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

https://www.emerald.com/insight/1746-5664.htm

AM
Analysis of factors influencing application in
AM application in food sector food sector
using ISM
using ISM
Arun Palaniappan and S. Vinodh 919
Department of Production Engineering,
National Institute of Technology Tiruchirappalli, Tiruchirappalli, India, and Received 15 November 2018
Revised 26 July 2019
30 September 2019
Rajesh Ranganathan Accepted 29 October 2019
Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Coimbatore Institute of Technology, Coimbatore, India

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to report the analysis of factors influencing additive manufacturing
(AM) application in the food domain.
Design/methodology/approach – Based on literature review, 16 factors are being considered in the
study. Interpretive structural modelling is used as a modelling approach. The derived structural model
indicates the dominant factors. Matriced’ impacts croises-multipication applique and classment (cross-impact
matrix multiplication applied to classification) (MICMAC) analysis is being done to group the factors.
Findings – Based on the study, it has been found that raw material usage, the shelf life of food, demand for
the food and accuracy are dominant factors. MICMAC analysis indicated that number of driving, dependent
and linkage factors are 6, 4 and 4, respectively.
Research limitations/implications – In the present study, 16 factors are being considered. In future,
additional factors could be considered to deal with advancements in the food domain.
Practical implications – The study has been executed in discussion with practitioners in AM, and hence
derived inferences have practical validity. Food making has become more agile with 3D printer and has
become sensitive to customer demand.
Social implications – Social implications are primarily highlighted by the aspect of controlling the exact
amount of nutrients corresponding to the application of food. In certain commercial applications, people can
customize their shape and ingredients to be injected into the food.
Originality/value – The development of a model for the analysis of factors influencing AM in the food
domain is the original contribution of the authors.
Keywords Additive manufacturing, 3D printing, Food sector, Interpretive structural modelling,
MICMAC analysis, Modelling, Manufacturing
Paper type Case study

Introduction
Additive manufacturing (AM) has diversified applications in several domains (Sun et al., 2015a).
Food sector witnesses AM applications because of customization of food size, shape, amount of
nutrition, texture, flavor and color, accuracy of fabrication and economy at low production
volume (Sereno et al., 2012). In such applications, the precise quantity of ingredients along with
the specified nutrient level can be injected to create high-quality food that could not be produced Journal of Modelling in
Management
otherwise. The quality of fabricated food items relies on process rather than people’s skill. AM Vol. 15 No. 3, 2020
pp. 919-932
technology can easily and accurately perform fabrication in line with customer demands. For © Emerald Publishing Limited
1746-5664
each process steps, the relation between input and output data to be modelled and digitalized with DOI 10.1108/JM2-11-2018-0190
JM2 measurement of each step, vital process parameters such as density, printing viscosity and so on
15,3 (Sun et al., 2015c). 3D printing enables a broad array of wholly customized food that exactly fit the
needs, taste and nutritional style of people from various age, and healthy lifestyles by varying the
density or structure to the likings and user needs (Rodgers, 2016; Sher and Tuto, 2015). 3D Food
printing will reduce the amount of food waste as it is a highly effective process that can integrate
many steps through processing, food will be produced based on order, and subsequently, this
920 gets transformed into less water and energy consumption.
To enable systematic adoption of AM in the food sector, a structural model needs to be
developed depicting key interrelationships among influential factors. Interpretive structural
modelling (ISM) is applied as a tool to develop a structural model. The developed model
indicates dominant factors to be focused upon. Matriced’ impacts croises-multipication applique
and classment (cross-impact matrix multiplication applied to classification) (MICMAC) analysis
is done to group the factors. The implications for practitioners are being derived. The research
goals include the identification of factors inducing AM in the food domain and to derive a
structural model for the same. The novel aspect of the study is that it includes the derivation of a
structural model for factors influencing AM application in the food domain.

Literature review
The literature is reviewed from the perspective of AM in the food domain. Sereno et al. (2012)
analyzed the manufacturing capacity of the Fab@Home system when it operates on edible
food objects and to optimize parameters of this system to support edible products. The
results revealed the potential to produce edible products to minimize costs as compared to
traditional methods. Tip diameter, deposition rate, suck-back and push-out time and air gap
were the process parameters for this application. Furthermore, several other important
process parameters were optimized.
Lin (2015) indicated journal for Food Science Education which deals with important
applications of 3D printing in the food industry and impacts 3D printers have in fabricating
quality food. 3D printing in baking has been explained briefly with important
considerations and characteristics.
Lipton et al. (2015) delineated the implications of AM in the food industry along with
applications and texture control of the fabricated food and future trends of AM. Several ingredients
used in making cookies were tested against their dimensional stability and various plots were
made, depicting results. Future trends include consumers producing food in a kitchen under
traditional settings with a non-traditional tool. This would be used on the industrial scale for mass
production when the volume is from hundreds of thousands of customers.
Sun et al. (2015a) had a primary objective of elaborating on first-generation 3D printers
for food fabrication and importance of customization in shape, size, color, flavor, texture and
nutrition of the food. Certain selected prototypes were reviewed and inferences about their
capacities were made. 3D printing methods such as selective laser sintering, hot-melt
extrusion, binder jetting and inkjet printing were used to fabricate food samples comprising
of many materials with complex shapes. The versatility of 3D printing in food industries can
be applied to domestic cooking to enhance efficiency and deliver good quality and freshly
prepared food items to customers with the ability of customization of shape, color, flavor,
texture and nutritional value.
Sun et al. (2015b) discussed various types of 3D printers used to print food and
applications of each printer along with printing materials. Technical challenges, obstacles
and opportunities were mentioned as well. Methods for 3D printing like selective laser
sintering, hot-melt extrusion, binder jetting, inkjet printing have been elaborated with their
specific advantages and applications in terms of the food that can be printed. 3D printing of
food had illustrated its basic developments in producing personalized chocolates, making AM
customized biscuits, developing novel flavors and textures. application in
Chaudhuri et al. (2016) aimed toward identifying and analyzing the risk drivers
associated with the supply chain of food processing industries. They analyzed the impact of
food sector
risk drivers on the supply chain performance. They collected data from experts in food using ISM
industries and developed a contextual relation between drivers. They used fuzzy ISM to
develop a structural model of risk drivers. They found supplier dependency, supplier
visibility and manufacturing disruption were the three risk drivers where maximum 921
attention needs to be given to minimize the risk associated with supply chain performance.
Ferreira and Alves (2017) reviewed the impact of 3D printing in the food industry and the
importance of customization that is enabled through 3D printing. The difficulties faced by
the user while interacting with 3D printer along with assembly, configuration and
modification of the RepRap Prusa 13 3D printer are explained. Proper structural assembly,
hardware assembly and paste extruder construction were explained in detail followed by
configuration of printer and testing. Movement and displacement, nozzle heating and
reservoir heating were conducted and the outcomes were noted down.
Yang et al. (2017) discussed on recent advancements in 3D food printing by discussing
process parameters and the impact of low cost customized fabrication. The food material
property of food ingredients was also discussed in this study. The opportunity to create
nutrient-dense innovative food materials was described in detail.
Izdebska and Zolek-Tryznowska (2016) provided an overview of prospective components
that can be 3D printed in the food industry and surveys of currently available 3D food
printers in the market along with their advantages and safety aspects involved with each
type. The findings revealed that 3D food printing can replace traditional meals and provide
customers with the option to decorate edible food at any circumstances.
Lanaro et al. (2017) had the objective to construct a melt extrusion 3D printer to print out
complex chocolate shapes. The major factors contributing to 3D printing process were
identified and optimized to obtain optimum parameter conditions. A computer numerical
control machine movement in three axes was attained with the ORD Bot Hadron mechanical
platform to extrude complex chocolate shapes. A chocolate sample was fed to the machine
and various outcomes like melting point and solidification point of the chocolate were
determined. The parameters like nozzle diameter, lead screw pitch, number of thread starts,
motor steps, etc. were optimized. A future improvement of this system would include a
screw thread extrusion process to print material from a remote holding tank.
Derossi et al. (2017) investigated two main printing variables, namely, print speed and
flow level, on the printability of fruit-based snacks for children of the 3-10 years of age along
with the influence of these variables on the nutrition of the fruit-based snack. A fruit-based
food formula was developed that contained 5-10 per cent of required energy, calcium, iron
and vitamin D and this was catered to children of 3-10 years of age.
Kim et al. (2018) used Piston type extrusion process in food printing for releasing bio-
materials and high viscous material that had been optimized by varying parameters such as
travel speed, piston pressure, etc. using optimum values for each parameter in this study.
Theoretical values were mathematically calculated using empirical formulae and these
values were compared with actual parameter values. Inferences were delineated from
comparisons.

Research gaps
There exists a need to develop a structural model to analyze interrelationships among
factors influencing AM in the food domain.
JM2 Interpretive structural modeling methodology
15,3 ISM is an approach which is implemented to produce a visual and graphical representation
of the complex system of variables or factors that influence a specific process, system or a
problem. This methodology helps us to visualize which barrier plays a most important role
while dealing with the system and how other barriers interact with one another. With the
help of the graph (digraph), it will be easy to interpret which barrier influences the other, and
922 the direction of flow of the influence, whether the barrier drives other barrier or if that
barrier is dependent on other one (Girubha et al., 2016).
ISM model will aid the optimization of processes in industries or solving problems in
complex systems as the major factors can be identified and the relationship between each
factor can be improved upon. After the application of the methodology, a digraph is derived
that shows which factor drives other such factors and which factor depends on other factors.
The optimization process can be initiated after the ISM model has been developed and
interpreted. Unique features of ISM are (Attri et al., 2013):

ISM enables an ordered, directional framework for complex problems, and
provides decision-makers a realistic picture of the scenario and the factors
involved; and

competent to handle a large number of components and relationships typical of
complex systems.

The procedure involved in ISM is as follows (Ruben et al., 2018):

All the possible and most influential variables for the given study are identified and
delineated with the description for each variable.

Next a contextual relationship between each variable is assigned a value, where the
value denotes if the first variable influences the second, or vice versa, or both or
neither.

A Structural Self-Interaction Matrix (SSIM) is derived and recognized from the
contextual relationship. SSIM indicates the pair-wise relationship between each
variable.

Initial Reachability Matrix is derived from SSIM and transitivity rule is tested. This
rule implies that if a variable X is related to Y and variable Y is related to variable Z,
then X is directly related to Z.

Reachability Matrix is partitioned to various levels which denotes the level of
hierarchy for dependence and driving power for each variable.

According to the level of hierarchy, ISM model is derived by substituting the nodes
with the variable statement and connection between each variable is made
depending on the relationship between each variable.

ISM is a very powerful and useful technique that is being incorporated in various fields.

Case study on factors influencing additive manufacturing in 3 D printing

Through the literature review, critical factors that affected AM process in the food sector
were identified meticulously. Under such perusal, 16 such factors were identified to be
hindering 3D printing in food sector. To maintain the validity and authenticity of the ISM
model, a total of 16 factors were selected. The identified factors were further validated based
on expert opinion.
Accuracy AM
3D Printing is mainly chosen as a manufacturing method because of its high accuracy. In application in
this case, food can be accurately printed to the required tolerances and dimensions. Other
traditional methods to manufacture the specified shape of food fail to achieve the level of
food sector
accuracy provided by 3D printers (Ferreira and Alves, 2017). using ISM

Customization: Customization is offered in the case of 3D printing as the user can
manually change the shape according to their preference. Because 3D printers are 923
very versatile in terms of mass customization, it is the better option to produce food
of the required shape and nutritional value (Sun et al., 2015a).

Raw material usage: Raw material used affects the 3D printing process in the food
industry. Not all food items can be 3D printed. Most common types of food items
that are being printed in the modern era are cookies, cakes, pastries, biscuits,
cupcakes, chocolates, etc. (Sun et al., 2015a).

Demand for food: Demand for a particular food item can influence the 3D printing
process. If the demand is high for a product, more quantities are required to fulfil
customers’ demands and hence mass production can be chosen instead. If the
demand for personalized or customized pastry is not very high and varies over time,
3D printing can be used to fabricate the food (Kim et al., 2018).

Management of inventory: Food fabrication using 3D printing can either by
produce-to-stock or produce-to-order. When the former option is chosen, then
inventory control measure must be taken and the amount of inventory to stack
based on demand must be taken into account (Pallottino et al., 2016).

Time: Time taken to fabricate the food by 3D printing plays a crucial role. If the
production rate is to be high, time taken to fabricate each item must be low. The amount
of time taken directly influences the 3D printing process (Pallottino et al., 2016).

Type of food: Not all types of food can be 3D printed. Majority of the food items that
are 3D printed are cookies, biscuits, dough type food, chocolates, etc. This
encumbers the fabrication of food items like chicken meat, cereal, vegetables, fruits
and so on (Derossi et al., 2017).

Reproducibility: Food of the same size, shape and nutritional content must be produced
consistently in the long run. Reproducibility of the 3D printing process must be
considered while choosing the fabrication method for food (Pallottino et al., 2016).

Impact on health: There are fewer side effects while choosing 3D printing for food
fabrication. Some traditional methods of fabrication might cause reactions with the
food because of the interaction between machines and damage food items in the
long run (Sereno et al., 2012).

Type of customers: 3D printing of food is very advantageous to people like athletes,
pregnant women, elderly, etc. as the process produces exact size and nutrition that
is required by these people (Sun et al., 2015a).

Shelf life of food: Shelf life of food determines how long the food can be sustained
without getting infected by germs. The higher the shelf life of the food that is 3D
printed, the longer can be the time for storage and transportation of the food from
one point to the other (Lin, 2015).

Environmental impact: By-products produced using 3D printing process should not
have adverse effects on the environment. The waste might contaminate the water
bodies and cause pollution in such areas (Lipton et al., 2015).
JM2
Resource and material handling: The movement of materials, that is the raw food
15,3 items, has to be fast and agile during times of high demands. The more efficient the
material handling system is, the more efficient will be the 3D printing process for
food (Pallottino et al., 2016).

Skill of operator: 3D printing process requires quite an amount of intellectual skills
and training to be provided. The complexity of the process makes it very difficult
924 for a newcomer to operate the machine. This will directly influence the quality of the
food that is fabricated (Ferreira and Alves, 2017).

Maintenance and operating costs: During 3D printer’s life, it needs to be maintained
regularly to prevent damages and increase the lifetime of the machine. The costs
incurred while changing cartridges, updating the system’s software, maintenance
costs, etc. will all account to total maintenance cost that has to be considered while
choosing 3D printing for food.

Compatibility with other electronic devices: Enhanced ability for the 3D printing process
to be compatible with other electronic devices such as smartphones, smartwatches, FitBit,
etc. will increase customer satisfaction and customizability to the food (Kim et al., 2018).

Application of interpretive structural modeling methodology

Structural self-interaction matrix (SSIM)
After identifying 16 factors that influence 3D printing in the food industry from the
literature review, SSIM is derived based on expert inputs. The contextual relationship must
be verified by experts in the respective fields before proceeding with SSIM. The relation
among factors (i and j) and the related direction of the relation is done by assigning a symbol
(Digalwar et al., 2015). In this study, these inputs were provided by experts in the 3D
printing industry and verified:

V for a forward relation of factor i to j (factor i will influence factor j/i ! j);

A for a backward relation of factor i to j (factor j will influence factor i/j ! i);

X for a bidirectional relation of factors i and j (factors i and j will influence each
other/i /! j); and

O for no relation between factors i and j (factors i and j have no influence on each
other) (Raj et al., 2009) (Table I).

SSIM has been developed in our study after consulting with experts and getting their views
on the contextual relationship between each factor. Based on their responses, SSIM has been
established.

Initial reachability matrix

The next step is to convert SSIM into a Reachability Matrix by converting each symbol (i.e.
V, A, X, O) into 1’s and 0’s based on the rules (Raj et al., 2009):
The factors are arranged from 1 to 16 for rows i and j in the Reachability Matrix unlike
the SSIM. 1’s and 0’s are entered carefully by applying the above rules into the Reachability
Matrix. Initial Reachability Matrix formed in the present study is shown in Table II.
The transitivity rule is checked for all entries with 0’s and cells with the most numbers of 1’s
in the transitivity rule are changed to 1* as shown in Table III.
Barriers 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2
AM
application in
1 X A A O O O O O O O O O O O V food sector
2 X O X V O A V O X V X V A V
3 O V A X V V V V O V O V V using ISM
4 O V O A O V V O O V X V
5 O X A A V X V O O V X
6 A A V A O A A O A V 925
7 A A X A A A X X A
8 X A V O O V V O
9 O A A A X A V
10 O O O A O A
11 O V O A V
12 O O O A Table I.
13 A V V Structural self-
14 V A interaction matrix
15 V (SSIM)

Barriers 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
2 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1
3 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0
4 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0
5 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0
6 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
7 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0
8 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1
9 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0
10 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
11 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0
12 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
13 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0
14 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 Table II.
15 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 Initial reachability
16 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 matrix

Partition of levels
After the final Reachability Matrix has been created, it has to be portioned into different
levels of the ISM hierarchy. The way to achieve this is to obtain reachability and
antecedent sets for each factor. Reachability set implies factors that have 1’s in
horizontal direction and antecedent set is the factors that have 1’s in the vertical
direction without moving in the horizontal direction (Ruben et al., 2018). After these two
sets are retrieved, the intersection of these two sets is established. The factors for which
the reachability set and intersection set are similar are marked as a higher level of the
ISM hierarchy. The factor corresponding to the highest-level factor is the top-level
factor. Once the top-level factor is recognized, the remaining sets are segregated by
removing that top-level factor and continuing the same process until all the factors
have been portioned out. These levels help us to develop the final ISM model and
JM2 Barriers 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
15,3
1 1 1 0 0 1* 0 0 1* 0 0 0 0 0 1* 1* 1
2 0 1 1 1* 1 1 1 1 1* 1 1* 1* 1 1 1* 1
3 0 1* 1 1 1 1* 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1* 1 0
4 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1* 1 1 0 1* 1* 1 0
5 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1* 1 1 1 0 1* 1 0
926 6 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 1* 0 0 0 1 0 0
7 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0
8 0 1 0 0 1* 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1* 1
9 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0
10 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
11 0 1 0 1* 1 1 1 1* 1 1 1 1 1* 1* 1 0
12 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
13 0 1* 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1*
14 1 1 1 0 1 1* 1 1* 1 1* 0 1* 1* 1 0 1
15 1 1* 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1* 0 0 1* 0 1 1
Table III. 16 1 1 0 0 1* 1 1 1 1* 1* 0 0 1 1* 0 1
Final reachability
matrix Note: *shows the transitive link between two factors

digraph. The top-level factor is located on the top and the lowest barrier is at the bottom
of the model.
In the present study, 16 such factors influencing the 3D printing process in the food
industry were identified and analyzed. The reachability set, antecedent set and intersection
set for each factor are obtained as shown in Tables IV-X.

Level partitioning
Development of interpretive structural modeling model
Partitioning of the barriers lays a foundation of the ISM hierarchy. The top-level
factor is placed on the top and subsequent levels are placed one below the other. If a
level has more than one factor, they are placed side by side on the same level. The

Barriers Reachability set Antecedent set Intersection set Level

1 1,2,5,8,14,15,16 1,14,15,16 1,14,15,16

2 2,3,4,5,6,8,7,10,9,11,12,13,14,15,16 1,2,3,4,6,8,11,13,14,15,16 2,3,4,6,8,11,13,14,15,16
3 2,3,4,5,6,7,9,10,11,12,13,14,15 2,3,13,14 2,3,13,14
4 2,4,5,6,7,9,10,11,13,14,15 2,3,4,6,11,13 2,4,6,11,13
5 5,6,7,9,10,11,12,14,15 1,2,3,4,5,6,8,11,13,14,15,16 5,6,11,14,15
6 2,4,5,6,7,10,14 2,3,4,5,6,8,10,11,13,14,15,16 2,4,5,6,10,14
7 7,9,10,14 2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16 7,9,10,14 I
8 2,5,6,8,10,11,14,15,16 1,2,8,11,14,15,16 2,8,11,14,15,16
9 7,9,10,12 2,3,4,5,7,9,11,12,13,14,15,16 7,9,12
10 6,7,10 2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,13,14,15,16 6,7,10 I
11 2,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15 2,3,4,5,8,11,13 2,4,5,8,11,13
12 7,9,12 2,3,5,9,11,12,13,14 9,12
13 2,3,4,5,6,7,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16 2,3,4,11,13,14,15,16 2,3,4,11,13,14,15,16
14 1,2,3,5,6,7,8,9,10,12,13,14,16 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,11,13,14,16 1,2,3,5,6,7,8,13,14,16
Table IV. 15 1,2,5,6,7,8,9,10,13,15,16 1,2,3,4,5,8,11,13,15 1,2,5,8,13,15
Iteration 1 16 1,2,5,6,7,8,9,10,13,14,16 1,2,8,13,14,15,16 1,2,8,13,14,16
Barriers Reachability set Antecedent set Intersection set Level
AM
application in
1 1,2,5,8,14,15,16 1,14,15,16 1,14,15,16 food sector
2 2,3,4,5,6,8,9,11,12,13,14,15,16 1,2,3,4,6,8,11,13,14,15,16 2,3,4,6,8,11,13,14,15,16
3 2,3,4,5,6,9,11,12,13,14,15 2,3,13,14 2,3,13,14 using ISM
4 2,4,5,6,9,11,13,14,15 2,3,4,6,11,13 2,4,6,11,13
5 5,6,9,11,12,14,15 1,2,3,4,5,6,8,11,13,14,15,16 5,6,11,14,15
6 2,4,5,6,14 2,3,4,5,6,8,11,13,14,15,16 2,4,5,6,14 927
8 2,5,6,8,11,14,15,16 1,2,8,11,14,15,16 2,8,11,14,15,16
9 9,12 2,3,4,5,9,11,12,13,14,15,16 9,12 II
11 2,4,5,6,8,9,11,12,13,14,15 2,3,4,5,8,11,13 2,4,5,8,11,13
12 9,12 2,3,5,9,11,12,13,14 9,12 II
13 2,3,4,5,6,9,11,12,13,14,15,16 2,3,4,11,13,14,15,16 2,3,4,11,13,14,15,16
14 1,2,3,5,6,8,9,12,13,14,16 1,2,3,4,5,6,8,11,13,14,16 1,2,3,5,6,8,13,14,16
15 1,2,5,6,8,9,13,15,16 1,2,3,4,5,8,11,13,15 1,2,5,8,13,15 Table V.
16 1,2,5,6,8,9,13,14,16 1,2,8,13,14,15,16 1,2,8,13,14,16 Iteration 2

Barriers Reachability set Antecedent set Intersection set Level

1 1,2,5,8,14,15,16 1,14,15,16 1,14,15,16

2 2,3,4,5,6,8,11,13,14,15,16 1,2,3,4,6,8,11,13,14,15,16 2,3,4,6,8,11,13,14,15,16
3 2,3,4,5,6,11,13,14,15 2,3,13,14 2,3,13,14
4 2,4,5,6,11,13,14,15 2,3,4,6,11,13 2,4,6,11,13
5 5,6,11,14,15 1,2,3,4,5,6,8,11,13,14,15,16 5,6,11,14,15 III
6 2,4,5,6,14 2,3,4,5,6,8,11,13,14,15,16 2,4,5,6,14 III
8 2,5,6,8,11,14,15,16 1,2,8,11,14,15,16 2,8,11,14,15,16
11 2,4,5,6,8,11,13,14,15 2,3,4,5,8,11,13 2,4,5,8,11,13
13 2,3,4,5,6,11,13,14,15,16 2,3,4,11,13,14,15,16 2,3,4,11,13,14,15,16
14 1,2,3,5,6,8,13,14,16 1,2,3,4,5,6,8,11,13,14,16 1,2,3,5,6,8,13,14,16
15 1,2,5,6,8,13,15,16 1,2,3,4,5,8,11,13,15 1,2,5,8,13,15 Table VI.
16 1,2,5,6,8,13,14,16 1,2,8,13,14,15,16 1,2,8,13,14,16 Iteration 3

Barriers Reachability set Antecedent set Intersection set Level

1 1,2,8,14,15,16 1,14,15,16 1,14,15,16

2 2,3,4,8,11,13,14,15,16 1,2,3,4,8,11,13,14,15,16 2,3,4,8,11,13,14,15,16
3 2,3,4,11,13,14,15 2,3,13,14 2,3,13,14
4 2,4,11,13,14,15 2,3,4,11,13 2,4,11,13
8 2,8,11,14,15,16 1,2,8,11,14,15,16 2,8,11,14,15,16 IV
11 2,4,8,11,13,14,15 2,3,4,8,11,13 2,4,8,11,13
13 2,3,4,11,13,14,15,16 2,3,4,11,13,14,15,16 2 ,3,4,11,13,14,15,16 IV
14 1,2,3,8,13,14,16 1,2,3,4,8,11,13,14,16 1,2,3,8,13,14,16 IV
15 1,2,8,13,15,16 1,2,3,4,8,11,13,15 1,2,8,13,15 Table VII.
16 1,2,8,13,14,16 1,2,8,13,14,15,16 1,2,8,13,14,16 IV Iteration 4

lowest factor is placed at the bottom. After this is complete, the factors are replaced
by the factor names or titles. Each factor is checked with the immediate next level
factor and factors in the same level for the relationship between them. If they are
strongly related (if there is 1), a solid arrow indicates the relationship and the
JM2 direction of the relationship as well. A double-headed arrow is used to indicate a
15,3 bidirectional relationship. A transitive relationship (1*) is denoted by a dashed
arrowhead (Figure 1).
The interpretation of the ISM model is as follows. The factors at the bottom must be
given more consideration and importance as those factors have the greatest amount of
influence in 3D printing. The prioritization goes decreasing as we move further up to the
928 model. The factors at the bottom depend on the previous level factors. By concentrating on
the factors at the bottom level, the company can maximize efficiency as these are the factors
that drive the efficiency of the 3D printing process in the food industry. In the present study,
the company should optimize the process by taking into consideration accuracy, demand for
food, the shelf life of the food, raw material used, the extent of customization and
maintenance and operating costs and prioritize them over other factors. The lower level
factors will drive these factors and these factors will be dependent on the lower level factors.
The flow of direction of influence is shown by the arrows in the ISM model.

Conical matrix
It is formed by adding the corresponding rows and columns of each factor. The sum of the
rows for a particular factor gives the dependence power of that factor and the sum of the
columns for a particular factor gives the driving power of that factor. This is basically
counting the number of 1’s in each row and column (Table XI).

MICMAC analysis
MICMAC analysis is done to indicate and contrast between dependence and driving powers
of each factor. Based on this analysis, it is easy to identify which factor has high dependence

Barriers Reachability set Antecedent set Intersection set Level

1 1,2,15 1,15 1,15

2 2,3,4,11,15 1,2,3,4,11,15 2,3,4,11,15 V
3 2,3,4,11,15 2,3 2,3
4 2,4,11,15 2,3,4,11 2,4,11
Table VIII. 11 2,4,11,15 2,3,4,11 2,4,11
Iteration 5 15 1,2,15 1,2,3,4,15 1,2,15 V

Barriers Reachability set Antecedent set Intersection set Level

1 1 1 1 VI
3 3,4,11 3 3
Table IX. 4 4,11 3,4,11 4,11 VI
Iteration 6 11 4,11 3,4,11 4,11 VI

Barriers Reachability set Antecedent set Intersection set Level

Table X.
Iteration 7 3 3 3 3 VII
 Type of Food(F7) Type of AM
Customers(F10)
application in
food sector
Impact on Health(F9) Environmental
using ISM
Impact(F12)

929
Management of Time(F6)
Inventory(F5)

Resource and Material Skill of Compatibility with

Reproducibility(F8)
operator(F14)
Handling(F13) other devices(F16)

Customization(F2) Maintenance and Operating Costs(F15)

Accuracy(F1) Demand for Food(F4) Shelf Life of Figure 1.

Food(F11)
Interpretive
Structural Model
depicting the levels of
Raw Material
Usage(F3)
different factors

Factors 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Driving power

1 1 1 0 0 1* 0 0 1* 0 0 0 0 0 1* 1* 1 7
2 0 1 1 1* 1 1 1 1 1* 1 1* 1* 1 1 1* 1 15
3 0 1* 1 1 1 1* 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1* 1 0 13
4 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1* 1 1 0 1* 1* 1 0 11
5 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1* 1 1 1 0 1* 1 0 9
6 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 1* 0 0 0 1 0 0 7
7 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 4
8 0 1 0 0 1* 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 10
9 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 4
10 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
11 0 1 0 1* 1 1 1 1* 1 1 1 1 1* 1* 1 0 13
12 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 3
13 0 1* 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 14
14 1 1 1 0 1 1* 1 1* 1 1* 0 1* 1* 1 0 1 13
15 1 1* 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1* 0 0 1 0 1 1 11
16 1 1 0 0 1* 1 1 1 1* 1* 0 0 1 1* 0 1 11 Table XI.
Dependence power 4 11 4 6 12 12 15 7 12 14 7 8 8 12 9 7 Conical matrix
JM2 and driving power and those factors can be concentrated upon. Unique features of MICMAC
15,3 are (Saxena and Vrat, 1990):

An investigation of direct relationship matrix reveals the factors with maximum
direct impact but is not able to recognize the hidden factors, which at times, greatly
influence the system under consideration.

MICMAC is a method where the importance of a variable is assessed less
930 by its direct inter-relationships but rather by many indirect inter-
relationships, and

The indirect relationship approach of structural analysis is a much superior method
benchmarked to direct relationship analysis.

In MICMAC analysis, there are four different quadrants, namely (Ruben et al., 2018):
(1) Autonomous factors: The factors with low dependence power and driving power
fall in this category. As the name suggests, these factors can act independently
without affecting other factors as much.
(2) Dependent factor: The factors in this quadrant will have high dependence power
but low driving power. These factors will have a lot of other factors depending on
them but do not drive other such factors that much.
(3) Linkage factors: The factors have strong dependence and driving powers. These
are the factors that will have consequential and adverse effects if they are
disturbed, that is they are in a highly unstable state.
(4) Driving factors: The independent factors have high driving power but low
dependence power. Such factors will not depend on other factors but will drive
other factors if they are influenced.

In Figure 2, factors 1 and 12 (Accuracy and Environmental impact) are the autonomous factors.
Factors 6, 7, 9 and 10 (Time, Type of food, Impact on health and Type of customers) are the
dependent factors. Factors 2, 5, 14 and 15 (Customization, Management of inventory, Skill of
operator and Maintenance and operating cost) are linkage factors. Factors 3, 4, 8, 11, 13 and 16
(Raw material usage, Demand for the food, Reproducibility, Shelf life of food, Resource and
material handling and Compatibility with other electronic devices) are driving factors.

Driving Power

16
15 2
14 IV 13 III
13 3 11 14
12
11 4 16 15
10 8
9 5
8
7 1 6
6
5
4 9 7
Figure 2. 3 I 12 II 10
Dependence power 2
and driving power 1
diagram 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Dependence Power
Practical implications AM
The study enabled AM practitioners to methodically analyze influential factors. The application in
practitioners understood the significance of ISM for analysis of factor relationships and
factor grouping.
food sector
using ISM
Conclusions
The study analyzes the factors influencing AM in the food domain by developing a 931
structural model. ISM is used as a solution approach to derive the structural model. The
derived structural model implies raw material usage (F3), shelf life of food (F11), demand
for the food (F4) and accuracy (F1) to be the most influential factors. MICMAC analysis
indicated that number of driving, dependent and linkage factors are 6, 4 and 4,
respectively. The practical implications are derived. This paper provided insights for AM
practitioners to focus on factors influencing AM application to the food domain. A key
area to concentrate to make 3D printing more ubiquitous in the industrial age is to
increase the speed of printing the food. By increasing the speed of printing, the supply of
such printed food will increase because of the increase in daily production, thereby
making it more demanded by consumers owing to their added benefits as opposed to
conventional food. Food making has become more agile with 3D printer and has become
quick responsiveness to customer demand (Kubác and Kodym, 2017). The entire supply
chain can be optimized to produce any required demand contingent upon the speed of
printing.
Social implications are primarily highlighted by the feature of controlling the exact
amount of nutrients corresponding to the application of food. For example, for sportsmen,
precise amounts of calcium, iron, magnesium, potassium and other important nutrients can
be included in the final food product and avoid certain restricted nutrients that could be
detrimental to sportsmen. In certain commercial applications, people can customize their
own shape and ingredients to be injected into the food. This promotes the culture of cleaner,
hygienic and customized food consumption.
In the future, additional factors such as human errors, production efficiency and
personalized nutrition could be considered to deal with technological advancements of food
domain of AM. Developed relationships could also be statistically validated.

References
Attri, R., Dev, N. and Sharma, V. (2013), “Interpretive structural modelling (ISM) approach: an
overview”, Research Journal of Management Sciences, Vol. 2319, p. 1171.
Chaudhuri, A., Srivastava, S.K., Srivastava, R.K. and Parveen, Z. (2016), “Risk propagation and
its impact on performance in food processing supply chain: a fuzzy interpretive structural
modeling based approach”, Journal of Modelling in Management, Vol. 11 No. 2,
pp. 660-693.
Derossi, A., Caporizzi, R., Azzollini, D. and Severini, C. (2017), “Application of 3D printing for
customized food. A case on the development of a fruit-based snack for children”, Journal of Food
Engineering, Vol. 220, pp. 65-75.
Digalwar, A.K., Jindal, A. and Sangwan, K.S. (2015), “Modeling the performance measures of world
class manufacturing using interpreting structural modeling”, Journal of Modelling in
Management, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 4-22.
Ferreira, I.A. and Alves, J.L. (2017), “Low-cost 3D food printing”, Ciência and Tecnologia Dos Materiais,
Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. e265-e269.
JM2 Girubha, J., Vinodh, S. and Kek, V. (2016), “Application of interpretative structural modelling integrated
multi criteria decision making methods for sustainable supplier selection”, Journal of Modelling
15,3 in Management, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 358-388.
Izdebska, J. and Zolek-Tryznowska, Z. (2016), “3D food printing–facts and future”, Agro FOOD
Industry Hi Tech, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 33-37.
Kim, N.P., Eo, J.S. and Cho, D. (2018), “Optimization of piston type extrusion (PTE) techniques for 3D
printed food”, Journal of Food Engineering, Vol. 235, pp. 41-49.
932
Kubác, L. and Kodym, O. (2017), “The impact of 3D printing technology on supply chain”, MATEC
Web of Conferences, Vol. 134, EDP Sciences, p. 00027.
Lanaro, M., Forrestal, D.P., Scheurer, S., Slinger, D.J., Liao, S., Powell, S.K. and Woodruff, M.A. (2017),
“3D printing complex chocolate objects: platform design, optimization and evaluation”, Journal
of Food Engineering, Vol. 215, pp. 13-22.
Lin, C. (2015), “3D food printing: a taste of the future”, Journal of Food Science Education, Vol. 14 No. 3,
pp. 86-87.
Lipton, J.I., Cutler, M., Nigl, F., Cohen, D. and Lipson, H. (2015), “Additive manufacturing for the food
industry”, Trends in Food Science and Technology, Vol. 43 No. 1, pp. 114-123.
Pallottino, F., Hakola, L., Costa, C., Antonucci, F., Figorilli, S., Seisto, A. and Menesatti, P. (2016), “Printing
on food or food printing: a review”, Food and Bioprocess Technology, Vol. 9 No. 5, pp. 725-733.
Raj, T., Shankar, R. and Suhaib, M. (2009), “An ISM approach to analyse interaction between barriers of
transition to flexible manufacturing system”, International Journal of Manufacturing
Technology and Management, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 417-438.
Rodgers, S. (2016), “Minimally processed functional foods: technological and operational pathways”,
Journal of Food Science, Vol. 81 No. 10, pp. R2309-R2319.
Ruben, R.B., Vinodh, S. and Asokan, P. (2018), “ISM and fuzzy MICMAC application for analysis of lean
Six Sigma barriers with environmental considerations”, International journal of lean six Sigma,
Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 64-90.
Saxena, J.P. and Vrat, P. (1990), “Impact of indirect relationships in classification of variables – a
micmac analysis for energy conservation”, Systems Research, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 245-253.
Sereno, L., Vallicrosa, G., Delgado, J. and Ciurana, J. (2012), “A new application for food customization with
additive manufacturing technologies”, AIP Conference Proceedings, Vol. 1431 No. 1, pp. 825-833.
Sher, D. and Tuto, X. (2015), “Review of 3D food printing”, Temes de Disseny, No. 31, pp. 104-117,
available at: https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/39016190.pdf
Sun, J., Zhou, W., Huang, D., Fuh, J.Y. and Hong, G.S. (2015b), “An overview of 3D printing technologies
for food fabrication”, Food and Bioprocess Technology, Vol. 8 No. 8, pp. 1605-1615.
Sun, J., Peng, Z., Yan, L., Fuh, J.Y. and Hong, G.S. (2015c), “3D food printing – an innovative way of mass
customization in food fabrication”, International Journal of Bioprinting, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 27-38.
Sun, J., Peng, Z., Zhou, W., Fuh, J.Y., Hong, G.S. and Chiu, A. (2015a), “A review on 3D printing for
customized food fabrication”, Procedia Manufacturing, Vol. 1, pp. 308-319.
Yang, F., Zhang, M. and Bhandari, B. (2017), “Recent development in 3D food printing”, Critical Reviews
in Food Science and Nutrition, Vol. 57 No. 14, pp. 3145-3153.

Corresponding author
S. Vinodh can be contacted at: vinodh_sekar82@yahoo.com

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: permissions@emeraldinsight.com