Expert Systems with Applications 41 (2014) 679–693

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Expert Systems with Applications

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/eswa

A fuzzy AHP-TOPSIS framework for ranking the solutions of Knowledge

Te
Management adoption in Supply Chain to overcome its barriers
ac
Sachin K. Patil ⇑, Ravi Kant
Department of Mechanical Engineering, S.V. National Institute of Technology, Surat 395007, India

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Keywords: The aim of this study is to identify and prioritize the solutions of Knowledge Management (KM) adoption
Knowledge Management in Supply Chain (SC) to overcome its barriers. It helps organizations to concentrate on high rank solutions
Supply Chain and develop strategies to implement them on priority. This paper proposes a framework based on fuzzy
AHP analytical hierarchy process (AHP) and fuzzy technique for order performance by similarity to ideal
TOPSIS
solution (TOPSIS) to identify and rank the solutions of KM adoption in SC and overcome its barriers.
The AHP is used to determine weights of the barriers as criteria, and fuzzy TOPSIS method is used to
obtain final ranking of the solutions of KM adoption in SC. The empirical case study analysis of an Indian
hydraulic valve manufacturing organization is conducted to illustrate the use of the proposed framework
for ranking the solutions of KM adoption in SC to overcome its barriers. This proposed framework
provides a more accurate, effective and systematic decision support tool for stepwise implementation
of the solutions of KM adoption in SC to increase its success rate.
Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction generally, managing knowledge within SC can help organizations

to promote better use of resources. KM and SC represent two main
With the rapid changes and pressure of global competition, streams of research that have significantly developed over the past
knowledge has become as the key factor of business success to several years and many related issues are still not addressed by
achieve the competitive advantage (Cheng, Yeh, & Tu, 2008; consultants, practitioners or academics.
Tesang, 2009). Knowledge adds value to an organization through
its contribution to products, processes and people, while Knowl-
1.1. Research motive
edge Management (KM) transforms information, data and intellec-
tual assets into enduring value by identifying useful knowledge for
KM treats knowledge as an asset and manages it in a systematic
management actions (Goh, 2006). KM consists of processes that
way to achieve the goal of enhancement of SC performance and
facilitate the application and development of organizational
competitiveness. Still why only a few SC members can benefit from
knowledge, in order to create value and to increase and sustain
the KM? One of its reasons is knowledge transfer and knowledge
competitive advantage (Zhao, Pablo, & Qi, 2012). KM is recognized
sharing between groups with dissimilar purposes and dissimilar
as an important source of competitive advantage and hence there
practices is difficult to achieve either within an organization or be-
has been increasing academic and practitioner interest in under-
tween trading partners belonging to the same SC (Marra, Ho, &
standing and isolating the factors that contribute to effective
Edwards, 2011). Another reason is incomplete understanding of
knowledge transfer between Supply Chain (SC) actors (He,
what causes KM adoption in SC to fail. In view of this it is essential
Ghobadin, & Gallear, 2013). The KM adoption in SC enables a col-
to identify barriers of KM adoption in SC.
laborative environment that enables the chain to be more adaptive
The barriers of KM adoption in SC can identified through litera-
and responsive to achieve an improved strategic competitive posi-
ture review and expert opinion. However, in a strategic view, these
tion in the market place. KM among SC members can provide a
barriers are significant but not possible to overcome all at the same
guarantee for the chain members to access the external knowledge,
time. Even a same barrier may be differently important to the indi-
but also it is helpful to improve overall competitiveness of the
vidual organization with the varied priorities; due to each organi-
entire SC (Li & Hu, 2012; Zhengyi & Ronghua, 2005). More
zation has its own purposes, strategies, conditions of resources,
and capabilities. Hence it is noticed that in order to enhance KM
⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +91 9970700790. adoption in SC successful, concrete and feasible solutions must
E-mail addresses: spatil59@rediffmail.com, spatil59@gmail.com (S.K. Patil), be proposed and ranked to overcome these barriers in stepwise
ravi792002@gmail.com, ravi.kant@med.svnit.ac.in (R. Kant). manner.

0957-4174/$ - see front matter Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2013.07.093
680 S.K. Patil, R. Kant / Expert Systems with Applications 41 (2014) 679–693

1.2. Research goal 2. Literature review

The aim of this paper is to explore the barriers of KM adoption
in SC and propose and prioritize the solutions to overcome these
barriers. It is important to prioritize these solutions so that organi-
zations may develop strategies to implement these solutions on
priority basis to overcome the barriers of KM adoption in SC and
achieve competitive advantage.
To prioritize the solutions of KM adoption is multi criteria
decision making (MCDM) problem. Human judgment in decision
making has been often unclear and hard to estimate by exact
numerical values. Hence fuzzy logic is necessary for handling prob-
lems characterized by vagueness and imprecision. This paper
proposes hybrid fuzzy Analytical hierarchy process (AHP) and fuz-
zy technique for order performance by similarity to ideal solution
(TOPSIS) framework to prioritize the solutions of KM adoption in
SC. This study utilizes fuzzy AHP (Saaty, 1980) to determine impor-
tance weights of the barriers and fuzzy TOPSIS (Hwang & Yoon,
1981) to obtain performance ratings of feasible solutions with
triangular fuzzy numbers (TFN). Lastly, a empirical case study is
presented to demonstrate the application of proposed framework.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. Section 2 briefly
reviews the literature on barriers and solutions of KM adoption
in SC. The Fuzzy AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS methods are presented in
Section 3. The proposed framework for prioritize the solutions of
KM adoption in SC is described in Section 4. The empirical case
study is conducted and described in Section 5. Finally, the
conclusion is discussed in Section 6.
2.1. Barriers of KM adoption in SC
KM and SC have taken more than a decade to facilitate mature
disciplines where they can be exploited for enhancing business
profitability and value. In order to adopt KM effectively, some cred-
itable works have provided several barriers of KM adoption in SC
(See Table 1).
The SC has some difficulties and challenges to promote KM such
as KM is not integrated into business processes; the performance of
KM is difficult to assess; the participation level of KM is low; and
the funds of KM are insufficient (Zhao et al., 2012). If top manage-
ment is not committed to KM adoption in SC, it seems to have led
to a situation where a common understanding concerning organi-
zational vision, strategies and supplier/customer relationship
management was not present (Natti & Ojaslo, 2008).
The development of knowledge-based SC depends on the nature
of knowledge flow in the entire chain. SC partners will find it very
useful to share decision knowledge on a timely basis. However
managerial mindsets and corporate culture are the main hurdle
for it (Shih, Hsu, Zhu, & Balasubramanian, 2012). The deep organi-
zation structure hierarchy seems to hinder the upward flow of
communication and stops the vertical sharing of knowledge (Aziz
& Sparrow, 2011; Kasper, Muhlbacher, & Muller, 2008). The
attitude towards the learning and sharing of new knowledge is
one of the important barriers preventing the building of a
knowledge-creation in the organization (Vithessonthi, 2008). The

Table 1
Initial hierarchy model of barriers of KM adoption in SC and its criteria.

Main criterion C. Sub criteria References

code
Strategic SB 1 Lack of strategic planning regarding KM adoption in SC Blumenberg, Wagner, and Beimborn (2009), Raisinghani and Meade
barriers (2005)
SB 2 Lack of roles and responsibilities of SC members Natti and Ojasalo (2008)
SB 3 Lack of fund for KM system development Zhao et al. (2012), Ahmad and Daghfous (2010)
SB 4 Lack of top management commitment towards KM adoption in SC Bandyopadhyay and Pathak (2007)
SB 5 Lack of clear understanding of KM adoption n SC Shih et al. (2012), Aziz and Sparrow (2011)
SB 6 KM not integrated with SC business process Zhao et al. (2012), Natti and Ojasalo (2008)
Organizational OB 1 Lack of proper organizational structure to create and share knowledge Natti and Ojasalo (2008), Ahmad and Daghfous (2010)
barriers OB 2 Communication and knowledge flows are restricted into certain Shih et al. (2012), Al-Mutawah et al. (2009), Kasper et al. (2008)
directions of SC
OB 3 Knowledge retention of highly skilled and experienced staff is not a Fletcher and Polychronakis (2007)
high priority
OB 4 Deficiency in organizations resources that would provide adequate Aziz and Sparrow (2011)
knowledge sharing opportunities to employees.
OB 5 No adequate knowledge of functioning of other SC members Natti and Ojasalo (2008), Aziz, and Sparrow (2011)
OB 6 Opportunistic behavior of SC members Cheng et al. (2008)
OB 7 Shortage of formal and informal spaces to share, reflect and generate Hutzschenreuter and Horstkotte (2010)
knowledge
Technological TB 1 Lack of technological infrastructure to adopt KM in SC Wong and Wong (2011)
Barriers TB 2 Difficulty in codifying tacit knowledge Wagner and Buko (2005), Simonin (2004)
TB 3 Low data and information security within SC Kumar and Thondikulam (2006), Gunasekaran and Ngai (2004)
TB 4 Lack of Service exchange Cheung et al. (2012), Paton and McLaughlin (2008)
TB 5 Lack of technical assistance to suppliers Hutzschenreuter and Horstkotte (2010)
Cultural CB 1 Lack of willingness and sharing spirit among SC members Natti and Ojasalo (2008), Shih et al. (2012), Hutzschenreuter and
barriers Horstkotte (2010)
CB 2 Lack of trust and commitment of SC members Shih et al. (2012), Samuel et al. (2011), Vithessonthi (2008), Maqsood
and Finegan (2007), Spekman et al. (2002)
CB 3 Lack of empowerment among SC members Samuel et al. (2011)
CB 4 Lack of motivation and reward Hutzschenreuter and Horstkotte (2010)
CB 5 Different values, cultural and linguistic environment within SC Natti and Ojasalo (2008), Wong and Wong (2011), Myers and Cheung
members (2008)
Individual IB 1 Fear of embarrassment for sharing incorrect information Pillai and Min (2010), Willem and Buelens (2007)
barriers IB 2 Lack of time to share knowledge Aziz and Sparrow (2011)
IB 3 Fear of loss of intellectual property ownership Chou and Passerini (2009)
IB 4 Poor verbal/written communication, interpersonal and computer Hutzschenreuter and Horstkotte (2010), Joshi, Sarker, and Sarker
skills (2006)
IB 5 Lack of education and training to SC members Blumenberg et al. (2009)
 S.K. Patil, R. Kant / Expert Systems with Applications 41 (2014) 679–693 681

Table 2
Solutions of KM adoption in SC.

Code Solutions Descriptions References

S1 Use of IT system for knowledge dissemination IT is the application of computers and Wong and Wong (2011), Park, Im, and
telecommunications equipment to store, retrieve, Kim (2011), Pedroso and Nakano (2009),
transmit and manipulate data. It systems used for Corso, Dogan, Mogre, and Perego (2010);
information sharing and/or processing across
organizational boundaries. It includes Enterprise
Resource Planning (ERP) systems, Radio frequency
identity devices (RFID)
S2 Design of Multiagent system to improve information Multi-agent systems consist of agents and their Al-Mutawah et al., 2009; Wu, 2001
and knowledge sharing in SC environment. However, the agents in a multi-agent
system could equally well be robots, humans or human
teams. Multiagent systems can help SC with filtering and
gathering accurate information and improve information
and knowledge sharing in SC
S3 Design of outsourcing strategy to improve knowledge Outsourcing is the contracting out of an internal Niemi et al. (2010), Cheng et al. (2008),
integration within SC business process to a third party organization. This is Maqsood and Finegan (2007);
strategy has resulted in the SC becoming a ‘systems
Integrator’, in which it manages and coordinates a
network of the best production and service providers
S4 Use of semantic web for sharing the knowledge within The Semantic Web provides a common framework that Huang and Lin (2010), Douligeris and
SC allows data to be shared and reused within SC Tilipakis (2006)
S5 Positive leadership towards KM adoption in SC Positive leadership establishes controls, perform long Shih et al. (2012), Bandyopadhyay and
range planning, full financial as well as technical support Pathak (2007)
and motivate employees to adopt KM in SC, post
adoption audit
S6 Mutual learning for effective knowledge sharing among Mutual learning means policy makers and experts of SC Wang, Fergusson, and Perry (2008)
SC exchanging knowledge on issues of common concern, to
improve coordination and decision making
S7 Building Trustworthy teamwork to exchange and The process of working collaboratively with a group of Ahmad and Daghfous (2010), Cheng et al.
enhance knowledge within SC people in order to exchange knowledge within SC is (2008), Batenburg and Rutten (2003)
called teamwork and trustworthy teamwork, is the
teamwork on which you can place your trust and rest
assured that the trust will not be betrayed
S8 Use of intellectual property and customer relation Intellectual capital can be broadly conceptualized as the Lancioni and Chandran (2009), Choi,
management (CRM) system in order to faster sum of all knowledge, a SC is able to leverage in the Budny, and Wank (2004)
exploitation of knowledge learning in SC process of conducting business to gain competitive
advantage. CRM is a process designed to collect data
associated with customers to enhance the relationship
between the SC and its customers
S9 The use of collaborative practices like Vendor Managed Collaborative practices emphasize information exchange Bensaou and Venkatraman (1995); Modi
Inventory (VMI), Efficient Consumer Response (ECR), and knowledge sharing as key success factors for supply and Mabert (2007)
Enhanced Web Reporting (EWR) or Collaborative chain integration
Planning, Forecasting and Replenishment (CPFR) to
progressively develop knowledge
S10 Make strategic alliances among the supply for positive A Strategic Alliance is a relationship between SC Wong and Wong (2011), Dyer and
impact on SC performance members to pursue a set of agreed upon goals or to meet Nobeoka (2000), Dyer (1997)
a critical business need while remaining independent
organizations
S11 Mining group-based knowledge flows (GKF) for sharing GKF is expressed as a directed knowledge graph which Liu and Li (2011)
task knowledge represents the knowledge referencing behavior, or
knowledge flow, of a group of workers with similar task
needs
S12 Developing Knowledge based customization for SC The Knowledge-based Customization Module (KCM) Cheung et al. (2012)
aims at formulating and tailoring SC configuration for
fulfilling operation specifications, acquiring knowledge
from knowledge workers and also providing feedback to
the supply chain network
S13 Electronic collaboration (e-collaboration) for systems to e-collaboration is operationally defined as collaboration Johnson and Whang (2002)
facilitate Internet-based coordination of decisions using electronic technologies among different
across all members of the SC individuals to accomplish a common task. e-
collaboration tools such as videoconferencing, group
support systems (GSSs), distance education tools (e.g.,
Blackboard, WebCT), and, more commonly, email have
evolved exponentially to share knowledge and work
remotely in SC
S14 Exercise power proportionately and constructively to Power is either balanced or unbalanced. Balanced power He et al. (2013), Muthusamy and White
avoid the overlook of knowledge resides within weaker exists where partner- ship actors possess broadly similar (2006)
firms levels of power in influencing each other’s decisions,
while unbalanced power exists when one or more actors
are able to manipulate decisions of the other actors
S15 Establish adequate incentives and reward systems to One effective way of motivating workers is to provide Ahmad and Daghfous (2010)
promote the employees to share knowledge within SC incentives and rewards for excellent performance and
recognition for a job well done. Incentives and reward
systems is a formal scheme used to promote or
encourage specific actions or behavior by a specific

(continued on next page)

682 S.K. Patil, R. Kant / Expert Systems with Applications 41 (2014) 679–693
Table 2 (continued)
Code Solutions
S16 Form Virtual enterprise (VE) for achieving agility in SC
S17 Strengthening the cultural cohesions and co-operation
in SC members
S18 Use of case-based reasoning in SC
S19 Adopt Supplier Development (SD) programme
S20 Establishment of Knowledge based Decision support
system (KB-DSS) for SC
S21 Establish a transparent work flow or open door policy
problem of knowledge sharing in such a is more complex due to
cross-cultural differences (Myers & Cheung, 2008). Opportunistic
behavior is the strongest negative influence on inter organizational
trust and knowledge sharing (Cheng et al., 2008). The lack of
information provision and empowerment of the partner’s deci-
sion-making are the weakest variables of KM adoption in SC
(Samuel, Goury, Gunasekaran, & Spalanzani, 2011). KM is still not
well understand in the organizations. It is viewed as a capital-
intensive investment that requires more than just the availability
of human capital and the requisite infrastructure. The organiza-
tions seem to be aware of the importance of various best practices,
but they still consider KM as a secondary approach to organiza-
tional success (Ahmad & Daghfous, 2009). KM adoption in SC
would be better treated as a strategic rather than operational issue.
Technological infrastructure has both direct and indirect effects on
firm Performance (Wong & Wong, 2011). A high level of tacitness
makes the transfer of knowledge within and outside the borders
of the firm very challenging (Simonin, 2004; Wagner & Buko,
2005). A crucial issue with managing knowledge transfer to
partners centrally is that communication barriers and tensions
may arise between those responsible for inter-organizational
knowledge transfer and other involved departments (Hutzschenre-
uter & Horstkotte, 2010).
2.2. Solutions to overcome the Barriers of KM adoption in SC
The researchers and practitioners throughout the world has
suggested diverse and situation specific solutions to overcome
the barriers of KM adoption in SC (See Table 2).
Strategic alliances among SC partners can have a positive
impact on the performances and succulents of a supportive culture
and flexible structure of organizations that encourage sharing of
knowledge from different perspectives (Dyer, 1997; Dyer &
Nobeoka, 2000; Wong & Wong, 2011). The role of positive leader-
ship is vital in overcoming the hurdle of insufficient fund, lack of
Descriptions References
group of people during a defined period of time
VE is a temporary alliance of businesses that come Gunasekaran and Ngai (2004)
together to share skills or core and resources in order to
better respond to business opportunities, and whose
cooperation is supported by computer networks
Cultural cohesion means having a SC where employees Natti and Ojasalo (2008), Wong and
at every level support the core values and understands Wong (2011), Myers and Cheung (2008)
what the SC needs from them as individuals and from
the wider team of which they are part. It is a set of
concepts and principles that guide us in determining
what behavior helps or harms to improve SC
performance
CBR broadly construed, is the process of solving new Wang et al. (2008), Choy et al. (2008)
problems based on the solutions of similar past
problems. CBR is a branch of artificial intelligence (AI),
and it is very effective in supporting the processes of
knowledge creation, sharing and application
SD programmes are long-term cooperative effort(s) Giannakis (2008)
between a buying firm and its suppliers to upgrade the
suppliers’ technical, quality, delivery, and cost
capabilities to foster ongoing improvements
A KB-DSS can undertake intelligent tasks in a specific Choy et al. (2008)
domain that is normally performed by a highly skilled
employee of the SC. KB-DSS includes an Expert System
(ES) as one of the main components. This component
supplies knowledge of special interest using artificial
intelligence (AI) to the decision support system user
Workflow concepts are closely related to other concepts Shih, Hsu, Zhu, and Balasubramanian
used to describe organizational structure. Transparent (2012), Al-Mutawah, Lee, and Cheung
work flow helps to eliminate difficulty of information (2009); Kasper, Muhlbacher, and Muller
flows from level to level within the SC and ensures (2008)
agility, adaptability, and alignment in chain
culture, lack of strategic planning, improper organization structure
unidirectional knowledge flow (Bandyopadhyay & Pathak, 2007;
Shih et al., 2012). The mutual learning is essential to increase the
competence of SC partners, and presented a model for effective
knowledge sharing among all partners (Wang, Fergusson, & Perry,
2008). Supplier Development (SD) programme can be adopted in
order to facilitate learning and knowledge transfers among the
SC members (Giannikas, 2008). The flow of knowledge increased
when SC actors had limited alternatives and when the more pow-
erful actor exercised restraint in the use of power (He et al., 2013).
The outsourcing activity aims to achieve complex knowledge and
competencies. In outsourcing activities the role of trust, coopera-
tion, communication and relational variables are recognized to be
a successful factor in knowledge sharing and knowledge creation
process (Bandyopadhyay & Pathak, 2007; Batenburg & Rutten,
2003; Cheng et al., 2008; Maqsood & Finegan, 2007; Niemi, Huisko-
nen, & Karkkainen, 2010; Spekman, Spear, & Kamauff, 2002). The
role of intellectual property and customer relation management
(CRM) system is vital to foster exploitation of knowledge learning
in SC (Lancioni & Chandran, 2009). The collaborative practices
associated with SC like Vendor Managed Inventory (VMI), Efficient
Consumer Response (ECR), Enhanced Web Reporting (EWR) or Col-
laborative Planning, Forecasting and Replenishment (CPFR) implies
that companies share strategic information (like forecasts or
production plans) to progressively develop knowledge that may
become essential to stabilize the SC (Bensaou & Venkatraman,
1995; Modi & Mabert, 2007). Group-based knowledge flow (GKF)
mining methods can enhance organizational learning and facilitate
KM, sharing, and reuse in an environment where collaboration and
teamwork are essential (Liu & Li, 2011). The use of Information
Technology (IT) systems and social networks can deal with the het-
erogeneity of information and knowledge flow within SC (Pedroso
& Nakano, 2009; Shih et al., 2012; Wong & Wong, 2011). E-collab-
oration for systems facilitates Internet-based coordination of deci-
sions across all members of the SC to identify, analyze, and
 S.K. Patil, R. Kant / Expert Systems with Applications 41 (2014) 679–693 683

transform useful information into reusable knowledge which can Definition 4. A fuzzy number N e is a fuzzy subset in the universe of
be used to make decisions with extensive impact along the SC discourse X, which is both convex and normal.
(Johnson & Whang, 2002). The multi agent system is helpful to
address the problem of sharing tacit knowledge in the manufactur-
e of the universe of dis-
Definition 5. The a-cut of the fuzzy set A
ing SC (Al-Mutawah, Lee, & Cheung, 2009; Wu, 2001). The semantic
web can be addressed the problem of managing knowledge heter- course X is defined as
n  o
ogeneity in the context of interoperability among multi-entities in 
Aa ¼ x 2 X ue ðxÞ P a where a 2 ½0; 1 ð4Þ
a SC (Huang & Lin, 2010). The knowledge-based customization A
approach for SC integration bridge information gaps and allows
effective and efficient information sharing within the SC network Definition 6. It is a TFN if the membership function ue ðxÞ of fuzzy
(Cheung, Kwok, & heung, 2012). The Case Base Reasoning (CBR) A
e = (l, m, u) in universe X is defined as follows, where
set A l; m; u are
methodology is effective to share the advanced practice knowledge real numbers and l 6 m 6 u.
with the other organization along the SC as well as keeping the
8
information confidential from leaking out while sharing the rest > 0 ðx < 1Þ
>
>
(Wang et al., 2008). < xl ðl 6 x 6 mÞ
ml
leN ðxÞ ¼ rx
ð5Þ
>
> ðm 6 x 6 uÞ
3. Research methods >
: rm
0 ðx < uÞ
3.1. Fuzzy sets
Definition 7. Alternatively, by defining the interval of confidence
Decision making is very difficult for vague and uncertain envi- level a, the TFN can be characterized using the following equation.
ronment. This vagueness and uncertainty can be handled by using  
fuzzy set theory, which was proposed by Zadeh (1965). A fuzzy set e a ¼ la ; ua ¼ ½ðm  lÞa þ l; ðu  mÞa þ u
8a½0; 1 M ð6Þ
is defined by a membership function that maps elements to
degrees of membership within a certain interval, which is usually
Definition 8. Suppose a = (a1, a2, a3) and b = (b1, b2, b3) are two
[0, 1]. If the value assigned is zero, the element does not belong
TFNs, the distance between them is calculated as
to the set (it has no membership). If the value assigned is one,
the element belongs completely to the set (it has total member- rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
  1h i
ship). Finally, if the value lies within the interval, the element dv e ~ ¼
a; b
2
ða1  b1 Þ þ ða2  b2 Þ þ ða3  b3 Þ
2 2
ð7Þ
3
has a certain degree of membership.
In particular, to tackle the ambiguities involved in the process of
linguistic estimation, it is a beneficial way to convert these linguis- 3.2. Fuzzy AHP
tic terms into fuzzy numbers. In practice, linguistic values can be
represented by fuzzy numbers, and the TFN is commonly used. A AHP introduced by Satty (1980) is a quantitative technique that
character tilde ‘‘’’ is placed above a symbol if the symbol repre- structures a multi-criteria, multi person, multi period problem
sents a fuzzy set. In the following, we briefly review some essential hierarchically so that solutions are facilitated. The application of
definitions of fuzzy logic. Satty’s AHP has some limitation as follows: (1) The AHP method
mainly used in nearly crisp decision application. (2) The AHP meth-
e is a subset of a universe of discourse X,
Definition 1. A fuzzy set A ods create and deal with the very unbalanced scale of judgment.
which is a set of ordered pairs and is characterized by a (3) The AHP method cannot handle the uncertainty and ambiguity
membership function ue ðxÞ representing a mapping ue : x ! associated with mapping of one’s judgment to a number. (4)
A A
Ranking of AHP method is rather imprecise. (5) The subjective
e is called the
½0; 1. The function value of ue ðxÞ for the fuzzy set A
A judgment, selection and preference of decision makers have great
membership value of x in A, e which represents the degree of truth influence on the AHP results. Therefore Fuzzy AHP methodology
that x is an element of the fuzzy set A. e It is assumed that extends Satty’s AHP by combining it with fuzzy set theory to solve
ue ðxÞ 2 ½0; 1, where ue ðxÞ = 1 reveals that x completely belongs to hierarchical fuzzy problems. The fuzzy AHP method offer the num-
A A ber of benefits like, it can capture uncertain imprecise judgment of
e while u ðxÞ = 0 indicates that x does not belong to the fuzzy
A, e
A experts by handling linguistic variables. Recently fuzzy AHP is
e
setae A. widely used to solve multi-criteria decision problems in few other
areas e.g. selection of thermal power plant (Choudhary & Shankar,
e ¼ fðx; u ðxÞÞg;
A x2X ð1Þ 2012), strategic analysis of electronic service quality (Buyukozkan
eA & Cifci, 2012), renewable energy planning (Kaya & Kahraman,
where ue ðxÞ is the membership function and X = {x} represents a 2010), selection of optimum underground mining method
A
collection of elements x. (Naghadehi, Mikaeil, & Ataei, 2009), weapon selection (Deviren,
Yavuz, & Kilınc, 2009).
e of the universe of discourse X is convex
Definition 2. A fuzzy set A Step 1: Defining scale of relative importance used in the pairwise
if comparison matrix
In this method, the TFNs, 1 ~ to 9,
~ are utilized to improve the
ue ðkx1 þ ð1  kÞx2 Þ conventional nine-point scaling scheme (see Table 3). In order to
A
take the imprecision of human qualitative assessments into con-
P minðue ðx1 Þ; ueðx2 ÞÞ8x 2 ½x1 ; x2 ; where k 2 ½0; 1: ð2Þ ~ 3;
~ 5;
~ 7; ~ are defined with the corre-
~ 9Þ
A A sideration, the five TFNs ð1;
sponding membership function. Fuzzy membership function for
e of the universe of discourse X is normal
Definition 3. A fuzzy set A linguistic values for criteria is given in Fig. 1.
if max Step 2: Construct the fuzzy comparison matrix
By using TFN, the decision group is asked to make pairwise
max ue ðxÞ ¼ 1 ð3Þ comparisons for the main criteria and sub criteria according to
A
684 S.K. Patil, R. Kant / Expert Systems with Applications 41 (2014) 679–693

Table 3
Scale of relative importance used in the pairwise comparison matrix.

Intensity of Fuzzy Linguistic variables Membership

importance number function
1 ~
1 Equally important/preferred (1, 1, 3)
3 ~
3 Weakly important/preferred (1, 3, 5)
5 ~
5 Strongly more important/preferred (3, 5, 7)
7 ~
7 Very strongly important/preferred (5, 7, 9)
9 ~
9 Extremely more important/ (7, 9,11)
preferred

Fig. 2. a-cut operation on triangular fuzzy number.

Degree of satisfaction for the judgment matrix is estimated by the

index of optimism l determined by the decision-maker. The larger
value of index l indicates the highest degree of optimism. The index
of optimism is a linear convex combination as defined in the follow-
ing equation (Lee, Pham, & Zhang, 1999).
a aij ¼ laaiju þ ð1  lÞaaiju
e where 0 < l 6 1 ð10Þ

The a-cut fuzzy comparison matrix converted into their crisp com-
parison matrix A by plugging the value of l in Eq. (10)
Fig. 1. Fuzzy membership function for linguistic values for criteria (Nepal, Yadav, & 2 3
1 a12 :: :: a1n
Murat, 2010).
6 7
6 a21 1 :: :: a2n 7
6 7
A¼6
6 :: :: :: :: :: 77 ð11Þ
e is constructed according to
Table 2. A fuzzy comparison matrix A 6 7
4 :: :: :: :: :: 5
arithmetic mean of pairwise comparisons from decision group.
2 3 an1 an2 :: :: 1
1 e
a 12 :: :: e
a 1n
6e 7 Step 4: Check consistency
6 a 21 1 :: :: e
a 2n 7
6 7 The consistency ratio (CR) for each of the matrix and overall
e ¼ 6 ::
A :: :: :: :: 7 ð8Þ
6 7 inconsistency for the hierarchy are calculated in order to control
6 7
4 :: :: :: :: :: 5 the results of this method. When the crisp comparison matrix A
e
a n1 e
a n2 :: :: 1 is consistent, it means the fuzzy comparison matrix A e is also con-
  sistent. The consistency can be checked as follows:
Whereas e a ij ¼ 1, If i equals to j and e ~ 3;
a ij ¼ 1; ~ 5;
~ 7;
~ 9~ or (i) Calculate the largest Eigen value of the matrix by using Eq.
1 ~ 1 ; 5
~ 1 ; 3 ~ 1 ; 7 ~ 1 if i is not equal to j. When scoring is conducted
~ 1 ; 9
(12)
for a pair, a reciprocal value is automatically assigned to the reverse
comparison within the matrix. That is, if Aij e is a matrix value as- Aw ¼ kmax w ð12Þ
signed to the relationship of component i to component j, then Aij e
where w is principal Eigen vector of the matrix.
is equal to 1= Aij: e
(ii) The Consistency Ratio (CR) is used to estimate directly the
Step 3: Converting the fuzzy comparison matrix into a crisp com- consistency of pairwise comparisons. The CR is computed by using
parison matrix Eq. (13)
Adamo (1980) proposed a-cut method to rank the fuzzy num-
bers. The a-cut is known to incorporate the experts or decision- CI
CR ¼ ð13Þ
maker(s) confidence over his/her preference or the judgments. It RI
will yield an interval set of values from a fuzzy number. For exam-
ple, a = 0.5 will yield a set a0:5 = (2, 3, 4) (see Fig. 2). kmax  n
CI ¼ ð14Þ
While a is fixed, the following a-cut comparison matrix can be n1
obtained from a fuzzy comparison matrix, after setting the index of where CI is consistency index. RI is random index, which is shown
optimism, l, in order to estimate the degree of satisfaction. in Table 4, and n is matrix size.
2 3
1 a a12
e :: :: a a1n
e
6 ea 7 Table 4
6 a 21 1 :: :: a a2n 7
e
6 7 The random consistency index (RI).
e a ¼ 6 ::
A :: :: :: :: 7 ð9Þ
6 7
6 7 Size (n) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
4 :: :: :: :: :: 5
RI 0 0 0.52 0.89 1.11 1.25 1.35 1.40
a an1
e a an2
e :: :: 1
 S.K. Patil, R. Kant / Expert Systems with Applications 41 (2014) 679–693 685

2 3
As a rule, only if the CR 6 0.10, the consistency of the matrix is A1 ~x11 ~x12 :: :: ~x11
considered as acceptable, otherwise the decision maker is required 6 7
A2 6 ~x21 ~x22 :: :: ~x2n 7
to revise the original values in the pairwise comparison matrix. 6 7
e
D¼ 6 :: :: :: :: 7
Step 5: Calculate the weight of criteria’s 6 :: 7 i ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; m; j ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; n
6 7
4 :: :: :: :: :: 5
The weight of each criterion will be calculated by normalizing
any of the rows or columns of matrix A. A3 ~xm1 x~m2 :: :: ~xmn
ð17Þ
3.3. Fuzzy TOPSIS
Step 4: Construct the Normalize fuzzy decision matrix
TOPSIS one of the classic multi-criteria decision making method The raw data are normalized using linear scale transformation
was developed by Hwang and Yoon (1981). It is based on the con- to bring the various criteria scales into a comparable scale. The
normalized fuzzy decision matrix R e is given by:
cept that the chosen alternative should have the shortest distance
from the positive ideal solution (PIS) and the farthest from the neg- e ¼ ½r ij  ;
R i ¼ 1; 2; . . . m; j ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; n; ð18Þ
mn
ative ideal solution (NIS). In the traditional formulation of the TOP-
SIS method, personal judgments are represented with crisp values. where
But in real life, measurement by using crisp values is not always !
possible. A better approach may be to use linguistic value rather aij bij cij
~rij ¼ ; ; and cj ¼ max cij ðbenifit criteriaÞ ð19Þ
than crisp value. Fuzzy set theory can be used to present linguistic cj cj cj i

value. For this reason, the fuzzy TOPSIS method is very suitable for
solving real life application problems under a fuzzy environment    
aj aj aj
(Afshar, Marino, Saadatpour, & Afshar, 2011; Aiello, Enea, Galante, ~rij ¼ ; ; and aj ¼ min aij ðbenifit criteriaÞ ð20Þ
cij bij aij i
& La Scalia, 2009; Amiri, 2010; Aydogan, 2012; Baykasoglu, Kapla-
noglu, Durmusoglu, & Sahin, 2013; Onut, Kara, & Isık, 2009; Sadi- Step 5: Construct the weighted normalized matrix
Nezhad & Damghani, 2010; Zeydan & Colpan, 2009). The weighted normalized matrix v ~ for criteria is computed by
Step 1: Choose the linguistic rating values for the alternative with multiplying the weights (wj) of evaluation criteria with the
respect to criteria normalized fuzzy decision matrix ~r ij .
Let us assume there are m possible alternatives called  
e ¼ v~ ij
V i ¼ 1; 2; :::; m; j ¼ 1; 2; . . . n where v~ ij ¼ ~r ij ð:ÞW j
A = {A1,A2. . .Am} which are to be evaluated against the criteria, mn;
C = {C1,C2. . .Cn} The criteria weights are denoted by wj (j = ð21Þ
1,2,. . .,n). The performance ratings of each expert Dk (k = 1,2,. . .K) 
Note that v
~ ij is a TFN represented by e ~ ; ~c :
a ijk ; b
for each alternative Ai (i = 1,2,. . .m) with respect to criteria ijk ijk

Cj(j = 1,2,. . .n) are denoted by Rek ¼ ~

xijk ði ¼ 1; 2; . . . m; j ¼ 1; 2; . . . n; Step 6: Determine the fuzzy ideal solution (FPIS) and fuzzy nega-
e
k ¼ 1; 2 . . . KÞ membership function l RkðxÞ. The scale used for tive ideal solution (FNIS)
solutions rating is given in Table 5. The FPIS and FNIS of the alternatives is computed as follows:
Step 2: Calculate aggregate fuzzy ratings for the alternatives
   
A ¼ v~ 1 ; v~ 2 ; :::; v~ n where v~ j ¼ ~cj ; ~cj ; ~cj and ~cj ¼ max ~cij
If the fuzzy ratings of all experts are described as TFN i
e k ¼ ðak; bk; ckÞ; k = 1,2,. . .K then the aggregated fuzzy rating is
R ð22Þ
given by R e ¼ ða; b; cÞ k = 1,2,. . .K where

   
1X K A ¼ v~ 1 ; v~ 2 ;. .. ; v~ n where v~ j ¼ e
a j ; e
a j ; e
a j and e
a j ¼ min e
a ij
a ¼ minfak g; b¼ bk ; c ¼ maxfck g ð15Þ i
k k k¼1 k
ð23Þ
If the fuzzy rating of the kth decision maker are X e ijk ¼ ðaijk ; bijk ; cijk Þ;
e ij of alter- 8i ¼ 1; 2; :::; m; j ¼ 1; 2; :::n
i = 1,2,. . .m, j = 1,2,. . .n then the aggregated fuzzy ratings X
e ij ðaij ; bij ; cij Þ;
natives with respect to each criteria are given by X Step 7: Calculate
the distance of each alternative from FPIS and FNIS
þ 
where The distance di ; di of each weighted alternative i = 1,2,. . .,m
from the FPIS and the FNIS is computed as follows:
1X K
aij ¼ minfaijk g; b¼ bijk ; c ¼ maxfcijk g ð16Þ X
n  
k k k¼1 k þ
di ¼ dv v~ ij ; v~ j ; i ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; m ð24Þ
j¼1
Step 3: Construct the fuzzy decision matrix
e is constructed
The fuzzy decision matrix for the alternatives ð DÞ
X
n  
as follows: 
di ¼ dv v~ ij ; v~ j ; i ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; m ð25Þ
j¼1
C1C2 Cn
Step 8: Calculate the closeness coefficient (CCi) of each alternative
The closeness coefficient CCi represents the distances to the fuz-
Table 5 zy positive ideal solution (A⁄) and the fuzzy negative ideal solution
Linguistic variables for solutions ratings.
(A) simultaneously. The closeness coefficient of each alternative is
Linguistic variables Corresponding TFN calculated as:
Very poor (1, 1, 3) 
Poor (1, 3, 5)
di
CC i ¼  þ ð26Þ
Medium (3, 5, 7) di þ di
Good (5, 7, 9)
Very good (7, 9,11) Step 9: Rank the alternatives
In step 9, the different alternatives are ranked according to the
closeness coefficient (CCi) in decreasing order.
686 S.K. Patil, R. Kant / Expert Systems with Applications 41 (2014) 679–693

4. Proposed hybrid fuzzy AHP-TOPSIS framework to rank the
solutions of KM adoption in SC to overcome its barriers
The proposed hybrid fuzzy AHP-TOPSIS for prioritizing the solu-
tions of KM adoption in SC to overcome its barriers has following
three phases (See Fig. 3).
Phase 1: Identification of the Barriers and solutions of KM adop-
tion in SC
In the first phase, a decision group of expert panel which com-
prising senior managers, IT representatives, KM project representa-
tives, senior executives of SC members, and customers are formed
for the barriers identification and evaluation. Then the barriers of
KM adoption in SC are determined through literature review and
these experts opinion. Following the determination of barriers an-
other expert panel is formed for evaluation of solutions of KM
adoption in SC. The expert panel comprising of KM and SC experts.
Then the hierarchy structure is formed such that objective is at the
first level, main barriers in the second level sub barriers at third le-
vel and solutions are in the fourth level.
Phase 2: Calculate weight of the barriers of KM adoption in SC by
fuzzy AHP
After forming a decision hierarchy, the weights of the barriers of
KM adoption in SC will be calculated by fuzzy AHP. Pairwise com-
parison matrixes of experts evaluations are constructed to acquire

Fig. 3. Proposed hybrid fuzzy AHP-TOPSIS framework to prioritize the solutions of KM adoption in SC to overcome its barriers.
 S.K. Patil, R. Kant / Expert Systems with Applications 41 (2014) 679–693 687

criteria weights by using the scale in Table 3. Computing arithme- improve the success rate it is essential to identify these barriers
tic mean of the values gotten from their evaluation, the final eval- and solutions to overcome them. It is difficult to implement all
uation matrix will be established. From this matrix weight of the barriers at the same time. Hence it is essential to prioritize these
barriers will be calculated as described in previous section. solutions of KM adoption in SC, hence, Indian organizations can
Phase 3: Evaluation of the solutions of KM adoption in SC and concentrate on the high rank solutions and implement them in a
determines final rank by fuzzy TOPSIS
Ranking the solutions of KM adoption in SC to overcome the
barriers will be determined by using fuzzy TOPSIS. The rating of
Table 6
solutions towards the barriers will be done by linguistic scale, Pairwise comparison matrix of the major criteria.
which is shown in Table 5. Ranking of solutions will be finalized
according to CCi values calculated by fuzzy TOPSIS in descending SB OB TB CB IB

order. SB 1 ~
3 ~
9 ~
5 ~
9
OB ~ 1
3 1 ~
5 ~
3 ~
9
TB ~ 1
9 ~ 1
5 1 ~ 1
3 ~
3
5. Application of the proposed framework
CB ~ 1
5 ~ 1
3 ~
3 1 ~
7
IB ~ 1
9 ~ 1
9 ~ 1
3 ~ 1
7 1
The proposed framework is used to rank the solutions of KM
adoption in SC to overcome its barriers. The application is based
on three phases provided in previous section and explained as
following. Table 7
Pairwise comparison matrix of the Strategic Barriers (SBs).

5.1. Problem description SB 1 SB1 SB2 SB3 SB4 SB5 SB6

SB 2 1 ~
3 ~
3 ~ 1
3 ~ 1
3 ~ 1
3
Nowadays, more and more Indian organizations realize that SB 3 ~ 1
3 1 ~ 1
3 ~ 1
9 ~ 1
7 ~ 1
7
knowledge plays an important role in business success and that SB 4 ~ 1
3 ~
3 1 ~ 1
7 ~ 1
3 ~ 1
3
KM adoption in SC is becoming a core activity. Few Indian organi- SB 5 ~
3 ~
9 ~
7 1 ~
3 ~
3
zations have implemented KM practices in integration with SC. But SB 6 ~
3 ~
7 ~
3 ~ 1
3 1 ~ 1
3
the success rate is very less due to barriers of KM adoption in SC. To

Level 1:Goal Level 2: Criteria Level 3: Sub Criteria Level 4: Alternatives

Lack of strategic planning regarding KM adoption in SC.

Lack of roles and responsibilities of SC members.

Strategic Lack of fund for KM system development
barriers
Lack of top management commitment towards KM adoption in SC Use of IT systems
Lack of clear understanding of KM adoption n SC
Design of Multiagent system.
KM not integrated with SC business process
Design of outsourcing strategy
Lack of proper organizational structure to create and share knowledge Use of semantic web
Communication and knowledge flows are restricted into certain
Positive leadership towards KM adoption in SC
directions of SC

Knowledge retention of highly skilled and experienced staff is not a Mutual learning
Organizati high priority
onal Building Trustworthy teamwork
Deficiency in organizations resources that would provide adequate
barriers sharing opportunities to employees Use of intellectual property and customer relation
No adequate knowledge of functioning of other SC members The use of collaborative practices like VMI,EWR etc
Prioritize the Opportunistic behavior of SC members
Make strategic alliances among SC members
Solutions of Shortage of formal and informal spaces to share, reflect and generate
knowledge Mining group-based knowledge flows (GKF)
KM adoption
in SC Lack of technological infrastructure to adopt KM in SC Developing Knowledge based customization for SC.
Difficulty in codifying tacit knowledge Use of e-collaboration
Technologi
Low data and information security within SC
cal barriers Exercise power proportionately and constructively
Lack of Service exchange
Establish adequate incentives and reward systems
Lack of technical assistance to suppliers
Form Virtual enterprise (VE)
Lack of willingness and sharing spirit among SC members
Strengthening the cultural cohesions and co-operation
Lack of trust and commitment of SC members in SC members.
Cultural Lack of empowerment among SC members
barriers Lack of motivation and reward
Use of case-based reasoning

Different values, cultural and linguistic environment within SC Adopt Supplier Development (SD) programme.
members
Establishment of Knowledge based Decision support
Fear of embarrassment for sharing incorrect information system (KB-DSS)

Lack of time to share knowledge Establish a transparent work flow or open door policy
Individual
Fear of loss of intellectual property ownership
barriers
Poor verbal/written communication, interpersonal and computer skills

Lack of education and training to SC members

Fig. 4. Decision hierarchy for prioritizing solutions of KM adoption in SC.

688 S.K. Patil, R. Kant / Expert Systems with Applications 41 (2014) 679–693

stepwise manner. The case organization X wanted to transform and
leverage their knowledge into competitive advantage through KM
adoption in SC. Organization X is an Indian firm with more than 50
corers and over 150 employees and 26 suppliers and vendors. This
organization engages in the design, manufacture and sale of
Hydraulic Radial Piston Pumps, Industrial and Mobile Hydraulics
Valves and Accessories. This organization interested to identify
and rank the solutions of KM adoption in SC to overcome its
barriers.
5.2. Case analysis
The 5 expert panel comprising of KM and SC experts is formed
to evaluate solutions of KM adoption in SC against its barriers.
Total 21 solutions identified through literature review and final-
ized it by discussion with the expert panel (See Table 2).
There are four levels in decision hierarchy structure for this
problem. The overall goal of decision process determined as ‘‘rank-
ing the solutions of KM adoption in SC to overcome its barriers’’ is
in the first level of hierarchy. The main Barriers on the second level,
the sub barriers at third level and solutions in the fourth level of
hierarchy (See Fig. 4).

Phase 1: Identification of the Barriers and solutions of KM adop- Table 12

tion in SC Final Priority of barriers of KM adoption in SC.

The decision group is composed of the 15 expert panel which Main criterion Major C. CR Ratio Final Rank
comprising four senior managers, two IT representatives, three criterion wt. Code weight weight
KM project representatives, five senior executives of SC members, Strategic 0.5033 SB 1 0.082 0.1069 0.0538 7
and three customers. In this study 28 qualitative and quantitative barriers SB 2 0.0305 0.0154 16
barriers (sub-criteria) of KM adoption in SC is identified through SB 3 0.0621 0.0313 10
SB 4 0.3918 0.1972 1
literature review and intensive discussion with decision group
SB 5 0.1734 0.0873 4
members (See Table 1). SB 6 0.2353 0.1184 2
Organizational 0.2635 OB 1 0.087 0.3692 0.0973 3
barriers OB 2 0.1563 0.0412 8
Table 8 OB 3 0.0259 0.0068 22
Pairwise comparison matrix of the Organizational barriers (OBs). OB 4 0.2372 0.0625 6
OB 5 0.0662 0.0174 14
OB 1 OB1 OB2 OB3 OB4 OB5 OB6 SB7
OB 6 0.0423 0.0111 19
OB 2 1 ~
3 ~
9 ~
3 ~
7 ~
9 ~
3 OB 7 0.1034 0.0272 12
OB 3 ~ 1 1 ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ Technological 0.0611 TB 1 0.092 0.4622 0.0282 11
3 7 3 3 3 3
barriers TB 2 0.2635 0.0161 15
OB 4 ~ 1
9 ~ 1
7 1 ~ 1
9 ~ 1
3 ~ 1
3 ~ 1
3
TB 3 0.0447 0.0027 26
OB 5 ~ 1
3 ~
3 ~
9 1 ~
3 ~
7 ~
3 TB 4 0.1482 0.0091 20
OB 6 ~ 1
7 ~ 1
3 ~
3 ~ 1
3 1 ~
3 ~ 1
3 TB 5 0.0818 0.0050 24
OB 7 ~ 1
9 ~ 1
3 ~
3 ~ 1
7 ~ 1
3 1 ~ 1
3 Cultural 0.1409 CB 1 0.092 0.4620 0.0651 5
OB 1 ~ 1
3 ~ 1
3 ~
3 ~ 1
3 ~
3 ~
3 1 barriers CB 2 0.1482 0.0209 13
CB 3 0.0818 0.0115 18
CB 4 0.2634 0.0371 9
CB 5 0.0447 0.0063 23
Individual 0.0311 IB 1 0.087 0.0436 0.0014 28
Table 9
barriers IB 2 0.4888 0.0152 17
Pairwise comparison matrix of the Technological barriers (TBs).
IB 3 0.0729 0.0023 27
TB 1 TB 2 TB 3 TB 4 TB 5 IB 4 0.1239 0.0039 25
IB 5 0.2717 0.0084 21
TB 1 1 ~
3 ~
7 ~
3 ~
7
TB 2 ~ 1
3 1 ~
7 ~
3 ~
3
TB 3 ~ 1
7 ~ 1
7 1 ~ 1
3 ~ 1
3
TB 4 ~ 1
3 ~ 1
3 ~
3 1 ~
3
Table 13
TB 5 ~ 1
7 ~ 1
3 ~
3 ~ 1
3 1
Lingustic scale evaluation matrix for the solutions (Expert 1).

SB1 SB2 SB3 . . .. . . .. IB 3 IB 4 IB 5

S1 P VP G . . .. . . .. P P VP
Table 10 S2 F G P . . .. . . .. VP F VG
Pairwise comparison matrix of the Cultural Barriers (CBs). S3 G G G P G VG
. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . ..
CB 1 CB 2 CB 3 CB 4 CB 5
. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . ..
CB 1 1 ~
3 ~
7 ~
3 ~
7 S19 F G P . . .. . . .. F G G
CB 2 ~ 1
3 1 ~
3 ~ 1
3 ~
3 S20 VP P P . . .. . . .. G P P
CB 3 ~ 1
7 ~ 1
3 1 ~ 1
3 ~
3 S21 F VG G . . .. . . .. G F G
CB 4 ~ 1
3 ~
3 ~ 1
3 1 ~
7
CB 5 ~ 1
7 ~ 1
3 ~ 1
3 ~ 1
7 1

Table 14
Fuzzy evaluations matrix for solutions (Expert 1).
Table 11 SB1 SB2 SB3 . . .. . .. . . .. . . IB 3 IB 4 IB 5
Pairwise comparison matrix of the Individual barriers (TBs).
S1 (1,3,5) (1,1,3) (5,7,9) . . .. . .. . . .. . . (1,3,5) (1,3,5) (1,1,3)
IB 1 IB 2 IB 3 ICB 4 IB5 S2 (3,5,7) (5,7,9) (1,3,5) . . .. . .. . . .. . . (1,1,3) (3,5,7) (7,9,11)
IB 1 1 ~ 1 ~ 1 ~ 1 ~ 1 S3 (5,7,9) (5,7,9) (5,7,9) . . .. . .. . . .. . . (1,3,5) (5,7,9) (7,9,11)
7 3 3 7
. . . .. . .. . . .. . .. . . .. . .. . . .. . .. . . .. . .. . . .. . .. . . .. . .. . . .. . ..
IB 2 ~
7 1 ~
7 ~
5 ~
3 . . . .. . .. . . .. . .. . . .. . .. . . .. . .. . . .. . .. . . .. . .. . . .. . .. . . .. . ..
IB 3 ~
3 ~ 1
7 1 ~ 1
3 ~ 1
5 S19 (3,5,7) (5,7,9) (1,3,5) . . .. . .. . . .. . . (3,5,7) (5,7,9) (5,7,9)
IB 4 ~
3 ~ 1
5 ~
3 1 ~
31 S20 (1,1,3) (1,3,5) (1,3,5) . . .. . .. . . .. . . (5,7,9) (1,3,5) (1,3,5)
IB 5 ~
7 ~ 1
3 ~
5 ~
3 1 S21 (3,5,7) (7,9,11) (5,7,9) . . .. . .. . . .. . . (5,7,9) (3,5,7) (5,7,9)
 S.K. Patil, R. Kant / Expert Systems with Applications 41 (2014) 679–693 689

Phase 2: Calculate its weight of the barriers of KM adoption in SC linguistic variables by using Table 3. The arithmetic mean of
by fuzzy AHP these values are computed to obtained the pairwise compari-
In this phase the decision group is asked to make pair wise son matrixes of criteria and sub-criteria are given in Tables
comparisons of five main barriers and 28 sub barriers by using 6–11.

Table 15
Aggregate fuzzy decision matrix for solutions.

SB1 SB2 SB3 . . .. . .. . . .. . . IB 3 IB 4 IB 5

S1 (1,2.6,7) (1,4.6,11) (1,4.6,11) . . .. . .. . . .. . . (1,3.4,7) (1,2.6,5) (1,3,7)
S2 (1,3.4,7) (1,5,9) (1,3,7) . . .. . .. . . .. . . (1,1.8,5) (1,3.8,7) (1,5.8,11)
S3 (3,7,11) (1,6.2,11) (1,6.2,11) . . .. . .. . . .. . . (1,3.4,7) (3,6.6,9) (3,6.6,11)
. . . .. . .. . . .. . .. . . .. . .. . . .. . .. . . .. . .. . . .. . .. . . .. . .. . . .. . ..
. . . .. . .. . . .. . .. . . .. . .. . . .. . .. . . .. . .. . . .. . .. . . .. . .. . . .. . ..
S19 (1,4.2,9) (1,7,11) (1,2.6,5) . . .. . .. . . .. . . (3,5.4,9) (3,6.6,9) (3,6.2,9)
S20 (1,3,7) (1,2.6,7) (1,2.6,7) . . .. . .. . . .. . . (3,6.6,9) (1,3.8,9) (1,4.6,9)
S21 (1,6.2,11) (3,7.8,11) (1,5.4,9) . . .. . .. . . .. . . (3,7,11) (3,5.4,9) (3,5.8,9)

Table 16
Normalized fuzzy decision matrix for solutions.

SB1 SB2 SB3 . . .. . .. . . .. . . IB 3 IB 4 IB 5

S1 (0.14,0.38,1) (0.09,0.21,1) (0.11,0.21,1) . . .. . .. . . .. . . (0.14,0.29,1) (0.2,0.38,1) (0.14,0.33,1)
S2 (0.14,0.298,1) (0.11,0.2,1) (0.14,0.33,1) . . .. . .. . . .. . . (0.2,0.55,1) (0.14,0.26,1) (0.09,0.17,1)
S3 (0.09,0.14,0.33) (0.09,0.16,1) (0.09,0.16,1) . . .. . .. . . .. . . (0.14,0.29,1) (0.11,0.15,0.33) (0.09,0.15,0.33)
. . . .. . .. . . .. . .. . . .. . .. . . .. . .. . . .. . .. . . .. . .. . . .. . .. . . .. . ..
. . . .. . .. . . .. . .. . . .. . .. . . .. . .. . . .. . .. . . .. . .. . . .. . .. . . .. . ..
S19 (0.11,0.23,1) (0.09,0.14,1) (0.2,0.38,1) . . .. . .. . . .. . . (0.11,0.18,0.33) (0.11,0.15,0.33) (0.11,0.16,0.33)
S20 (0.14,0.33,1) (0.14,0.38,1) (0.14,0.38,1) . . .. . .. . . .. . . (0.11,0.15,0.33) (0.11,0.26,1) (0.11,0.21,1)
S21 (0.09,0.16,1) (0.09,0.12,0.33) (0.11,0.18,1) . . .. . .. . . .. . . (0.09,0.14,0.33) (0.11,0.18,0.33) (0.11,0.17,0.33)

Table 17
Weighted normalized fuzzy decision matrix for solutions.

SB1 SB2 SB3 . . .. . .. IB 3 IB 4 IB 5

S1 (0.007,0.02,0.05)
S2 (0.007,0.015,0.05)
S3 (0.004,0.007,0.01)
. . . .. . ..
S19 (0.005,0.01,0.05)
S20 (0.007,0.01,0.05)
S21 (0.004,0.008,0.05)
(0.001,0.003,0.01) (0.03,0.006,0.03) . . .. . .. (0.0003,0.0006,0.003) (0.0007,0.001,0.003) (0.001,0.002,0.008)
(0.001,0.003,0.01) (0.004,0.01,0.03) . . .. . .. (0.0004,0.001,0.003) (0.0005,0.001,0.003) (0.0007,0.001,0.008)
(0.001,0.002,0.01) (0.002,0.005,0.03) . . .. . .. (0.0003,0.006,0.003) (0.0004,0.0005,0.001) (0.0007,0.001,0.002)
. . .. . .. . . .. . .. . . .. . .. . . .. . .. . . .. . .. . . .. . ..
(0.001,002,0.01) (0.06,0.01,0.03) . . .. . .. (0.0002,0.0004,0.0007) (0.0004,0.0005,0.001) (0.0009,0.001,0.002)
(0.002,005,0.01) (0.004,0.01,03) . . .. . .. (0.0002,0.0003,0.0007) (0.0004,0.001,0.003) (0.0009,0.001,0.008)
(0.001,0.001,0.005) (0.003,0.005,0.03) . . .. . .. (0.0002,0.0003,0.0070) (0.0004,0.0007,0.001) (0.0009,0.001,0.002)

Table 18
Closeness coefficient (CCi) and final ranking of the solutions.
þ 
Code Solutions di di (CCi) Rank

S1 Use of IT system for knowledge dissemination 0.44226 27.65129 0.98425 16

S2 Design of Multiagent system to improve information and knowledge sharing in SC 0.46668 27.63808 0.98339 18
S3 Design of outsourcing strategy to improve knowledge integration within SC 0.28044 27.76809 0.99000 6
S4 Use of semantic web for sharing the knowledge within SC 0.41954 27.66555 0.98506 11
S5 Positive leadership towards KM adoption in SC 0.17652 27.84246 0.99370 1
S6 Mutual learning for effective knowledge sharing among SC 0.29819 27.75731 0.98937 7
S7 Building Trustworthy teamwork to exchange and enhance knowledge within SC 0.23918 27.79640 0.99146 2
S8 Use of intellectual property and CRM system in order to faster exploitation of knowledge learning in SC 0.42335 27.66930 0.98493 13
S9 The use of collaborative practices like VMI, ECR, EWR or CPFR to progressively develop knowledge 0.42072 27.67111 0.98502 12
S10 Make strategic alliances among the supply for positive impact on SC performance 0.37084 27.71596 0.98679 10
S11 Mining group-based knowledge flows (GKF) for sharing task knowledge 0.50212 27.61541 0.98214 21
S12 Developing Knowledge based customization for SC 0.48972 27.62610 0.98258 20
S13 Electronic collaboration (e-collaboration) for systems to facilitate Internet-based coordination of decisions across all 0.45917 27.65174 0.98366 17
members of the SC
S14 Exercise power proportionately and constructively to avoid the overlook of knowledge resides within weaker firms 0.27058 27.78084 0.99035 4
S15 Establish adequate incentives and reward systems to promote the employees to share knowledge within SC 0.27600 27.76898 0.99015 5
S16 Form Virtual enterprise (VE) for achieving agility in SC 0.35521 27.72194 0.98734 9
S17 Strengthening the cultural cohesions and co-operation in SC members 0.26619 27.78082 0.99050 3
S18 Use of case-based reasoning in SC. 0.47959 27.61922 0.98293 19
S19 Adopt Supplier Development (SD) programme 0.43337 27.66498 0.98457 14
S20 Establishment of Knowledge based Decision support system (KB-DSS) for SC 0.43806 27.66554 0.98441 15
S21 Establish a transparent work flow or open door policy 0.34740 27.73546 0.98762 8
690 S.K. Patil, R. Kant / Expert Systems with Applications 41 (2014) 679–693

The results obtained from the calculations based on pairwise

0.984
0.991
0.992
0.984
0.984
0.991
0.991
0.993
0.991
0.991
0.991
0.993
0.991
0.984
0.984
0.982
0.991
0.993
comparison matrixes provided in Table 6–11, are presented in

0.99
0.99
S21
Table 12 .
CR values of all the matrixes are less than 0.1, Hence, these

0.981
0.981
0.987
0.982
0.982
0.982
0.989
0.989

0.989
0.982
0.982
0.989

0.982
0.989
0.989
0.986
0.986
0.99
0.99

0.99
S20
matrixes are consistent. The ‘Lack of top management commit-
ment’ barrier was found to be of highest importance in order and

0.988
0.982
0.983

0.982
0.982
0.992
0.982
0.982

0.983

0.983

0.982

0.992
0.987
0.987
0.99
0.99

0.99
0.99

0.99

0.99
S19
followed by KM not integrated in business processes.
Phase 3: Evaluation of the solutions of KM adoption in SC and

0.989
0.981
0.981
0.989
0.981
0.981
0.981
0.981

0.981
0.981
0.981
0.981

0.989
0.989
0.989
0.981

0.989
0.985
0.985
0.98
determines final rank by fuzzy TOPSIS

S18
The expert panel members were asked to construct a fuzzy

0.992
0.992
0.984
0.993
0.992
0.993
0.992
0.992
0.992
0.993
0.984
0.992
0.984
0.993

0.992
0.993
0.992
0.992
0.991
0.991
evaluation matrix by using linguistic variables presented in Table 5.

S17
It is established by comparing solutions under each of the barriers
separately (See Table 13). Then converted linguistic terms into cor-

0.993
0.983

0.991

0.983
0.991
0.991
0.983
0.991
0.983
0.983
0.983
0.991

0.991
0.983
0.992
0.991
0.988
0.989
0.99

0.99
S16
responding TFN and constructed the fuzzy evaluation matrix (See
Table 14). (Due to space limitation, linguistic evaluation matrix

0.991
0.991
0.991
0.991
0.984
0.991
0.991
0.991
0.991
0.984
0.984
0.983
0.991

0.993
0.984
0.991
0.991
0.99

0.99
0.99
S15
and fuzzy evaluation matrix of expert 1 are only given here.)
Aggregate fuzzy weights of the alternatives are computed using

0.993
0.992
0.992
0.984
0.993
0.993
0.992
0.992
0.992
0.993
0.992
0.992
0.984
0.984

0.984
0.992
0.992
0.992
0.991
0.991
Eq. (16) and presented in Table 15. In this study all the criteria

S14
are the barriers of KM adoption in SC, as per the goal minimization

0.981
0.981
0.989
0.981
0.981
0.981
0.982
0.981
0.989
0.981
0.989
0.981
0.981

0.981
0.981
0.989
0.989
0.985
0.986
of these barriers is required. Hence, all the barriers are termed as

0.99
S13
cost criteria and normalization performed by Eq. (20) (See Ta-

0.985
0.982
0.982
0.982
0.982
0.982

0.989
0.982

0.982
0.982
0.982
0.982

0.982

0.986
0.986
ble 16). Next step is to obtain a fuzzy weighted Evaluation matrix.

0.99

0.99

0.99

0.99
0.99
S12
Using the barriers weight calculated by fuzzy AHP (See Table 12),
the weighted evaluation matrix is established using the Eq. (21)

0.982
0.982
0.982
0.982
0.989
0.981
0.982
0.982
0.982
0.981
0.982
0.981
0.981

0.989
0.989
0.989
0.989
0.986
0.985
0.99
S11
which is shown in Table 17.
In this study all the barriers are the cost criteria. Hence, fuzzy

0.991
0.983
0.983
0.991
0.991
0.991
0.983
0.983
0.992
0.991
0.983
0.983
0.992
0.991

0.991
0.983
0.983
0.991
0.989
0.988
positive-ideal solution (FPIS, A⁄) and fuzzy negative-ideal solution
S10

(FNIS, A) as v ~  ¼ ð0; 0; 0Þ and v

~  ¼ ð1; 1; 1Þ for all these barriers. 0.987
0.982
0.982
0.992
0.982
0.989

0.982
0.983
0.982
0.982
0.982

0.982

0.992
0.987
0.987
Then compute the distance dv(.) of each alternative from FPIS (A⁄)

0.99
0.99

0.99

0.99
0.99
S9

and FNIS (A) using the Eqs. (24), (25). For example dv(.) the dis-
0.989
0.982
0.982

0.982
0.982
0.982
0.982

0.982
0.981
0.982

0.982

0.986
0.986
tance dev(A1,A⁄) and dv(A1,A) for solution S1 and Barrier SB1 from 0.99
0.99
0.99

0.99

0.99
0.99
0.99
S8

FPIS (A⁄) and FNIS (A), are computed as follows

rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
0.993
0.992
0.992
0.992
0.992
0.992
0.992
0.991
0.992
0.992
0.984
0.992
0.984
0.992

0.992
0.992
0.992
0.994
0.992
0.992
1h i
ð0  0:00774Þ2 þ ð0  0:0208Þ2 þ ð0  0:0542Þ2
S7


dðA1 ; A Þ ¼
3
0.991
0.991
0.991
0.984
0.992
0.983
0.983
0.993
0.991
0.993
0.991
0.984
0.984

0.991
0.984
0.991
0.991

0.989
0.99

0.99
¼ 0:033574
S6

0.994
0.994
0.994
0.994
0.992
0.994
0.992
0.992
0.992
0.992
0.992
0.992
0.994
0.985

0.992
0.992
0.992
0.992
0.992
0.993
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
  1h i
S5

d A1 ; A1 ¼ ð1  0:00774Þ2 þ ð1  0:0208Þ2 þ ð1  0:0542Þ2

3
0.982

0.982
0.989
0.982
0.982
0.982
0.982
0.982
0.988
0.981
0.981

0.982
0.982
0.991

0.986
0.986
0.99

0.99
0.99

0.99
S4

¼ 0:97260
0.992

0.992

0.982
0.981
0.982
0.982
0.982

0.982
0.982

0.981
0.982

0.991
0.987
0.987
0.99
0.99

0.99

0.99
0.99

0.99

Similarly, calculations are done for other barriers for Solutions

S3

þ 
S1 and computed the distances distances di and di as
0.987
0.981
0.981

0.981
0.988
0.981
0.981
0.981
0.981
0.981
0.981
0.981
0.981

0.989
0.981
0.989
0.989
0.983
0.984
0.99

þ  þ 
di ¼ 0:468434 and di ¼ 27:53219. Using the distances di and di
S2

(Eq., Compute the closeness coefficient (CCi) of S1 as

0.981
0.981
0.991
0.981

0.981
0.982
0.982
0.989
0.981
0.981
0.982

0.989
0.981
0.991
0.989
0.985
0.986
0.99

0.99

0.99


di 0:442042
S1

CC i ¼  þ ¼ ¼ 0:98427
di þ di 0:442042 þ 27:6516
WOB2 = 0.60, WSB1-WOB1, WOB3-WIB5 = 0.1481
WOB3 = 0.60, WSB1-WOB2, WOB4-WIB5 = 0.1481
WOB4 = 0.60, WSB1-WOB3, WOB5-WIB5 = 0.1481
WOB5 = 0.60, WSB1-WOB4, WOB6-WIB5 = 0.1481
WOB6 = 0.60, WSB1-WOB5, WOB7-WIB5 = 0.1481
WOB7 = 0.60, WSB1-WOB6, WTB1-WIB5 = 0.1481
WOB1 = 0.60, WSB1-WSB6, WOB2-WIB5 = 0.1481

WTB1 = 0.60, WSB1-WOB7, WTB2-WIB5 = 0.1481

WSB6 = 0.60, WSB1-WSB5, WOB1-WIB5 = 0.1481

WTB5 = 0.60, WSB1-WTB4, WCB5-WIB5 = 0.1481

WTB2 = 0.60, WSB1-WTB1, WTB3-WIB5 = 0.1481
WTB3 = 0.60, WSB1-WTB2, WTB4-WIB5 = 0.1481
WTB4 = 0.60, WSB1-WTB3, WTB5-WIB5 = 0.1481
WSB3 = 0.60, WSB1-WSB2, WSB4-WIB5 = 0.1481
WSB4 = 0.60, WSB1-WSB3, WSB5-WIB5 = 0.1481
WSB5 = 0.60, WSB1-WSB4, WSB6-WIB5 = 0.1481

þ 
Similarly, compute di anddi and CCi for other solutions. The fi-
nal results are summarized in Table 18. Based on the CCi value,
WSB2 = 0.60, WSB1, WSB3-WIB5 = 0.1481

the ranking the alternatives in descending order.

WSB1-WIB2 = 0.04, WIB3-WIB5 = 0.00
WSB1 = 0.60, WSB2-WIB5 = 0.1481

5.3. Result and discussions

It is hard to say sure which solution of KM adoption in SC to

Experiments for sensitivity analysis.

WSB1-WIB5 = 0.35714

overcome its barriers is more important, but the ranking process

by using hybrid fuzzy AHP-TOPSIS approach made it more compre-
hensive and systematic. This hybrid approach used in an Indian
organization was intended to improve the success rate of KM adop-
Definition

tion in SC. This will be achieved by implementing the solutions of

KM adoption in SC by stepwise manner to overcome its barriers.
Total 28 barriers and 21 solutions are identified by literature re-
Ex. no.

view and expert opinion. The weight of the barriers of KM adoption

Table 19

in SC calculated by fuzzy AHP and by using these barriers weight

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
10

20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

the solutions of KM adoption in SC ranked by fuzzy TOPSIS method.

 S.K. Patil, R. Kant / Expert Systems with Applications 41 (2014) 679–693
Fig. 5. Result of sensitivity analysis (CCi scores).
The fuzzy TOPSIS results of the organization under study are
shown in Table 18. The evaluation of the solutions of KM adoption
in SC is realized and according to CCi value ranking of the solutions
are S5-S7-S17-S14-S15-S3-S6-S21-S16-S10-S4-S9-S8-S19-S20-S1-
S13-S2-S18-S12-S11 from most important to least. Positive leader-
ship towards KM adoption in SC is the highest rank solutions
where as Building trustworthy teamwork to exchange and enhance
knowledge within SC rank second and Strengthening the cultural
cohesions and co-operation in SC members ranked third. Hence,
Indian case organization should implement these solutions on pri-
ority basis and remaining in a stepwise manner as per the ranking.
5.3.1. Sensitivity analysis
A sensitivity analysis is conducted in order to monitor the
robustness of solutions ranking to changes in barriers weights.
Twenty experiments were conducted. The Table 19 presents the
detail of the experiment.
It can be seen in Table 19, that first 18 experiments, weight of
each barrier is set as higher one by one other are set to low and
equal values. For example, in experiment 1 weight of barriers
SB1 (WSB1) = 0.60 and weight of remaining 27 barriers (WSB2–
WIB5) are assumed to be of equal importance, therefore they are
allocated equal weight = 0.014814. In experiment 19, weight of
all the barriers is equal to 0.035714. In experiment 20, weight of
barriers (WSB1–WIB5) = 0.04 and other barriers weight equal to 0.
Fig. 5 depicts the changes in the final ranking of the solutions of
KM adoption in SC when the weights of the barriers are changed. It
can be seen from Table 19 and Fig. 5 that out of 20 experiments,
solution S5 (Positive leadership towards KM adoption in SC) has
the highest score in 12 experiments (experiment number 1, 3–6,
8–10, 14,17, 19–20). In the remaining 8 experiments, solution
S17 has the highest score in 3 experiments, S6 in 2 experiments
and S7, S14, S15 in the 1 experiment. Other solutions rankings
691
significantly changes as barriers weights changes. Hence, ranking
the solutions of KM adoption in SC is relatively sensitive to the
barriers weights.
6. Conclusions and future works
The success rate of KM adoption in SC is relatively low due to its
barriers. Hence the need arises to overcome the barriers of KM
adoption in SC by providing the solutions. It is difficult to imple-
ment all solutions at the same time due to various constraints,
therefore ranking the solutions is essential to stepwise implemen-
tation of these solutions. This study, presenting a scientific frame-
work to rank the solutions of KM adoption in SC to overcome its
barriers by using a hybrid multi criteria technique which combines
fuzzy AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS. Humanists are often uncertain in
assigning the evaluation scores. Therefore AHP and TOPSIS meth-
ods are performed in fuzzy environment.
Fuzzy AHP is used to get weights of the barriers of KM adoption
in SC, while fuzzy TOPSIS is utilized to rank the solutions. The
weights obtained from fuzzy AHP are included in fuzzy TOPSIS
computations and the solutions priorities are determined.
The empirical case study is presented to demonstrate the appli-
cability of the proposed framework. Here the sensitivity analysis
also performed to discuss and explain the results. Through litera-
ture review and expert opinion total 28 barriers and 21 solutions
of KM adoption in SC are identified and through hybrid fuzzy
AHP-TOPSIS framework ranked the solutions. The result shows
that Positive leadership towards KM adoption in SC is the highest
rank solutions to overcome the barriers of KM adoption in SC. As
the results shown in the empirical case study, it was that the pro-
posed method is practical for ranking solutions of KM adoption in
SC to overcome its barriers.
692 S.K. Patil, R. Kant / Expert Systems with Applications 41 (2014) 679–693

These solution ranking helps organizations to decide their Giannikas, M. (2008). Facilitating learning and knowledge transfer through supplier
development. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 13(1), 62–72.
solutions implementation priorities to overcome the barriers and
Goh, A. (2006). A strategic management framework for leveraging knowledge
increase the success rate of KM adoption in SC. This proposed innovation. International Journal of the Computer the Internet and Management,
framework, gives a new valid and reliable approach for prioritizing 14(3), 32–49.
the solutions of KM adoption in SC to overcome its barriers. It is the Gunasekaran, A., & Ngai, E. W. T. (2004). Information systems in supply chain
integration and management. European Journal of Operational Research, 159(2),
main contribution of this study. For further research, the results of 269–295.
this study can be compared with that of other fuzzy multi-criteria He, Q., Ghobadin, A., & Gallear, D. (2013). Knowledge acquisition in supply chain
techniques like fuzzy ELECTRE, fuzzy PROMETHEE, or fuzzy VIKOR. partnerships: The role of power. International Journal Production Economics,
141(2), 605–618.
Huang, C. C., & Lin, S. (2010). Sharing knowledge in a supply chain using the
References semantic web. Expert Systems with Applications, 37(4), 3145–3316.
Hutzschenreuter, T., & Horstkotte, J. (2010). Knowledge transfer to partners: A firm
level perspective. Journal of Knowledge Management, 14(3), 428–448.
Adamo, J. M. (1980). Fuzzy decision trees. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 4(3), 207–220.
Hwang, C. L., & Yoon, K. (1981). Multiple attributes decision making methods and
Afshar, A., Marino, M. A., Saadatpour, M., & Afshar, A. (2011). Fuzzy TOPSIS
applications. Berlin: Springer.
multicriteria decision analysis applied to karun reservoirs system. Water
Johnson, M. E., & Whang, S. (2002). E-business and supply chain management: An
Resources Management, 25, 545–563.
overview and framework. Production and Operations Management, 11(4),
Ahmad, N., & Daghfous, A. (2010). Knowledge sharing through inter-organizational
413–423.
knowledge networks Challenges and opportunities in the United Arab Emirates.
Joshi, K. D., Sarker, S., & Sarker, S. (2006). Knowledge transfer within information
European Business Review, 22(2), 153–174.
systems developments teams: Examining the role of knowledge sources
Aiello, G., Enea, M., Galante, G., & La Scalia, G. (2009). Clean agent selection
attributes. Decision Support Systems, 43(2), 322–335.
approached by fuzzy TOPSIS decision-making method. Fire Technology, 45,
Kasper, H., Muhlbacher, J., & Muller, B. (2008). Intra-organizational knowledge
405–418.
sharing in MNCs depending on the degree of decentralization and communities
Al-Mutawah, K., Lee, V., & Cheung, Y. (2009). A new multi-agent system framework
of practice. Journal of Global Business and Technology, 4(1), 59–68.
for tacit knowledge management in manufacturing supply chains. Journal of
Kaya, T., & Kahraman, C. (2010). Multi criteria renewable energy planning using an
Intelligent Manufacturing, 20(5), 593–610.
integrated fuzzy VIKOR & AHP methodology: The case of Istanbul. Energy, 35(6),
Amiri, M. P. (2010). Project selection for oil-fields development by using the AHP
2517–2527.
and fuzzy TOPSIS methods. Expert Systems with Applications, 37(9), 6218–6224.
Kumar, S., & Thondikulam, G. (2006). Knowledge management in a collaborative
Aydogan, E. (2012). Performance measurement model for Turkish aviation firms
business framework. Information Knowledge Systems Management, 12(5),
using the rough-AHP and TOPSIS methods under fuzzy environment. Expert
171–187.
Systems with Applications, 38(4), 3992–3998.
Lancioni, R. A., & Chandran, R. (2009). Managing knowledge in industrial markets:
Aziz, N., & Sparrow, J. (2011). Patterns of gaining and sharing of knowledge about
New dimensions and challenges. Industrial Marketing Management, 38(2),
customers: A study of an Express Parcel Delivery Company. Knowledge
148–151.
Management Research and Practice, 9, 29–47.
Lee, M., Pham, H., & Zhang, X. (1999). A methodology for priority setting with
Bandyopadhyay, S., & Pathak, P. (2007). Knowledge sharing and cooperation in
application to software development process. European Journal of Operation
outsourcing projects-A game theoretical analysis. Decision Support Systems,
Research, 118(2), 375–389.
43(2), 349–358.
Li, X., & Hu, J. (2012). Business impact analysis based on supply chain’s knowledge
Batenburg, R., & Rutten, R. (2003). Managing innovation in regional supply
sharing ability. Proceida Environmental sciences, 12(B), 1302–1307.
networks: A Dutch case of knowledge industry clustering. Supply Chain
Liu, D., & Li, C. (2011). Mining group-based knowledge flows for sharing task
Management: An International Journal, 8(3), 263–270.
knowledge. Decision Support Systems, 50(2), 370–386.
Baykasoglu, A., Kaplanoglu, V., Durmusoglu, Z., & Sahin, C. (2013). Integrating fuzzy
Maqsood, T., & Finegan, D. W. A. (2007). Extending the ‘‘knowledge advantage’’:
DEMATEL and fuzzy hierarchical TOPSIS methods for truck selection. Expert
Creating learning chains. The Learning Organization, 14(2), 123–141.
Systems with Applications, 40(3), 899–907.
Marra, M., Ho, W., & Edwards, J. S. (2011). Supply chain knowledge management: A
Bensaou, M., & Venkatraman, N. (1995). Configurations of interorganizational
literature review. Expert Systems with Applications, 39(5), 6103–6110.
relationships: A comparison between US and Japanese automakers.
Modi, S. B., & Mabert, V. A. (2007). Supplier development: Improving supplier
Management Science, 41(9), 1471–1492.
performance through knowledge transfer. Journal of Operations Management,
Blumenberg, S., Wagner, H., & Beimborn, D. (2009). Knowledge transfer processes in
25(1), 42–64.
IT outsourcing relationships and their impact on shared knowledge and
Muthusamy, S. K., & White, M. A. (2006). Does power sharing matter? The role of
outsourcing performance. International Journal of Information Management,
power and influence in alliance performance. Journal of Business Research, 59(7),
29(5), 342–352.
811–819.
Buyukozkan, G., & Cifci, G. (2012). A combined fuzzy AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS based
Myers, M. B., & Cheung, M. (2008). Sharing global supply chain knowledge. MIT
strategic analysis of electronic service quality in healthcare industry. Expert
Sloan Management Review, 49, 67–73.
Systems with Applications, 39(3), 2341–2354.
Naghadehi, M. Z., Mikaeil, R., & Ataei, M. (2009). The application of fuzzy analytical
Cheng, J., Yeh, C., & Tu, C. (2008). Trust and knowledge sharing in green supply
process (FAHP) approach to selection of optimum underground mining method
chains. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 13(4), 283–295.
for Jajarm Bauxite Mine, Irn. Expert System with Applications, 36, 8218–8226.
Cheung, C. F., Kwok, S. K., & heung, C. M. (2012). A knowledge-based customization
Natti, S., & Ojasalo, J. (2008). Loose coupling as an inhibitor of internal customer
system for supply chain integration. Expert Systems with Applications, 39(4),
knowledge transfer: Findings from an empirical study in B-to-B professional
3906–3924.
services. Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing, 23(3), 213–223.
Choi, T. Y., Budny, J., & Wank, N. (2004). Intellectual property management: A
Nepal, B., Yadav, O., & Murat, A. (2010). A fuzzy-AHP approach to prioritization of CS
knowledge supply chain perspective. Emerald Management Reviews, 47(1),
attributes in target planning for automotive product development. Expert
37–44.
Systems with Applications, 37(10), 6775–6786.
Chou, P., & Passerini, K. (2009). Intellectual property rights and knowledge sharing
Niemi, P., Huiskonen, J., & Karkkainen, H. (2010). Supply chain development as a
across countries. Journal of Knowledge Management, 13(5), 331–344.
knowledge development task. International Journal of Networking and Virtual
Choudhary, D., & Shankar, R. (2012). An STEEP-fuzzy AHP-TOPSIS framework for
Organizations, 7(2/3), 132–149.
evaluation and selection of thermal power plant location: A case study from
Onut, S., Kara, S. S., & Is_ık, E. (2009). Long term supplier selection using a combined
India. Energy, 42(1), 510–521.
fuzzy MCDM approach: A case study for a telecommunication company. Expert
Choy, K., Chow, H., Tan, K., Chan, C., Mok, S., & Wang, Q. (2008). Leveraging the
Systems with Applications, 36(2), 3887–3895.
supply chain flexibility of third party logistics – hybrid knowledge-based
Park, J. Y., Im, K. S., & Kim, J. S. (2011). The role of IT human capability in the
system approach. Expert Systems with Applications, 35(4), 1998–2016.
knowledge transfer process in IT outsourcing context. Information &
Corso, M., Dogan, S. F., Mogre, R., & Perego, A. (2010). The role of knowledge
Management, 48(1), 53–61.
management in supply chains, evidence from the Italian food industry.
Paton, R. A., & McLaughlin, S. (2008). Services innovation: Knowledge transfer and
International Journal of Networking and Virtual Organisations, 792(3), 163–183.
the supply chain. European Management Journal, 26(2), 77–83.
Deviren, D., Yavuz, S., & Kilınc, N. (2009). Weapon selection using the AHP and
Pedroso, M. C., & Nakano, D. (2009). Knowledge and information flows in supply
TOPSIS methods under fuzzy environment. Expert Systems with Applications,
chains: A study on pharmaceutical companies. International Journal of
36(4), 8143–8151.
Production Economics, 122(1), 376–384.
Douligeris, C., & Tilipakis, N. (2006). A knowledge management paradigm in the
Pillai, K. G., & Min, S. (2010). A firm’s capability to calibrate supply chain
supply chain. EuroMed Journal of Business, 1(1), 66–83.
knowledge-Antecedents and consequences. Industrial Marketing Management,
Dyer, J. H. (1997). Effective interfirm collaboration: How firms minimize transaction
39(8), 1365–1375.
costs and maximize transaction value. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7),
Raisinghani, M. S., & Meade, L. L. (2005). Strategic decisions in supply-chain
535–556.
intelligence using knowledge management: An analytic-network-process
Dyer, J. H., & Nobeoka, K. (2000). Creating and managing a high-performance
framework. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 10(2), 151–170.
knowledge sharing network: The Toyota case. Strategic Management Journal,
Saaty, T. L. (1980). Analytic hierarchy process. New York: McGraw Hill.
21(1), 345–367.
Sadi-Nezhad, S., & Damghani, K. K. (2010). Application of a fuzzy TOPSIS method
Fletcher, L., & Polychronakis, Y. E. (2007). Capturing knowledge management in the
base on modified preference ratio and fuzzy distance measurement in
supply chain. EuroMed Journal of Business, 2(2), 191–207.
 S.K. Patil, R. Kant / Expert Systems with Applications 41 (2014) 679–693
assessment of traffic police centers performance. Applied Soft Computing, 10(4),
1028–1039.
Samuel, K. E., Goury, M. L., Gunasekaran, A., & Spalanzani, A. (2011). Knowledge
management in supply chain: An empirical study from France. Journal of
Strategic Information Systems, 20(3), 283–306.
Shih, S. C., Hsu, S., Zhu, Z., & Balasubramanian, S. (2012). Knowledge sharing-A key
role in the downstream supply chain. Information & Management, 49(2), 70–80.
Simonin, B. L. (2004). An empirical investigation of the process of knowledge
transfer in international strategic alliances. Journal of International Business
Studies, 35(5), 407–427.
Spekman, R. E., Spear, J., & Kamauff, J. (2002). Supply chain competency: Learning as
a key component. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 7(1),
41–55.
Tesang, M. (2009). A causal and effect decision making model of service quality
expectation using grey-fuzzy DEMATEL approach. Expert Systems with
Applications, 36(4), 7738–7748.
Vithessonthi, C. (2008). Social interaction and knowledge sharing behaviour in
multinational corporations. The Business Review, 10(2), 324–331.
Wagner, S. M., & Buko, C. (2005). An empirical investigation of knowledge-sharing
in networks. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 41(4), 17–31.
693
Wang, C., Fergusson, C., & Perry, D. (2008). A conceptual case-based model for
knowledge sharing among supply chain members. Business Process Management
Journal, 14(2), 147–165.
Willem, A., & Buelens, M. (2007). Knowledge sharing in public sector organizations:
The effect of organizational characteristics on interdepartmental knowledge
sharing. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 17(4), 581–606.
Wong, W. P., & Wong, P. S. (2011). Supply chain management, knowledge
management capability, and their linkages towards firm performance.
Business Process Management Journal, 17(6), 940–964.
Wu, D. J. (2001). Software agents for knowledge management: Coordination in multi-
agent supply chains and auctions. Expert Systems with Applications, 20(1), 51–64.
Zadeh, L. A. (1965). Fuzzy sets. Information and Control, 8(2), 338–353.
Zeydan, M., & Colpan, C. (2009). A new decision support system for performance
measurement using combined fuzzy TOPSIS/DEA approach. International Journal
of Production Research, 47(15), 4327–4349.
Zhao, J., Pablo, P., & Qi, Z. (2012). Enterprise knowledge management model based on
China’s practice and case study. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(2), 324–330.
Zhengyi, Y., & Ronghua, J. (2005). Artificial neural network and its application in the
performance evaluation enterprise knowledge management research. Guangxi
Social Sciences, 126, 58–61.