of firms by GLA supply chain
under imperfect data”, in Li, D.-F. (Ed.), Theoretical and Practical Advancements for Fuzzy
System Integration, IGI Global, Fuzhou University, Fuzhou, pp. 245-277.
Sahu, N.K., Datta, S. and Mahapatra, S.S. (2015b), “Fuzzy based appraisement module for 3PL
evaluation and selection”, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 354-392.
Sahu, N.K., Datta, S. and Sankar Mahapatra, S. (2014), “Green supplier appraisement in fuzzy
environment”, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 412-429.
Sahu, N.K., Sahu, A.K. and Sahu, A.K. (2015a), “Appraisement and benchmarking of third-party
logistic service provider by exploration of risk-based approach”, Cogent Business & Management,
Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 1-21.
Sahu, N.K., Sahu, A.K. and Sahu, A.K. (2017b), “Fuzzy-AHP: a boon in 3PL decision making process”, in
Li, D.-F. (Ed.), Theoretical and Practical Advancements for Fuzzy System Integration, IGI Global,
Fuzhou University, Fuzhou, pp. 97-125.
Samvedi, A., Jain, V. and Chan, F.T. (2013), “Quantifying risks in a supply chain through integration of
fuzzy AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 51 No. 8,
pp. 2433-2442.
Shih, H.S., Shyur, H.J. and Lee, E.S. (2007), “An extension of TOPSIS for group decision making”,
Mathematical and Computer Modelling, Vol. 45 No. 7, pp. 801-813.
Tabrizi, B.H. and Razmi, J. (2013), “Introducing a mixed-integer non-linear fuzzy model for risk
management in designing supply chain networks”, Journal of Manufacturing Systems, Vol. 32
No. 2, pp. 295-307.
Tang, C.S. (2006), “Perspectives in supply chain risk management”, International Journal of Production
Economics, Vol. 103 No. 2, pp. 451-488.
Thun, J.H. and Hoenig, D. (2011), “An empirical analysis of supply chain risk management in the
German automotive industry”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 131 No. 1,
pp. 242-249.
Vanany, I., Zailani, S. and Pujawan, N. (2009), “Supply Chain risk management: literature review and
future research”, International Journal of Information Systems and Supply Chain Management,
Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 16-33.
Wang, T.C. and Chang, T.H. (2007), “Application of TOPSIS in evaluating initial training aircraft under
a fuzzy environment”, Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 870-880.
Wang, X., Chan, H.K., Yee, R.W. and Diaz-Rainey, I. (2012), “A two-stage fuzzy-AHP model for risk Model for
assessment of implementing green initiatives in the fashion supply chain”, International Journal SCRM in the
of Production Economics, Vol. 135 No. 2, pp. 595-606.
Wu, D., Wu, D.D., Zhang, Y. and Olson, D.L. (2013), “Supply chain outsourcing risk using an integrated
automotive
stochastic-fuzzy optimization approach”, Information Sciences, Vol. 235, pp. 242-258, available industry
at: www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0020025513001114
Wu, D.D., Zhang, Y., Wu, D. and Olson, D.L. (2010), “Fuzzy multi-objective programming for supplier
selection and risk modeling: a possibility approach”, European Journal of Operational Research,
3857
Vol. 200 No. 3, pp. 774-787.
Xia, D. and Chen, B. (2011), “A comprehensive decision-making model for risk management of supply
chain”, Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 38 No. 5, pp. 4957-4966.
Xiao, Z., Chen, W. and Li, L. (2012), “An integrated FCM and fuzzy soft set for supplier selection
problem based on risk evaluation”, Applied Mathematical Modelling, Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 1444-1454.
Yadav, D.K. and Barve, A. (2018), “Segmenting critical success factors of humanitarian supply chains
using fuzzy DEMATEL”, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 400-425.
Yadav, V., Sharma, M.K. and Singh, S. (2018), “Intelligent evaluation of suppliers using extent
fuzzy TOPSIS method: a case study of an Indian manufacturing SME”, Benchmarking:
An International Journal, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 259-279.
Yang, G. and Liu, Y. (2015), “Designing fuzzy supply chain network problem by mean-risk optimization
method”, Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 447-458.
Yu, M.C. and Goh, M. (2014), “A multi-objective approach to supply chain visibility and risk”, European
Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 233 No. 1, pp. 125-130.
Zadeh, L.A. (1965), “Fuzzy sets”, Information and Control, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 338-353.
Zadeh, L.A. (1976), “A fuzzy algorithmic approach to the definition of complex or imprecise concepts”,
International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 249-291.
Zimmer, K., Fröhling, M., Breun, P. and Schultmann, F. (2017), “Assessing social risks of global supply
chains: a quantitative analytical approach and its application to supplier selection in the German
automotive industry”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 149, pp. 96-109, available at: www.
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652617302457
Zimmermann, H.J. (2001), Fuzzy Set Theory and Its Applications, Springer Science & Business Media,
Dunfermline.

Corresponding author
Mohammad Khanbabaei can be contacted at: [email protected]

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: [email protected]
Reproduced with permission of copyright owner. Further
reproduction prohibited without permission.