Expert Systems With Applications 173 (2021) 114690

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Expert Systems With Applications

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

Modelling of supply chain disruption analytics using an integrated

approach: An emerging economy example
Syed Mithun Ali a, Sanjoy Kumar Paul b, Priyabrata Chowdhury c, Renu Agarwal d,
Amir Mohammad Fathollahi-Fard e, *, Charbel Jose Chiappetta Jabbour f, g, Sunil Luthra h
a
Department of Industrial and Production Engineering, Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology, Dhaka, Bangladesh
b
UTS Business School, University of Technology Sydney, Australia
c
School of Accounting, Information Systems and Supply Chain, RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia
d
UTS Business School, University of Technology Sydney, Australia
e
Department of Electrical Engineering, École de Technologie Supérieure, University of Québec, Montréal, Canada
f
Lincoln International Business School (LIBS), University of Lincoln, UK
g
FIA Business School, Sao Paulo, Brazil; Paulista University, Sao Paulo, Brazil
h
Department of Mechanical Engineering, State Institute of Engineering & Technology, India

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The purpose of this paper is to develop a framework to identify, analyze, and to assess supply chain disruption
Supply chain management factors and drivers. Based on an empirical analysis, four disruption factor categories including natural, human-
Disruption factors and drivers made, system accidents, and financials with a total of sixteen disruption drivers are identified and examined in a
Fuzzy analytic hierarchy process
real-world industrial setting. This research utilizes an integrated approach comprising both the Delphi method
Delphi method
and the fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (FAHP). To test this integrated method, one of the well-known examples
in industrial contexts of developing countries, the ready-made garment industry in Bangladesh is considered. To
evaluate this industrial example, a sensitivity analysis is conducted to ensure the robustness and viability of the
framework in practical settings. This study not only expands the literature scope of supply chain disruption risk
assessment but through its application in any context or industry will reduce the impact of such disruptions and
enhance the overall supply chain resilience. Consequently, these enhanced capabilities arm managers the ability
to formulate relevant mitigation strategies that are robust and computationally efficient. These strategies will
allow managers to take calculated decisions proactively. Finally, the results reveal that political and regulatory
instability, cyclones, labor strikes, flooding, heavy rain, and factory fires are the top six disruption drivers
causing disruptions to the ready-made garment industry in Bangladesh.

1. Introduction Semiconductors—shut down due to a fire event. Hendricks and Singhal

Firms are increasingly exposed to various supply chain disruptions
(SCDs) in today’s competitive and uncertain business environment
(Bugert & Lasch, 2018; Guo, He, & Gen, 2019; Ivanov, 2020; Wagner,
Mizgier, & Arnez, 2014). The term ‘SCDs’ is defined as catastrophic
events that occur at different levels in a supply chain (Tang, 2006). Such
disruptions reduce the supply chain performance with regards to the risk
analysis (Abdi, Abdi, Fathollahi-Fard, & Hajiaghaei-Keshteli, 2019;
Hoffmann, Schiele, & Krabbendam, 2013; Paul, 2015). For example,
Ericsson lost over 400 million Euros in potential revenue and 14% of its
market shares in 2000 when their supplier—Philips
(2005) found that companies suffering from SCDs experienced 33–40%
lower stock returns than that of the industry average. Consequently,
mitigation of SCDs is a top priority for firms worldwide. To develop
mitigation strategies and resilient capabilities for SCDs, evaluating their
factors and drivers (Chopra & Sodhi, 2004; Peck, 2005) is vital for firms
(Blackhurst, Scheibe, & Johnson, 2008; Ivanov, 2020; Kleindorfer &
Saad, 2005).
However, such evaluations are not easy due to the presence of
qualitative factors and the natural uncertainty in the human decision-
making process (Ivanov, 2020). Traditionally, the analytic hierarchy
process (AHP) is a popular method to handle such qualitative factors,

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: sanjoy.paul@uts.edu.au (S. Kumar Paul), priyabrata.chowdhury@rmit.edu.au (P. Chowdhury), renu.agarwal@uts.edu.au (R. Agarwal),
amirmohammad.fathollahifard.1@ens.etsmtl.ca (A.M. Fathollahi-Fard), f.chiappetta-jabbour@montpellier-bs.com (C. Jose Chiappetta Jabbour).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2021.114690
Received 5 June 2020; Received in revised form 10 December 2020; Accepted 5 February 2021
Available online 10 February 2021
0957-4174/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
S. Mithun Ali et al.
but it is unable to incorporate the uncertainty (Mangla, Kumar, & Barua,
2015). Real-world supply chains are characterized by many uncertain
variables and parameters. To handle such uncertainties for evaluating
SCD factors, this paper integrates the AHP with fuzzy logic. Some argue
that supply chain managers may opine differently on the SCD factors
based on their experience in dealing with the SCDs. Therefore, evalua­
tion of SCD factors without a consensus decision of supply chain man­
agers may not be appropriate in real-life settings. To deal with this grand
challenge, this paper further integrates the Delphi method with the AHP
and fuzzy logic. Next, the proposed integrated model will be called the
Delphi-based FAHP. This Delphi-based FAHP model has been tested
using data from the ready-made garment (RMG) industry of Bangladesh.
Contributing to approximately 80% of the total export earnings of
Bangladesh, the RMG industry has been severely challenged by SCDs,
which have led to an estimated loss of USD 26.15 million per day
(Chowdhury & Quaddus, 2015). Thus, the RMG industry has been
selected as a real-life supply chain case to inspect the applicability of the
model. Given these motivations and challenges, this paper contributes to
the literature as follows:
(a) Identifying key factors and drivers of SCDs in the context of the
RMG industry.
(b) Proposing an integrated Delphi-based FAHP model to incorporate
the uncertainty of human decision-making in supply chains.
(c) Prioritizing SCD factors and drivers using the Delphi-based FAHP
model.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows: Section 2 develops the
proposed theory by reviewing the related literature. The theories of SCD
factors and drivers are explained in Section 3. The research design and
methodology of the study are explained in Section 4. Results along with
the sensitivity analysis, are reported in Section 5. Section 6 provides the
contributions and managerial implications of this paper. Section 7
concludes this paper.
2. Literature review
In recent years, studies on supply chain disruptions are getting
increased attention to academics and practitioners as the number of
natural and man-made disasters has increased than before. For example,
Ivanov (2020) examined the impact of coronavirus COVID-19 outbreak
on supply chain performance through a simulation experiment. He
observed that the pandemic outbreak disrupts supply, demand, and lo­
gistics infrastructure of firms and poses huge uncertainty in supply
chains. With regards to uncertainty in water distribution networks
involving disruptive factors such as rainfall weather changes, and de­
mand, etc., Fathollahi-Fard, Hajiaghaei-Keshteli, Tian, and Li (2020a)
evaluated a case study of Urmia Lake in Iran with the use of stochastic
optimization. They confirmed that the water supply chain is always
faced with disruption and its related risks should be analyzed more
computationally. Then, they (Fathollahi-Fard et al., 2020b) extended
their model with sustainability dimensions and the use of an intelligent
solution algorithm. Further, Parast (2020) empirically investigated the
effect of a firm’s investment on research and development (R&D) for
mitigating supply chain disruptions. According to Parast (2020), R&D
investment can mitigate the effect of supply, demand, and process
disruption on firm performance. As another real application, Yuan et al.
(2020) tested the effect of oil import disruptions on the downstream oil
supply security in China. At last but not least, Ishola, Matellini, and
Wang (2020) identified and assessed critical disruptions risks of a pe­
troleum refinery process unit using a robust fuzzy linguistic assessment
methodology.
The above-mentioned studies reveal that supply chain performance
will improve if firms put suitable supply chain disruptions management
in practice. Therefore, it is important to assess disruption risks in supply
chains for realizing supply chain disruptions management in firms. The
extant literature showed several multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM)
approaches to assess operational and disruption risks in supply chains.
2
Expert Systems With Applications 173 (2021) 114690
Moktadir et al. (2020) used the best-worst method to assess sustain­
ability risks for the leather industry supply chain of an emerging econ­
omy. Kara and Fırat (2018) utilized the (BWM) and K-means clustering
approach to group suppliers based their risk profiles. Akcan and Taş
(2019) applied an integrated SWARA (stepwise weight assessment ratio
analysis) and the TOPSIS (technique for order preference by similarity to
ideal solution) method to reduce ecological risks in a green supply chain.
The use of SWARA with other methods was also appeared in Yazdani,
Gonzalez, and Chatterjee (2019) who proposed an integrated MCDM
approaches by employing an extended SWARA method, failure mode
and effect analysis (FMEA) and the EDAS (evaluation based on distance
from average solution) method for managing risks in an agricultural
supply chain under a circular economy context. Some authors modeled
the driving and dependence power of supply chain risks. For example,
Babu, Bhardwaj, and Agrawal (2020) modeled supply chain risks for the
Indian manufacturing small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs).
Chowdhury et al. (2019) examined supply chain risks based on the
driving and dependence power of the risks in the readymade garment
industry of an emerging economy using the interpretive structural
modelling (ISM) technique.
The above discussion reveals that the literature lacks an analytical
framework that can assess supply chain disruption risks under uncer­
tainty. Accordingly, this paper proposes a Delphi-based FAHP model to
evaluate disruption risks in supply chains. To show our contributions in
the proposed model in comparison with relevant papers, it is needed to
review the following literature.
There is a rich body of the literature on the individual application of
the Delphi method, AHP, and FAHP for solving a variety of supply chain
problems including risk assessment. As far as we know, the Delphi
method was proposed by RAND Corporation in the 1950 s (Fritschy &
Spinler, 2019). The Delphi method, as a popular tool, appears in supply
chain management concepts, such as big data analytics (Roßmann,
Canzaniello, von der Gracht, & Hartmann, 2018), information sharing
(Kembro, Näslund, & Olhager, 2017), supply chain flexibility (Lummus,
Vokurka, & Duclos, 2007), the impact of enterprise resource planning
(ERP) systems on managing supply chains (Akkermans, Bogerd, Yüce­
san, & Van Wassenhove, 2003). In the domain of supply chain risk
management, Markmann, Darkow, and Von Der Gracht (2013) used the
Delphi technique to assess risks in supply chains and mentioned many
benefits of using Delphi data for risk analysis.
In addition to the Delphi method, the AHP is another contribution of
our model. This approach, proposed by Saaty (1980) is widely used in
supply chain decision-making where multiple criteria are given (Bhutta
& Huq, 2002; Kumar, Luthra, & Haleem, 2015; Luthra, Mangla, Xu, &
Diabat, 2016; Mastrocinque, Ramírez, Honrubia-Escribano, & Pham,
2020; Singh, 2013). Many authors used the AHP for supply chain risk
management. Some relevant examples are as follows: Dong and Cooper
(2016) developed an order of the magnitude AHP model to assess risks in
supply chains. Sharma and Bhat (2012) employed the AHP to prioritize
risks in a supply chain. Gaudenzi and Borghesi (2006) proposed an AHP
model to identify supply chain risks with an aim to improve customer
value.
Since the AHP is not able to cover the ambiguity in human judgment,
many authors integrated fuzzy logic, developed by Prof. Lotf Ali Zadeh
(1965), with the traditional AHP to manage uncertainty in supply
chains. For example, Butdee and Phuangsalee (2019) used the AHP and
fuzzy AHP (FAHP) approach for assessing uncertain supply chain risks of
a bus body manufacturing firm. To evaluate a green degree for ships,
Liu, Tian, Fathollahi-Fard, and Mojtahedi (2020) integrated FAHP with
group entropy and applied the TOPSIS to rank the criteria. About the
green supply chain, Mangla et al. (2015) used the FAHP for assessing the
risks. In another study, Ganguly and Guin (2013) assessed the risks for
the inbound supply chain using a FAHP approach. Wang, Chan, Yee, and
Diaz-Rainey (2012) proposed a two-stage FAHP model for quantifying
risks of realizing green initiatives in the fashion supply chain. However,
Wang et al. (2012) did not include the Delphi technique while assessing
S. Mithun Ali et al. Expert Systems With Applications 173 (2021) 114690

Table 1
Studies on supply chain risk in the RMG/fashion industry.
Authors Method(s) used Studied Main contribution
country/region

Brun, Caridi, Fahmy
Salama, and Ravelli
(2006)
Khan, Christopher, and
Burnes (2008)
Blome and Schoenherr
(2011)
Christopher, Mena, Khan,
and Yurt (2011)
Wang et al. (2012)
Vedel and Ellegaard
(2013)
Venkatesh et al. (2015)
Chowdhury and Quaddus
(2015)
Chowdhury and Quaddus
(2016)
Chowdhury et al. (2019)
This study
Cost-benefit analysis Italian Developing a methodology to assess the risk of supply chain
management improvement projects.
Qualitative (single case study) UK Highlighting the importance of product design in managing supply
chain risk.
Qualitative (multiple case study) Europe Discussing how companies manage supply risk in a financial crisis
and highlighting how risk management approaches of the
companies have shifted.
Qualitative (multiple case study) UK Discussing how companies manage sourcing risk in global sourcing.
FAHP _ Quantifying and assessing supply chain risk in implementing green
initiatives.
Qualitative (multiple case study) Denmark Discussing how sourcing companies use intermediaries in global
sourcing to managing supply risk.
Interpretive structural modeling and Fuzzy MICMAC India Identifying and prioritizing the supply chain risk.
(impact matrix cross-reference multiplication applied to a
classification)
Quality function deployment Bangladesh Developing resilient capabilities to mitigate organizational
vulnerabilities
Partial least square modelling Bangladesh Validating the antecedents and measurement dimensions of supply
chain resilience.
Structural equation modelling Bangladesh Validating the feasibility of a social capital approach in mitigating
operational supply risk.
Hybrid of Delphi method and FAHP Bangladesh Assessment of the key factors and drivers of SCDs

Table 2
SCD factors and drivers.
Factors of Disruptions Drivers References

1 Natural Earthquake Kleindorfer and Saad (2005)

Weather problem/extreme climate Hendricks and Singhal (2005)
Flood Tang (2006), Paul and Rahman (2018)
Cyclone Kleindorfer and Saad (2005)
Heavy rain Sodhi and Chopra (2004)
Diseases Trkman and McCormack (2009)

2 Human-made Labor strike/labor unrest Ravindran et al. (2010)

Traffic/port congestion/strike Blackhurst et al. (2008)
Terrorist attack Chopra and Sodhi (2004)
Theft Blos, Quaddus, Wee, and Watanabe (2009)
Political and regulatory instability Tang and Tomlin (2008)
Import-export restriction/quota Chopra and Sodhi (2004)
Demand fluctuation Chopra and Sodhi (2004)

3 System accidents Machine failure/breakdown Tang (2006), Paul, Sarker, and Essam (2017)
Utility failure Blos et al. (2009)
Technology breakdown Tummala and Schoenherr (2011)
Factory fire Blos et al. (2009)
Technology obsolescence Tummala and Schoenherr (2011)

4 Financial Exchange rate fluctuation Kumar et al. (2010) and Rajesh and Ravi (2017)
Fluctuation of bank interest rate Blos et al. (2009)
Economic downstream/recession Blome and Schoenherr (2011)
Bankruptcy of supplier Blackhurst et al. (2008)
Bankruptcy of business Manuj and Mentzer (2008)

the risks of green initiatives in the fashion supply chain. Lastly, Sofya­
lıoğlu and Kartal (2012) used the FAHP for selecting risk management
strategies in the global supply chain.
Taken together, focusing solely on the SCD factors and drivers,
previous studies did not integrate the Delphi method, fuzzy logic, and
AHP. This study fills the identified research gap. The integrated Delphi-
based FAHP model offers several theoretical implications over existing
extant literature: (i) screening SCD factors and drivers through incor­
porating industrial managers’ views in the model, (ii) improving com­
munications among supply chain managers, (iii) including qualitative
and quantitative human judgment, and (iv) including uncertainty of
human decision-making. The proposed Delphi-based FAHP model is
tested using the RMG industry data of Bangladesh. While the RMG in­
dustry is characterized with intense global competition and complex
structure, hence several and frequent SCDs (Chowdhury & Quaddus,
2015), still there is a lack of research on SCDs in the context of the RMG
industry, particularly focusing on a developing country (Chowdhury,
Lau, & Pittayachawan, 2019; Fan & Stevenson, 2018). Considering the
importance, recently some studies have used the RMG industry as the
context of the study. However, these studies focused on one aspect of

3
S. Mithun Ali et al. Expert Systems With Applications 173 (2021) 114690

supply chain risks/disruption mainly using qualitative approaches. As

shown in Table 1, no study in the RMG/fashion industry globally has
used a Delphi-based FAHP model for disruption risk assessment in the
supply chain. Thus, this paper selected the RMG industry to test the
proposed Delphi-based AHP model as the main contribution of this
paper.

3. Conceptualization of SCD factors and drivers

Sadly, previous studies have described SCDs using different taxon­

omies, and there is no universally accepted standard of these taxon­
omies. We mainly focus here on SCDs during the last decade. For
example, Parast (2020) classified SCDs into supply demand, process, and
environmental risks. Kumar, Tiwari, and Babiceanu (2010) categorized
SCDs as taking the form of terrorist attacks, natural disasters, and ex­
change rate fluctuations. Trkman and McCormack (2009) used endog­
enous and exogenous categories to describe SCDs; endogenous
categories refer to internal SCDs, including breakdowns in technology,
and exogenous categories refer to disruptions external to the supply
chain, including terrorist attacks. Ravindran, Bilsel, Wadhwa, and Yang
(2010) used the term “value at risk” to describe SCDs, which were based
on the dimensions of labor strikes, terrorist attacks, and natural di­
sasters. Although there was no consensus on the categorization of the
disruption factors, several categorizations suggest that SCDs are multi-
faceted. Based on a review of the extant literature, this study identi­
fied and categorized the SCD factors into four categories as follows:
natural, human-made, system accidents, and financial, which contained Fig. 1. Framework of Delphi-based FAHP model.
6, 7, 5, and 5 disruption factors, respectively, as summarized in Table 2.
The first category of natural factors is one of the most common types
2004). As companies are becoming more IT savvy, the likelihood of such
of SCDs (Ravindran et al., 2010). The literature provides many examples
disruptions increases exponentially.
of natural disasters that disrupted supply chain operations. For instance,
The fourth and final types of SCD are factors underpinning financial
in 1999 Apple could not meet many customers’ orders after an earth­
events, which comprise five drivers as shown in Table 1 that complicate
quake hit Taiwan (Tang, 2006). Many other electronic companies that
the financial flow and cash management of the affected firms. For
sourced from Taiwanese manufacturers also suffered huge financial
instance, firms in almost all regions and industries were, and continue to
losses due to the same earthquake. Earthquakes in Japan in 1995, 2007,
be, affected by the 2008/09 economic downstream (Blome & Schoen­
and 2011 also hampered the operational activities of Japanese com­
herr, 2011). Moreover, frequent changes to exchange rates and bank
panies and firms consequently lost their key competitive positions in
interest rates have placed extreme pressure on the ability of firms to
global supply chains (Samvedi, Jain, & Chan, 2013). Due to a lack of
deploy proactive strategies to minimize the effects of such financial
knowledge, it is difficult to predict when such natural disasters occur
disruptions (Tummala & Schoenherr, 2011).
exactly. However, the probability of these events occurring can often be
estimated (Trkman & McCormack, 2009). Their impact can be large, yet
4. An integrated Delphi-based FAHP model
hard to measure; therefore, the possibilities of the six natural drivers
causing disruptions should be included in risk ratings so that firms can
An integrated Delphi-based FAHP model is proposed in this research.
adopt resilient strategies to manage such events.
In the first instance, the Delphi method was used to obtain the most
The second category of SCDs, human-made factors (Paul, Sarker, &
reliable and accurate consensus in terms of the identification of factors
Essam, 2015), comprises seven drivers as shown in Table 1 and is an
and drivers of disruptions in the RMG industry in Bangladesh (Okoli &
increasing concern for businesses. Unexpected strikes by employees and
Pawlowski, 2004). The FAHP method, which involves multi-criteria
service providers and sudden terrorist attacks are the main drivers of
decision making and considers the uncertainty of situations and the
such disruptions (Blackhurst et al., 2008); for example, many European
fuzziness of human decision making (Laarhoven & Pedrycz, 1983), was
companies suffered huge losses due to terrorist attacks in Madrid and
then used to determine the ranking of those identified disruption
London in 2004 and 2005, respectively (Tang, 2006). The sudden ac­
drivers. To better understand our proposed methodology, Fig. 1 presents
tions of political parties and regulatory bodies can also be a source of
the framework of the integrated model proposed in this study.
such disruptions; for example, political and regulatory instability placed
on Airbus, a four-nation European consortium, subjected the company
to an opportunity loss of 4800 million Euros when it could not launch its 4.1. Delphi method
Superjumbo A380 on time (Tang & Tomlin, 2008). In addition, fluctu­
ations in customer demand—including changes in buyer preferences, The significant contribution of this research is the new application
changes in market size, and changes in the quality of competitors’ and development of the Delphi method. Our first step involved the
products—are vital human-made drivers of SCDs (Venkatesh, Rathi, & deployment of the four-round Delphi method, which is a structured
Patwa, 2015). communication method that relies on a panel of experts to obtain the
The literature review revealed that the third category of SCDs most reliable and accurate consensus on an issue (Clayton, 1997), to
comprised five system-related disruption drivers (Tummala & Schoen­ identify the SCDs and their likelihood of occurrence in the context of the
herr, 2011), including factory fires, power or machine failures, and RMG industry in Bangladesh. The study used a questionnaire in each
breakdowns in technology. For example, in 2002, a virus spread rapidly round to obtain the data from the experts. While diverse groups of
and shut down email systems at the Pentagon, NASA, and Ford, among people, such as academics, practitioners and industry experts, can be the
others, causing billions of dollars of projected damage (Chopra & Sodhi, experts of a Delphi study depending on the objectives of the study, the

4
S. Mithun Ali et al. Expert Systems With Applications 173 (2021) 114690

main qualification to be an expert is the sufficient knowledge on the

topic of investigation (Okoli & Pawlowski, 2004). Since the practitioners
of the industry hold substantial knowledge on the past disruptions they
faced, the present study employed operational/supply chain managers
of RMG firms as the experts for this study. Practitioners who had long
experience of managing supply chain activities—between 12 and 25
years—were only selected to ensure that the rich information was ob­
tained (Appendix A). Moreover, size of the employees, as reported in
Appendix A, shows that the experts have been selected from different-
sized firms. Hence, it can be assumed that the results of the study are
not influenced by a particular firm size. As per the data sharing agree­
ment under the Delphi method, the expert names and the company
names have not been reported here due to security reasons.
No clear-cut rule exists for the standard number of experts required
for a Delphi study, yet Okoli and Pawlowski (2004) recommended
10–18 expert opinions to ensure an effective group dynamic before
reaching consensus. As a general rule-of-thumb, Clayton (1997) Fig. 2. Hierarchy of decision-making using Delphi-FAHP.
mentioned that 15 experts are sufficient when the samples are homo­
geneous, i.e., experts recruited from the same discipline or position. was used to rank disruption drivers for each of the four disruption fac­
Given that all the experts of this study are operational/supply chain tors. Several procedures have been proposed in the literature that cal­
managers of RMG firms in Bangladesh, they are homogenous in nature. culates weights when adopting FAHP techniques. The geometric mean
Therefore, a total of 15 experts were recruited for the Delphi study. method, fuzzy least square method, synthetic extent analysis, and two-
However, we initially contacted 36 respondents and clearly explained stage logarithmic programming are some of the most widely used
the details of each round of the Delphi study. We also clearly mentioned techniques. In this study, we utilized the extent FAHP as originally
the types of questions to be answered in every round and the necessity of introduced by Chang (1996) using synthetic extent analysis. The steps in
participating in all four rounds to ensure that their responses can be used Chang (1996) extent analysis are shown in Appendix B.
in this research. Among them, 15 agreed to participate in the four rounds
of the Delphi study who later on participated in all the rounds. To obtain 5. Analysis and results
prompt responses from the Delphi study (Okoli & Pawlowski, 2004), as
well as high response rates from the respondents, during the selection This section provides the analyses and results of the empirical
process the participants were requested to provide their preferred investigation conducted on the RMG industry of Bangladesh. This sec­
communication method. Hence, the study used postal services and drop- tion starts with the identification of disruption factors and drivers with a
and-collect methods to administer the Delphi process. All the responses four-round Delphi study and concludes with a detailed description and
in each round were manually analyzed. significance of the findings by linking them to the extant literature.

5.1. Identification of disruption factors and drivers

4.2. Fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (FAHP)
Underpinning the Delphi method described in Section 4.1 above, this
As indicated in the literature, this paper by using a hybridization, research used a questionnaire in each of the four rounds to obtain the
provides an improvement on the FAHP. Commonly, the diverse intensity data; however, the questionnaire was modified in every round based on
of the process of day-to-day decision-making in business requires a the responses of the previous round. Using the four broad categories of
consideration of the uncertainty of situations and the fuzziness of human disruption factors as summarized in Table 2 with 23 drivers, a ques­
decision-making (López González & Rodríguez Fernández, 2000; Shore tionnaire requesting a review of a list of SCD drivers affecting the RMG
& Venkatachalam, 2003). It is in this context that the fuzzy set theory industry in Bangladesh was sent to 15 individual experts during the first
was first introduced by Zadeh (1965) to handle imprecise and imperfect round. This round of the Delphi method was considered as a brain­
information and to ensure that it is relevant; similarly, the decision- storming round (Okoli & Pawlowski, 2004); thus, the respondents were
making method in fuzzy environments is appropriate within the requested to provide a complete list of SCD drivers that occur in the
context of the present study. The fuzzy set theory can represent vague RMG industry in Bangladesh. As a reference, the summarized disruption
data and also offers diversified mathematical programming and opera­ drivers and factors in Table 2 were sent to them with the questionnaire.
tions, which can be applied to fuzzy domains. In modeling and analyzing They were also requested to mention any disruption driver not
real-world problems with the fuzzy theory, the application of a trian­ mentioned in Table 2. After receiving responses from these experts, a
gular fuzzy number is mostly used in the way that Naghadehi et al. consolidated list was prepared by removing exact duplicates, and uni­
(2009) defined a triangular fuzzy number (TFN)Mas shown in Eq. (1): fying terminology.
⎧ In the second round, the consolidated list of revised disruption
⎪ 0; x < l
⎪
⎪
⎪ drivers across the four broad categories along with a copy of their
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
(x − l)
;l ≤ x ≤ m original responses to the first round was sent to the same experts who
( ) ⎨ (m − l) were asked to clarify or comment on the consolidated list. The main aims
μ x|M = (1)
⎪ (u − x)
⎪ of this round were two: (1) to confirm that all the SCD drivers that were
⎪
⎪ ;m ≤ x ≤ u
⎪
⎪
⎪ (u − m) mentioned by at least one responded were included in the consolidated
⎪
⎪
⎩ list, and (2) to add any additional SCD drivers that were not provided in
0; x > u
the first-round responses. Therefore, they were requested to verify that
The TFN is defined as a triplet (l,m,u), with the parametersl, m, and u their responses were correctly included and interpreted in the appro­
representing the smallest possible value, the most promising value, and priate category and to provide any new SCD drivers. Based on the
the largest possible value that describes a fuzzy event, respectively, as comments and responses from the participants during this round, a list
shown in Eq. (1). containing 19 SCD drivers affecting the RMG industry in Bangladesh was
Underpinning the fuzzy theory described above, the FAHP approach consolidated.

5
S. Mithun Ali et al. Expert Systems With Applications 173 (2021) 114690

Table 3 Table 4
Linguistic variables and fuzzy scales. The fuzzy evaluation results of disruption factors.
Linguistic term Fuzzy Positive triangular fuzzy Disruption C1 C2 C3 C4 W0
number number Factors

Extremely low risk − 1

9 (1/9, 1/9, 1/9) C1 (1,1,1) (1,2,3) (3,4,5) (1/4, 1/3, 0.3376
1/2)
Intermediate values between 7
− 1 − 1
8 (1/9, 1/8, 1/7)
C2 (1/3, 1/2, (1,1,1) (4, 5, 6) (1, 2, 3) 0.3884
− 1
and9 1)
Unlikely high risk − 1 (1/8, 1/7, 1/6) C3 (1/5, 1/4, (1/6, 1/5, (1,1,1) (3, 4, 5) 0.1472
7
1/3) 1/4)
Intermediate values between 5
− 1 − 1
6 (1/7, 1/6, 1/5) C4 (2, 3, 4) (1/3, 1/2, (1/5, 1/4, (1,1,1) 0.1266
and7
− 1 1) 1/3)

Unlikely moderate risk − 1

5 (1/6, 1/5, 1/4)

Intermediate values between 3

− 1 − 1
4 (1/5, 1/4, 1/3) disruption drivers were greater than the mid-point (5), whereas the
and5
− 1
mean scores for the remaining 3 drivers were lower than the mid-point.
Unlikely slight risk − 1 (1/4, 1/3, 1/2) Drivers with a mean score greater than 5 were those that firms operating
3
in the RMG industry in Bangladesh faced frequently. Conversely, three
Intermediate values between 1 − 1
2 (1/3, 1/2, 1)
− 1 drivers with a mean score lower than the mid-point were rare or very
and3
rare. Moreover, for these three drivers, two or more respondents rated
Equal risk 1 (1, 1, 1)
‘0’ while for the other 16 drivers no respondent rated ‘0’. Since ensuring
Intermediate values between 1 2 (1, 2, 3)
consensus among all the respondents regarding the occurrence of the
and3
SCD drivers are important and was the main aim of this round, these
Slight risk 3 (2, 3, 4)
three drivers were excluded from any further consideration leaving a
Intermediate values between 3 4 (3, 4, 5) total of 16 drivers.
and5 In the fourth and final round, the revised list of 16 disruption drivers
Moderate risk 5 (4, 5, 6) was sent to the experts for final validation. In this round, all the experts
Intermediate values between 5 6 (5, 6, 7) agreed that these 16 drivers are crucial for the RMG industry in
and7 Bangladesh, thus they all retained for further assessment. Following the
High risk 7 (6, 7, 8) categorization scheme of SCD drivers set out in Table 1, these 16 drivers
Intermediate values between 7 8 (7, 8, 9) are categorized using four broad categories—natural, human-made,
and9 system accidents, and financial—as shown in Fig. 2. Among the
Extremely high risk 9 (9, 9, 9) drivers in Level 3, a new SCD driver was identified—fluctuation of
foreign investment—A43 under the financial factor.

In the third round, this list of 19 SCD drivers was sent to the experts,
who were asked to rate each of these drivers on a scale from 0 to 10
based on the frequency of occurrence, where 10 meant “frequently oc­
curs”, 0 meant “never occurs”, and the mid-point of the scale (5) meant
“occasionally/sometimes occurs”. The ratings provided by the 15 indi­
vidual experts for each of the 19 disruption drivers were used to
calculate a mean score. The score of each of these 19 disruption drivers
clarified the importance of each driver in the context of the present
study. The results (see Appendix C) showed that the mean scores for 16
5.2. Analysis of disruption factors and drivers
For the next step, the drivers identified in Fig. 4 were prioritized. The
FAHP was applied for a quantitative assessment of the effect of disrup­
tion drivers on the RMG supply chain and to prepare a pairwise com­
parison matrix for the various factors and drivers. To determine the
weight of the factors and drivers, a panel of experts (the same as the
Delphi study) from different export-oriented garment companies was
asked to make pairwise comparisons between the main factors and

Table 5
The fuzzy evaluation results of disruption drivers under disruption factors C1–C4.
Disruption drivers under factor C1 A11 A12 A13 A14 Wc1

A11 (1,1,1) (1/3, 1/2, 1) (3,4,5) (1/5, 1/4, 1/3) 0.1970

A12 (1, 2, 3) (1,1,1) (1/3, 1/2, 1) (1/3, 1/2, 1) 0.3086
A13 (1/5, 1/4, 1/3) (1,2, 3) (1,1,1) (1/5, 1/4, 1/3) 0.0415
A14 (3, 4, 5) (1, 2, 3) (3,4,5) (1,1,1) 0.4529
Disruption drivers under factor C2 A21 A22 A23 A24 Wc2
A21 (1,1,1) (1, 2, 3) (2, 3, 4) (3, 4, 5) 0.5463
A22 (1/3, 1/2, 1) (1,1,1) (2, 3, 4) (1/7, 1/6, 1/5) 0.1806
A23 (1/4, 1/3, 1/2) (1/4, 1/3, 1/2) (1,1,1) (2, 3, 4) 0.1500
A24 (1/5, 1/4,1/3) (5, 6, 7) (1/4, 1/3, 1/2) (1,1,1) 0.1229
Disruption drivers under factor C3 A31 A32 A33 A34 Wc3
A31 (1,1,1) (1/3, 1/2, 1) (1, 2, 3) (1/5, 1/4, 1/3) 0.2020
A32 (1, 2, 3) (1,1,1) (1, 2, 3) (3, 4, 5) 0.5310
A33 (1/3, 1/2, 1) (1/3, 1/2, 1) (1,1,1) (1/3, 1/2, 1) 0.1449
A34 (3, 4, 5) (1/5, 1/4, 1/3) (1, 2, 3) (1,1,1) 0.1219
Disruption drivers under factor C4 A41 A42 A43 A44 Wc4
A41 (1,1,1) (1/3, 1/2, 1) (1, 2, 3) (3, 4, 5) 0.3912
A42 (1, 2, 3) (1,1,1) (1, 2, 3) (1/3, 1/2, 1) 0.3091
A43 (1/3, 1/2, 1) (1/3, 1/2, 1) (1,1,1) (1/5, 1/4, 1/3) 0.1590
A44 (1/5, 1/4, 1/3) (1, 2, 3) (3, 4, 5) (1,1,1) 0.1405

6
S. Mithun Ali et al. Expert Systems With Applications 173 (2021) 114690

Table 6 drivers. The research used the Şen and Çınar (2010) scale to make
Global weight and ranking of disruption drivers. pairwise comparisons, as presented in Table 3.
Disruption Local Disruption Local Global Ranking The consistency of the pairwise comparison matrix was checked
Factors weight Drivers weight weight using the methodology described by Kwong and Bai (2002). The fuzzy
C1 (Natural) 0.3376 A11 0.1970 0.0665 6 evaluation matrix of disruption factors is shown in Table 4. Through the
A12 0.3086 0.1041 4 Delphi method, the panel of experts reached a consensus on a single
A13 0.0415 0.0140 16 evaluation method, which reflected the opinion of the expert panel. The
A14 0.4529 0.1529 2 panel considered the past, present, and expected future disruption sce­
C2 (Human- 0.3884 A21 0.5463 0.2122 1 narios to complete the pairwise comparison matrix for the disruption
made) A22 0.1806 0.1198 3 factors and drivers. After obtaining the pairwise comparison matrix,
A23 0.1500 0.0583 7
local weights for the disruption factors and drivers were allocated. As
A24 0.1229 0.0477 9
the procedure for obtaining local weights is the same for both the
C3 (System 0.1472 A31 0.2020 0.0297 11 disruption factors and drivers, we have only shown a sample calculation
accidents) A32 0.5310 0.0781 5
for the main disruption factors C1–C4. The different values of the fuzzy
A33 0.1449 0.0213 12
A34 0.1219 0.0179 14 synthetic extent generated to the four different disruption factors C1–C4
denoted by S1 , S2 , S3 , and S4 were determined with Eq. (3) as presented
C4 (Financial) 0.1266 A41 0.3912 0.0495 8
A42 0.3091 0.0391 10
in Appendix B. Eqs. (4)–(6), which also appear in Appendix B, lead to Eq.
A43 0.1590 0.0201 13 (3). The fuzzy synthetic values of the disruption factors are shown in
A44 0.1405 0.0178 15 Appendix D.
The degree of possibility of Mi over Mj (i ∕= j)is computed by using
Eqs. (7) and (8) as shown in Appendix B:

Table 7
Disruption factor category values when increasing C2 related factor values from 0.1 to 0.9.
Disruption factors Values of preference weights for listed dimensions

0.1 0.2 0.3 Normal (0.3885) 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9

C1 0.4969 0.4417 0.3865 0.3376 0.3313 0.276 0.2208 0.1656 0.1104 0.0552
C2 0.1000 0.2000 0.3000 0.3884 0.4000 0.5000 0.6000 0.7000 0.8000 0.9000
C3 0.2166 0.1926 0.1685 0.1472 0.1444 0.1204 0.0963 0.0722 0.0482 0.0241
C4 0.1865 0.1657 0.145 0.1267 0.1243 0.1036 0.0829 0.0622 0.0414 0.0207
Total 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Table 8
Global weights for disruption drivers obtained with the help of sensitivity analysis when C2 related disruption factor values ranged from 0.1 to 0.9.
Disruption factor Disruption drivers 0.1 0.2 0.3 Normal (0.3885) 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9

C1 A11 Global weight 0.0979 0.0870 0.0761 0.0665 0.0653 0.0544 0.0435 0.0326 0.0217 0.0109
Ranking 4 5 5 6 6 8 8 8 8 8
A12 Global weight 0.1533 0.1363 0.1193 0.1042 0.1022 0.0852 0.0681 0.0511 0.0341 0.0170
Ranking 2 2 3 3 3 4 6 6 6 6
A13 Global weight 0.0206 0.0183 0.0160 0.0140 0.0137 0.0115 0.0092 0.0069 0.0046 0.0023
Ranking 13 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16
A14 Global weight 0.2250 0.2000 0.1750 0.1529 0.1500 0.1250 0.1000 0.0750 0.0500 0.0250
Ranking 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 5 5 5

C2 A21 Global weight 0.0546 0.1093 0.1639 0.2123 0.2186 0.2732 0.3278 0.3825 0.4371 0.4918
Ranking 7 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
A22 Global weight 0.0181 0.0361 0.0542 0.0702 0.0722 0.0903 0.1084 0.1264 0.1445 0.1625
Ranking 14 9 7 5 5 3 2 2 2 2
A23 Global weight 0.0150 0.0300 0.0450 0.0583 0.0600 0.0750 0.0901 0.1051 0.1201 0.1351
Ranking 15 10 8 7 7 5 4 3 3 3
A24 Global weight 0.0123 0.0246 0.0369 0.0477 0.0492 0.0615 0.0737 0.0860 0.0983 0.1106
Ranking 16 13 10 9 8 7 5 4 4 4

C3 A31 Global weight 0.0438 0.0389 0.0341 0.0297 0.0292 0.0243 0.0195 0.0146 0.0097 0.0049
Ranking 8 8 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11
A32 Global weight 0.1150 0.1023 0.0895 0.0782 0.0767 0.0639 0.0511 0.0383 0.0256 0.0128
Ranking 3 4 4 4 4 6 7 7 7 7
A33 Global weight 0.0314 0.0279 0.0244 0.0213 0.0209 0.0174 0.0140 0.0105 0.0070 0.0035
Ranking 9 11 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12
A34 Global weight 0.0264 0.0235 0.0205 0.0179 0.0176 0.0147 0.0117 0.0088 0.0059 0.0029
Ranking 11 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14

C4 A41 Global weight 0.0730 0.0648 0.0567 0.0496 0.0486 0.0405 0.0324 0.0243 0.0162 0.0081
Ranking 5 6 6 8 9 9 9 9 9 9
A42 Global weight 0.0576 0.0512 0.0448 0.0392 0.0384 0.0320 0.0256 0.0192 0.0128 0.0064
Ranking 6 7 9 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
A43 Global weight 0.0297 0.0263 0.0231 0.0201 0.0198 0.0165 0.0132 0.0099 0.0066 0.0033
Ranking 10 12 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13
A44 Global weight 0.0262 0.0233 0.0204 0.0178 0.0175 0.0146 0.0117 0.0087 0.0058 0.0029
Ranking 12 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15

7
S. Mithun Ali et al. Expert Systems With Applications 173 (2021) 114690

Fig. 3. Sensitivity analysis of disruption drivers (by global weights).

Fig. 4. Sensitivity analysis of disruption drivers (by rank).

V(M1 ∈ M2 ) = 0.8691, V(M1 ∈ M3 ) = 1, V(M1 ∈ M4 ) = 1. further suggests their criticality in the RMG industry in Bangladesh.

The priorities of weights should be the minimum in each group of

5.3. Sensitivity analysis
Vas shown in Eq. (9) in Appendix B. Hence, d‘(C1) = min (0.8691, 1,1)
= 0.8691.
The sensitivity analysis is the best way to validate the methodology.
Similarly, d‘(C2) = 1, d‘(C3) = 0.37902, and d‘(C4) = 0.32613. Thus,
Small variations in relative weights may result in a greater change in the
we have the following weight vectorwo =
final ranking of disruption factors. The data collected by the Delphi
(0.8691, 1, 0.37902, 0.32613)T , and after the normalization process, the
approach may have a lack of accuracy, certainty, and exactness as it
weight vector corresponds to main disruption factors C1, C2, C3, C4 as
involves subjective decision making. Consequently, to ensure robustness
shown in Table 4 obtained asWo = (0.3376, 0.3884, 0.1472, 0.1266) by
in our Delphi-based FAHP approach, we conducted a sensitivity analysis
using Eq. (10) as shown in Appendix B.
to monitor the stability of rankings of the SCD factors and drivers.
Using the same step-by-step calculation procedure, we obtained the
local weights for the C1–C4 disruption drivers as illustrated in Table 5.
5.3.1. Disruption factors
From the values obtained for each of the disruption drivers in
From the present analysis, the C2 (human-made factor) was ranked
Table 5, the global weight ranking of each disruption driver was
top out of all the disruption factors (see Table 6). Thus, C2 was chosen to
calculated by multiplying its local weight and the weight of the corre­
demonstrate the sensitivity analysis as factor values for C2 changed from
sponding disruption factor, which is summarized in Table 6.
0.1 to 0.9, as shown in Table 7, which reveals changes in the weights of
Based on the global priority weights in Table 6, the following
the corresponding disruption factors. As an example, due to variations in
disruption drivers—namely, A21 – political and regulatory instability:
weights of C2 from 0.1 to 0.3, which was less than the normal value of
0.2212, A14 – cyclone: 0.1529, A22 – labor strike: 0.1198, A12 – flood:
0.3884, C1 (natural factor) was ranked as the top disruption factor.
0.1041, A32 – factory fire: 0.0781, and A11 – heavy rain: 0.0665—were
However, when the variation of weights for C2 ranged from 0.3884
the top six significant drivers having weight values greater than the
(normal value) to 0.9, C2 itself held the top rank (as shown in bold) and
average value of 0.0656 and causing maximum disruptions to the RMG
C4 (financial factor) was ranked the lowest. From this, we concluded
supply chains in Bangladesh. These six drivers were found to be the most
that C2 was the most significant disruption factor as in most cases it had
frequently occurring disruptions drivers in the Delphi study, which
the highest weight.

8
S. Mithun Ali et al.
5.3.2. Disruption drivers
Table 8 summarizes the global weights and ranking for disruption
drivers obtained with the help of a sensitivity analysis when C2 related
disruption factor values ranged from 0.1 to 0.9. Once the global weights
were obtained, we ranked the identified disruption drivers. As explained
earlier in the case of disruption factors listed in Table 7, Table 8 shows
the sensitivity analysis for disruption drivers when C2 related factor
values increased from 0.1 to 0.9. As variations in C2 disruption factor
weights were made, the global weights and rankings of disruption
drivers changed accordingly. For the weight of C2 ranging from 0.1 to
0.3, A14 (cyclone)—under natural disruption factors—was ranked as a
top disruption driver. For the weight of C2 from the base point (0.3885)
to 0.9, A21 (political and regulatory instability) was found to be the top
driver and A13 (weather problem) was positioned last.
The sensitivity analysis by global weights and ranks using MS Excel
are graphically represented in Figs. 3 and 4. This sensitivity shows that
the ranking of disruption drivers changed with the change in the weights
of the disruption factors.
From Figs. 3 and 4, we can conclude that disruption driver A21,
which we identified as political and regulatory instability, held signifi­
cant importance amongst the listed disruption drivers. Henceforth, this
disruption driver requires greater attention from Bangladesh RMG
decision-makers when implementing resilient supply chain strategies to
mitigate SCDs.
5.4. Discussions on findings
This study revealed that political and regulatory instability (A21),
cyclones (A14), and labor strikes (A22) were the three most significant
drivers, followed by floods (A12), factory fires (A32), and heavy rain
(A11), all of which cause major SCDs. The findings from this research are
aligned with the present macroeconomic challenges of the industry both
in the context of Bangladesh and globally. Political and regulatory
instability (A21), ranked as the number one disruption driver in the
present study, has been reported in many studies as the key challenge
facing the RMG industry. For example, as Abdin (2008) discussed, the
RMG industry bore financial losses of 60–90 million BDT (Bangladeshi
taka) per hour due to political instability. Political parties called strike­
son 1158 days between 1987 and 2006 - an average of 58 days per year
(Abdin, 2008). A more recent study published by The World Bank.
(2014) (2014) stated that political parties in Bangladesh called strikes on
45 days in the first six months of the 2014 fiscal year, and on 85 days
over the period of January 2013 to March 2014. Therefore, it is not a
surprise that political and regulatory instability is ranked as the number
one disruption driver of the RMG supply chain in Bangladesh. To ensure
the growth of the RMG industry in Bangladesh, Abdin (2008) stressed
the need to solve political problems in parliament rather than calling
strikes.
The second disruption driver for the supply chain of the RMG in­
dustry in Bangladesh is cyclones (A14)—a driver that falls under natural
disruption factors. Bangladesh, a country typically known for natural
disasters, has experienced two of the deadliest cyclones in the last cen­
tury, one in 1970 and the other in 1991, with the former being the
deadliest cyclone in history, causing over 300,000 deaths (Islam &
Peterson, 2013). Bangladesh had experienced a total of 54 major cy­
clones between 1974 and 2010; each of these cyclones caused disrup­
tions in the RMG supply chain (Islam & Peterson, 2013). The frequency
of major cyclones has been 1.6 per year since 1974 on average. Their
impact is huge and their effects long-lasting.
The frequency of labor strikes (A22), ranked as the third most crucial
disruption driver, has been increasing day-by-day in the RMG industry
9
Expert Systems With Applications 173 (2021) 114690
in Bangladesh. One of the main reasons for labor strikes is wage disputes;
wages are low in the RMG industry at USD 68 per month, the lowest
among the 10 countries producing the most RMGs in the world (Haque
& Azmat, 2015). Workers called strikes multiple times between 2011
and 2013 and although salaries have now increased from roughly USD
37 a month before 2013 (Haque & Azmat, 2015), this is still below the
poverty line. Labor strikes in the RMG industry are held over other
matters including unpaid wages, staff working overtime without al­
lowances, and poor house rent and medical allowances. As a conse­
quence of these strikes, supply chain operations have been seriously
hampered and firms have suffered huge financial and reputational los­
ses. For example, Hossan, Sarker, and Afroze (2012) found that during a
labor strike on January 11, 2010, 40 workers were injured and 30
garment firms halted operations. In another strike on June 21, 2010,
around 200 workers were injured and more than 30 garment firms were
ransacked (Hossan et al., 2012). Recently, the frequency of labor strikes
has increased as employees fight once more for an increase in their
minimum wages with the target of achieving global standards.
Floods (A12) and heavy rain (A11), two drivers classified under
natural factors, received the fourth and sixth ranks, respectively,
amongst SCD drivers affecting the RMG industry in Bangladesh. Flood­
ing affects businesses and supply chain activities almost every year
during the rainy season, with significant effects. For instance, in 1998 a
flood caused a loss of at least USD 3.4 billion to the economy of
Bangladesh with the RMG industry losing at least 10,000 million BDT
(Abdin, 2008). Heavy rain is also a very common event in Bangladesh
because of its geographical location and hence it affects supply chain
operations and day-to-day activities.
Factory fires (A32) are ranked fifth out of the top six disruption
drivers. By 2000, more than 100 fires had affected the RMG industry in
Bangladesh, killing over 5000 workers (Sinkovics, Hoque, & Sinkovics,
2016). A fire at Tazreen Fashion in December 2012 killed 120 workers
and damaged the entire factory (Sinkovics et al., 2016). This incident,
followed by another at Rana Plaza in 2013, where more than 1100
garment workers lost their lives in a factory fire, led to the formation of
the Accord, a five-year legally binding agreement collectively formed by
international labor organizations, non-governmental organizations, and
retailers to maintain fire safety standards in RMG factories in
Bangladesh. However, to date, only 1800 RMG factories out of a total of
6000 factories in Bangladesh have signed the Accord agreement.
Clearly, the majority of RMG factories are still vulnerable to fire and do
not meet Accord inspection regulations (Sinkovics et al., 2016).
Table 6 indicates that disruption drivers categorized under natural
and human-made disruption factors were more crucial in the context of
their effect on the RMG industry in Bangladesh than other drivers. All
disruption drivers under these two factors, excluding weather problems
(A13), rank amongst the top 10 crucial disruption drivers. Conversely,
factory fires (A32) and exchange rate fluctuations (A41) are the only two
drivers under system accidents and financial factors, respectively, that
rank amongst the top 10 drivers.
At last but not least, the extant literature has long suggested that
resilient strategies can reduce the influence of SCDs (Kleindorfer & Saad,
2005), but that firms need to tailor their strategies based on the ranking
of disruption drivers and their probability of occurrence within that
context (Samvedi et al., 2013). The present study is the first of its kind
that attempts to provide a comprehensive list of SCD drivers affecting
the RMG industry in Bangladesh, which is instrumental in developing
resilient strategies for mitigating risks well ahead of time. Moreover, the
deciphered rankings of the disruption drivers will provide managers in
the RMG industry with capabilities that will allow them to develop and
prioritize resilient strategies, as different disruption factors or drivers
S. Mithun Ali et al.
may require different resilient managerial actions for both strategic and
operations management (Tang, 2006).
6. Contributions and managerial implications
Academically, the supply chain disruption (SCD) decision-making
aims to analyze the factors and drivers to evaluate the risks in all
levels of a supply chain network. This study contributes to the supply
chain risk management literature by integrating the Delphi method and
FAHP for exploring SCD analytics in supply chains. The integrated
Delphi-based FAHP model was tested in the context of the RMG industry
of Bangladesh.
By doing so, this study fills the research gap on SCD in the context of
the RMG industry in a developing country (Chowdhury et al., 2019). It is
already evident that emerging countries such as Bangladesh, China, and
India play key roles in the global RMG supply chain. However, RMG
firms of the developing countries are more vulnerable to SCD incidents
as they generally neither have sophisticated information technologies
nor have enough institutional supports to speed up the recovery after an
SCD incident. Aimed at global RMG supply chain practitioners in an
industrial context in an emerging country, the present study expanded
the scope of SCD literature using the existing body of knowledge and
tested the robustness, through sensitivity analyses, of the integrated
decision-making framework in the context of the RMG industry of
Bangladesh.
The integrated approach proposed in this study has significant
managerial implications. The first practical insight refers to a conceptual
understanding of SCD management in the RMG industry context. The
rest of the managerial insights refer to the dynamic sensitivity of the
MCDM model to find a set of well-tuned levels of criteria as seen in
Section 5.3. The findings of the Delphi method clearly show the major
SCD events in the context of the RMG industry of Bangladesh. Firms in
the RMG industry of Bangladesh are often affected by several SCD in­
cidents, which are considered the main threat of industry growth
(Chowdhury & Quaddus, 2015). As such, practitioners can recognize
and develop an understanding of disruption factors and drivers specific
to their contexts, and they will eventually be able to reduce the impact of
such disruptions and enhance the overall supply chain performance and
resilience.
The findings from the FAHP, which is the ranking of disruption
drivers, implied that industrial managers need to focus on the most
vulnerable touch points in their supply chains. Upon identifying these
touch points, industrial managers should proactively develop resilient
strategies best fitted to managing end-to-end supply chains effectively
and efficiently with respect to human-made and natural disruption
factors and drivers causing supply chain breakdown. Since three of the
six most common SCD drivers (cyclones, floods, and heavy rain)
generally occur during a particular time of the year, i.e., May to October
in Bangladesh (Islam & Peterson, 2013), managers need to be cautious
when formulating their resilient strategies. They should place more
emphasis on formulating appropriate pro-active strategies for such
seasonal disruptions to reduce both the impact of disruptions and the
length of their impact. Conversely, some of the major disruptions such as
fires and labor strikes can occur at any time; thus, managers need to
adopt continuous resilient programs for such disruptions. Consequently,
these enhanced capabilities will arm supply chain managers with an
ability to formulate relevant mitigation strategies that are robust and
effective, which will allow managers to take calculated decisions
proactively.
Hence, the outcomes are useful for both industrial and academic
practitioners to advance research on the planning of SCD factors and
drivers under uncertainty for the RMG industry context.
7. Conclusion and future research directions
The key objective of this study was to identify, analyze, and to assess
10
Expert Systems With Applications 173 (2021) 114690
SCD factors and drivers by proposing a decision-making framework that
used an integrated approach comprising both the Delphi method and the
FAHP in the context of the RMG supply chain in Bangladesh. Based on
extant literature, we discovered 23 disruption drivers, with16 drivers
identified as the most important disruption drivers classified under 4
factors by applying the Delphi method and the opinions of 15 experts.
The findings derived from the Delphi method study make a significant
contribution to the literature as our findings revealed that the drivers of
SCDs that are most often referred to—including earthquakes, terrorist
attacks, theft, obsolescence of technology, and bankruptcy of suppli­
ers—are not central disruptions to the RMG industry in Bangladesh.
Conversely, several disruption drivers such as cyclones, floods, heavy
rain, and traffic jams have a critical effect on the RMG industry in
Bangladesh. Having applied the FAHP method to prioritize both
disruption factors and drivers, the results revealed that political and
regulatory instability, cyclones, labor strikes, floods, heavy rain, and
factory fires were the top six drivers causing disruption in the RMG
supply chains in Bangladesh, which provides a clear picture of the
different SCD drivers to practitioners within the RMG industry. The re­
sults also showed that there were different conceptualizations of
disruption drivers in different contexts when compared to the study
conducted by Dong and Cooper (2016) and that a better understanding
of risk drivers and factors requires a context and/or domain-specific
study. More importantly, this study demonstrates that the Delphi-
based FAHP model approach to assessing SCD factors and drivers can
be robustly adopted in other industry contexts and domains as the
decision-making framework results were validated via sensitivity
analysis.
This study opens a variety of directions for future works. First of all,
the present study could be extended to explore appropriate strategies or
employing a standard risk management framework for managing risk
issues associated with each disruption driver for specific contexts, as
well as possibly being instrumental in devising best management prac­
tices for effective risk mitigation. Moreover, a multiple case study or a
focus group study to explore how these disruption drivers and factors
affect the performance of individual firms belonging to supply chains
would be beneficial. Furthermore, conducting longitudinal research to
monitor and evaluate the long-term performance effect of implementing
appropriate risk mitigation strategies is highly recommended. In the
future, it would also be interesting to develop structural equation
models (SEMs) to examine the role of different disruption drivers and
their interrelationships on supply chain performance.
Finally, this study has proposed a generic Delphi-based FAHP model
and tested its applicability with the data collected from the RMG in­
dustry of Bangladesh. The model is expected to work for other industrial
and country contexts as well. Every supply chain operating in any in­
dustrial or country context undergoes supply chain disruptions. There­
fore, managers from other industrial sectors in Bangladesh or other
countries can use this model to improve their supply chains upon un­
derstanding supply chain disruption drivers s as presented in this paper.
For example, managers of a company operating in India can screen these
supply chain disruption drivers and apply the proposed model to pri­
oritize the drivers in their supply chain. Note that the application of the
proposed Delphi-based FAHP model in a different context will produce a
different outcome as supply chains on probability and impact of distri­
bution can be characterized by the natural, political, geographical,
economic and social factors in which the supply chain under question is
operating (Ali, Moktadir, Kabir, Chakma, Rumi, & Islam, 2019; Chris­
topher & Peck, 2004; Safaeian, Fathollahi-Fard, Tian, Li, & Ke, 2019).
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Syed Mithun Ali: Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Methodology,
Writing - original draft, Writing - review & editing, Project adminis­
tration. Sanjoy Kumar Paul: Writing - original draft, Formal analysis,
Methodology. Priyabrata Chowdhury: Writing - original draft. Renu
S. Mithun Ali et al. Expert Systems With Applications 173 (2021) 114690

Agarwal: Writing - review & editing. Amir Mohammad Fathollahi- Acknowledgements

Fard: Supervision, Writing - review & editing. Charbel Jose Chiap­
petta Jabbour: Writing - review & editing. Sunil Luthra: Writing -
review & editing.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
This research was conducted at Bangladesh University of Engineer­
ing and Technology (BUET). The authors acknowledge the supports
received from the Department of Industrial and Production Engineering
(IPE) for conducting this research. The authors also acknowledge the
cooperation received from some ready-made garment companies of
Bangladesh who supported our primary data in carrying out this
research successfully.

Appendix A

Table A1
List of experts and their experiences for Delphi study.
Company code Company size(Number of Employees) Location of the company Position of the respondent Year of experience

A01 1000–1500 Dhaka Supply Chain Manager 17 years

A02 Less than 500 Dhaka Maintenance Manager 15 years
A03 3000 and above Dhaka Buying House Manager 18 years
A04 3000 and above Dhaka Procurement Manager 25 years
A05 500–1000 Dhaka Industrial Engineer 15 years
A06 2000–2500 Gazipur Production Manager 18 years
A07 1000–1500 Gazipur Assistant Manager, Supply Chain 16 years
A08 2000–2500 Gazipur Finance Manager 12 years
A09 3000 and above Gazipur Supply Chain Manager 18 years
A10 3000 and above Naryanganj Procurement Manager 14 years
A11 Less than 500 Naryanganj Operations Manager 16 years
A12 1500–2000 Naryanganj Finance Manager 21 years
A13 1500–2000 Chittagong Procurement manager 14 years
A14 500–1000 Chittagong Buying House Manager 12 years
A15 1000–1500 Chittagong Logistic manager 12 years

Appendix B

Chang (1996) extent analysis can be summarized as follows:

{ }
Let us assume that, X = {x1 , x2 , ⋯., xn } is an object set and U = g1 , g2 , ⋯., gn is a goal set wherein each object is taken and an extent analysis for
each goal gi is performed. Thus, m extent analysis values for each object can be obtained with the following signs:
( )
1
Mgi, 2
Mgi, ⋯⋯⋯Mgim , i = 1, 2, ⋯.n (2)

where, Mjgi (j = 1, 2, ⋯m) all are TFNs. The four steps of Chang (1996) extent analysis are described as follows:
Step 1: The value of fuzzy synthetic extent with respect to theith object is defined as:
[ ]− 1
∑m ∑n ∑m j
Si = Mgij i=1
M
j=1 gi
(3)
j=1

∑m j
j=1 Mgi in Eq. (3) can be obtained as follows:
( )
∑
m ∑m ∑
m ∑
m
Mgij = lj , mj , uj (4)
j=1 j=1 j=1 j=1

[∑ ∑ ]− 1
n m j
To obtain i=1 j=1 Mgi , fuzzy addition operation is first carried out such that
( )
∑
n ∑
m ∑
n ∑
n ∑
n
Mgij = li , mi , ui (5)
i=1 j=1 i=1 i=1 i=1

And then the inverse of the vector above is evaluated as shown in Eq. (6):
[ ]− 1 ( )
∑n ∑ m
1 1 1
Mgij = ∑n , ∑n , ∑n (6)
i=1 j=1 i=1 ui i=1 mi i=1 li

Step 2: The degree of possibility ofM2 = (l2 , m2 , u2 ) ≥ M1 = (l1 , m1 , u1 ) is defined as

11
S. Mithun Ali et al. Expert Systems With Applications 173 (2021) 114690

V(M2 ≥ M1 ) = supy≥x [min((μM1 (x), μM1 (y)) ] (7)

Eq. (7) can be equivalently expressed as follows:

⎧ ⎫
⎪
⎪ 1if M2 ≥ M1, ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪
⎨ ⎬
0if l1 ≥ u2,
V(M2 ≥ M1 ) = (8)
⎪
⎪ l1 − u2 ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎩ Otherwise. ⎪
⎭
(m2 − u2 ) − (m1 − l1 )

Step 3: The degree of possibility for a convex fuzzy number to be greater than k implies fuzzy numberMi ; i = 1,2,⋯⋯..,kcan be defined as follows:
V(M ≥ M1, M2, ⋯⋯⋯.Mk )

= V[(M ≥ M1 )and(M ≥ M2 )and⋯⋯⋯.(M ≥ Mk )]

= minV(M ≥ Mi ); i = 1, 2, 3⋯⋯⋯⋯, k (9)

Assume that d(Ai ) = minV(Si ≥ Sk ) For k = 1, 2, ⋯⋯.., n; k ∕
= i. Then the weight vector is given as follows:
W ’ = (d’ (A1 ), d’ (A2 ), ⋯⋯⋯.., d’ (An ))T (10)
where Ai (i = 1, 2, ⋯⋯⋯, n) are n elements.
Step 4: The normalized weight vectors are determined as shown in Equation (11):
W= (d(A1 ), d(A2 ), ⋯⋯⋯, d(An ))T (11)
where Wis a non-fuzzy number.

Appendix C

Table C1
Mean score and initial ranking of the disruption drivers.
Serial no. Disruption Drivers Mean score Decision of inclusion for further assessment Initial ranking based on mean score

1 Earthquake 3.27 Not included NA

2 Heavy rain 7.53 Included 6
3 Flood 8.13 Included 3
4 Weather problems 5.40 Included 15
5 Cyclone 7.93 Included 4
6 Diseases 4.40 Not included NA
7 Political and regulatory instability 9.13 Included 1
8 Terrorist attack 2.80 Not included NA
9 Labor strike 8.27 Included 2
10 Traffic/port congestion/strike 6.60 Included 7
11 Demand fluctuation 6.47 Included 8
12 Utility failure 6.27 Included 9
13 Factory fire 7.60 Included 5
14 Machine failure/breakdown 5.60 Included 14
15 Technology breakdown 5.80 Included 12
16 Exchange rate fluctuation 6.07 Included 10
17 Bankruptcy of business 6.07 Included 10
18 Fluctuation in foreign investment 5.67 Included 13
19 Fluctuation of bank interest rate 5.33 Included 16

= (0.13067, 0.20913, 0.3379)

( )
Appendix D 1 1 1
S4 = (3.5333, 4.7803, 6.3333) ⊗ , ,
33.4167 26.0603 19.4833
Determination of fuzzy synthetic values of disruption factors is as follows:
( ) = (0.10574, 0.18343, 0.32506)
1 1 1
S1 = (5.25, 7.33, 9.5) ⊗ , ,
33.4167 26.0603 19.4833

= (0.15711, 0.28127, 0.4876) Appendix E. Supplementary data

( )
1 1 1 Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.
S2 = (6.3333, 8.5, 11) ⊗ , ,
33.4167 26.0603 19.4833 org/10.1016/j.eswa.2021.114690.
= (0.18953, 0.32617, 0.56459)
( )
1 1 1
S3 = (4.36667, 5.45, 6.5833) ⊗ , ,
33.4167 26.0603 19.4833

12
S. Mithun Ali et al. Expert Systems With Applications 173 (2021) 114690

References Gaudenzi, B., & Borghesi, A. (2006). Managing risks in the supply chain using the AHP
method. The International Journal of Logistics Management.
Guo, J., He, L., & Gen, M. (2019). Optimal strategies for the closed-loop supply chain
Abdin, M.J. (2008), Overall Problems and Prospects of Bangladeshi Ready-Made
with the consideration of supply disruption and subsidy policy. Computers &
Garments Industries.
Industrial Engineering, 128, 886–893.
Abdi, A., Abdi, A., Fathollahi-Fard, A. M., & Hajiaghaei-Keshteli, M. (2019). A set of
Haque, M. Z., & Azmat, F. (2015). Corporate social responsibility, economic
calibrated metaheuristics to address a closed-loop supply chain network design
globalization and developing countries: A case study of the ready made garments
problem under uncertainty. International Journal of Systems Science: Operations &
industry in Bangladesh. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, 6
Logistics, 1–18.
(2), 166–189.
Akkermans, H. A., Bogerd, P., Yücesan, E., & Van Wassenhove, L. N. (2003). The impact
Hendricks, K. B., & Singhal, V. R. (2005). An empirical analysis of the effect of supply
of ERP on supply chain management: Exploratory findings from a European Delphi
chain disruptions on long-run stock price performance and equity risk of the firm.
study. European Journal of Operational Research, 146(2), 284–301.
Production and Operations Management, 14(1), 35–52.
Akcan, S., & Taş, M. A. (2019). Green supplier evaluation with SWARA-TOPSIS
Hoffmann, P., Schiele, H., & Krabbendam, K. (2013). Uncertainty, supply risk
integrated method to reduce ecological risk factors. Environmental Monitoring and
management and their impact on performance. Journal of Purchasing and Supply
Assessment, 191(12), 736.
Management, 19(3), 199–211.
Ali, S. M., Moktadir, M. A., Kabir, G., Chakma, J., Rumi, M. J. U., & Islam, M. T. (2019).
Hossan, C. G., Sarker, M. A. R., & Afroze, R. (2012). Recent unrest in the RMG sector of
Framework for evaluating risks in food supply chain: Implications in food wastage
Bangladesh: Is this an Outcome of Poor Labour Practices? International Journal of
reduction. Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol., 228, pp., 786-800.
Business and Management, 7(3), 206–218.
Babu, H., Bhardwaj, P., & Agrawal, A. K. (2020). Modelling the supply chain risk
Islam, T., & Peterson, R. E. (2013). A climatological study on the landfalling tropical
variables using ISM: a case study on Indian manufacturing SMEs. Journal of Modelling
cyclones of Bangladesh. Wind Science and Engineering Research Center, 45, 162–168.
in Management. https://doi.org/10.1108/JM2-06-2019-0126
Ivanov, D. (2020). Predicting the impacts of epidemic outbreaks on global supply chains:
Blackhurst, J. V, Scheibe, K.P. and Johnson, D.J. (2008), “Supplier risk assessment and
A simulation-based analysis on the coronavirus outbreak (COVID-19/SARS-CoV-2)
monitoring for the automotive industry”, International Journal of Physical
case. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 136.
Distribution & Logistics Management, Journal Article, , Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 143–165.
Ishola, A., Matellini, D. B., & Wang, J. (2020). A proactive approach to quantitative
Bugert, N., & Lasch, R. (2018). Effectiveness of responsive pricing in the face of supply
assessment of disruption risks of petroleum refinery operation. Safety Science, 127.
chain disruptions. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 124, 304–315.
Kara, M.E., and Fırat, S. Ü. O. (2018). Supplier risk assessment based on best-worst
Butdee, S., & Phuangsalee, P. (2019). Uncertain risk assessment modelling for bus body
method and K-means clustering: a case study. Sustainability, 10(4), 1066.
manufacturing supply chain using AHP and fuzzy AHP. Procedia Manufacturing,
Kembro, J., Näslund, D., & Olhager, J. (2017). Information sharing across multiple
Vol., 30, pp., 663-670.
supply chain tiers: A Delphi study on antecedents. International Journal of Production
Blome, C., & Schoenherr, T. (2011). Supply chain risk management in financial crises-a
Economics, 193, 77–86.
multiple case-study approach. International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier,
Khan, O., Christopher, M. and Burnes, B. (2008), “The impact of product design on
134(1), 43–57.
supply chain risk: a case study”, International Journal of Physical Distribution &
Blos, M. F., Quaddus, M., Wee, H. M., & Watanabe, K. (2009). Supply chain risk
Logistics Management, Vol. 38 No. 5, pp. 412–432.
management (SCRM): a case study on the automotive and electronic industries in
Kleindorfer, P. R., & Saad, G. H. (2005). Managing disruption risks in supply chains.
Brazil. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Journal Article, 14(4),
Production and Operations Management, 14(1), 53–68.
247–252.
Kumar, S., Luthra, S., & Haleem, A. (2015). Benchmarking supply chains by analyzing
Brun, A., Caridi, M., Fahmy Salama, K., & Ravelli, I. (2006). Value and risk assessment of
technology transfer critical barriers using AHP approach. Benchmarking: An
supply chain management improvement projects. International Journal of Production
International Journal, 22(4), 538–558.
Economics, 99, 186–201.
Kumar, S. K., Tiwari, M. K., & Babiceanu, R. F. (2010). Minimisation of supply chain cost
Bhutta, K., & Huq, F. (2002). Supplier selection problem: a comparison of the total cost of
with embedded risk using computational intelligence approaches. International
ownership and analytic hierarchy process approaches. Supply Chain Management, 7
Journal of Production Research, 48(13), 3717–3739.
(3), 126–135.
Kwong, C. K., & Bai, H. (2002). A fuzzy AHP approach to the determination of
Chang, D.-Y. (1996). Applications of the extent analysis method on fuzzy AHP. European
importance weights of customer requirements in quality function deployment.
Journal of Operational Research, 95(3), 649–655.
Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, 13(5), 367–377.
Chopra, S., & Sodhi, M. S. (2004). Managing risk to avoid supply-chain breakdown. MIT
Laarhoven, P. J. M Van, & Pedrycz, W. (1983). A fuzzy extension of Saaty’s priority
Sloan Management Review, 46(1), 53–61.
theory. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 11, 229–241.
Chowdhury, M. M. H., & Quaddus, M. (2016). Supply chain readiness, response and
López González, E., & Rodríguez Fernández, M. A. (2000). Genetic optimisation of a
recovery for resilience. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 21(6),
fuzzy distribution mode. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics
709–731.
Management, 30(7/8), 681–696.
Chowdhury, M. M. H., & Quaddus, M. A. (2015). A multiple objective optimization based
Liu, X., Tian, G., Fathollahi-Fard, A. M., & Mojtahedi, M., (2020). “Evaluation of ship’s
QFD approach for efficient resilient strategies to mitigate supply chain
green degree using a novel hybrid approach combining group fuzzy entropy and
vulnerabilities: The case of garment industry of Bangladesh, Omega. Journal Article,
cloud technique for the order of preference by similarity to the ideal solution
57, 5–21.
theory,” Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy. Vol. 22, pp. 493-512.
Chowdhury, N. A., Ali, S. M., Mahtab, Z., Rahman, T., Kabir, G., & Paul, S. K. (2019).
Luthra, S., Mangla, S. K., Xu, L., & Diabat, A. (2016). Using AHP to evaluate barriers in
A structural model for investigating the driving and dependence power of supply
adopting sustainable consumption and production initiatives in a supply chain.
chain risks in the readymade garment industry. Journal of Retailing and Consumer
International Journal of Production Economics, 181, 342–349.
Services, 51, 102–113.
Lummus, R. R., Vokurka, R. J., & Duclos, L. K. (2007). Delphi study on supply chain
Chowdhury, P., Lau, K. H., & Pittayachawan, S. (2019). Operational supply risk
flexibility. International journal of production research, 43(13), 2687–2708.
mitigation of SME and its impact on operational performance: a social capital
Mangla, S. K., Kumar, P., & Barua, M. K. (2015). Risk analysis in green supply chain
perspective. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 39(4),
using fuzzy AHP approach: A case study. Resources, Conservation and Recycling,
478–502.
Vol., 104, pp., 375-390.
Christopher, M., Mena, C., Khan, O., & Yurt, O. (2011). Approaches to managing global
Markmann, C., Darkow, I. L., & Von Der Gracht, H. (2013). A Delphi-based risk
sourcing risk. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 16(2), 67–81.
analysis—Identifying and assessing future challenges for supply chain security in a
Christopher, M., Peck, H., (2004). Building the resilient supply chain. Int. J. Logist.
multi-stakeholder environment. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 80(9),
Manag. https://doi.org/10.1108/09574090410700275.
1815–1833.
Clayton, M. J. (1997). Delphi: A technique to harness expert opinion for critical decision-
Mastrocinque, E., Ramírez, F. J., Honrubia-Escribano, A., & Pham, D. T. (2020). An AHP-
making tasks in education. Educational Psychology, 17(4), 373–386.
based multi-criteria model for sustainable supply chain development in the
Dong, Q., & Cooper, O. (2016). An orders-of-magnitude AHP supply chain risk
renewable energy sector. Expert Systems with Applications, 150.
assessment framework. International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, 182,
Manuj, I. and Mentzer, J.T. (2008), “Global supply chain risk management strategies”,
144–156.
International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Journal
Fathollahi-Fard, A. M., Hajiaghaei-Keshteli, M., Tian, G., & Li, Z. (2020a). An adaptive
Article, , Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 192–223.
Lagrangian relaxation-based algorithm for a coordinated water supply and
Moktadir, M. A., Dwivedi, A., Khan, N. S., Paul, S. K., Khan, S. A., Ahmed, S., &
wastewater collection network design problem. Information Sciences, 512,
Sultana, R. (2020). Analysis of Risk Factors in Sustainable Supply Chain
1335–1359.
Management in an Emerging Economy of Leather Industry. Journal of Cleaner
Fathollahi-Fard, A. M., Ahmadi, A., & Mirzapour Al-e-Hashem, S. M. J. (2020b).
Production, 124641.
Sustainable closed-loop supply chain network for an integrated water supply and
Okoli, C., & Pawlowski, S. D. (2004). The Delphi method as a research tool: an example,
wastewater collection system under uncertainty. Journal of Environmental
design considerations and applications. Information & Management, 42(1), 15–29.
Management, 275.
Parast, M. M. (2020). The impact of R&D investment on mitigating supply chain
Fan, Y., & Stevenson, M. (2018). A review of supply chain risk management: definition,
disruptions: Empirical evidence from US firms. International Journal of Production
theory, and research agenda. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics
Economics, 227.
Management, 48(3), 205–230.
Paul, S. K. (2015). Supplier selection for managing supply risks in supply chain: a fuzzy
Fritschy, C., & Spinler, S. (2019). The impact of autonomous trucks on business models in
approach. International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 79(1–4),
the automotive and logistics industry–a Delphi-based scenario study. Technological
657–664.
Forecasting and Social Change, 148.
Paul, S. K., Sarker, R., & Essam, D. (2015). Managing disruption in an imperfect
Ganguly, K., & Guin, K. (2013). A fuzzy AHP approach for inbound supply risk
production-inventory system. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 84, 101–112.
assessment. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 20(1), 129–146. https://doi.org/
10.1108/14635771311299524

13
S. Mithun Ali et al.
Paul, S. K., Sarker, R., & Essam, D. (2017). A Quantitative Model for Disruption
Mitigation in a Supply Chain. European Journal of Operational Research, 257(3),
881–895.
Peck, H. (2005), “Drivers of supply chain vulnerability: an integrated framework”,
International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 35 No.
4, pp. 210-232.
Rajesh, R., & Ravi, V. (2017). Analyzing drivers of risks in electronic supply chains: a
grey-DEMATEL approach. International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing
Technology, 92(1–4), 1127–1145.
Ravindran, A. R., Bilsel, R. U., Wadhwa, V., & Yang, T. (2010). Risk adjusted
multicriteria supplier selection models with applications. International Journal of
Production Research, 48(2), 405–424.
Roßmann, B., Canzaniello, A., von der Gracht, H., & Hartmann, E. (2018). The future and
social impact of Big Data Analytics in Supply Chain Management: Results from a
Delphi study. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 130, 135–149.
Safaeian, M., Fathollahi-Fard, A. M., Tian, G., Li, Z., & Ke, H. (2019). A multi-objective
supplier selection and order allocation through incremental discount in a fuzzy
environment. Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems, 37(1), 1435–1455.
Samvedi, A., Jain, V., & Chan, F. T. S. (2013). Quantifying risks in a supply chain through
integration of fuzzy AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS. International Journal of Production
Research, Journal Article, 51(8), 2433–2442.
Saaty, T. L. (1980). The Analytic Hierarchy Process. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Şen, C. G., & Çınar, G. (2010). Evaluation and pre-allocation of operators with multiple
skills: A combined fuzzy AHP and max–min approach. Expert Systems with
Applications, 37(3), 2043–2053.
Singh, R. (2013). Prioritizing the factors for coordinated supply chain using analytic
hierarchy process (AHP). Measuring Business Excellence, 17(1), 80–97.
Sharma, S. K., & Bhat, A. (2012). Identification and assessment of supply chain risk:
development of AHP model for supply chain risk prioritisation. International Journal
of Agile Systems and Management, 5(4), 350–369.
Shore, B., & Venkatachalam, A. R. (2003). Evaluating the information sharing
capabilities of supply chain partners: A fuzzy logic model. International Journal of
Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 33(9), 804–824.
Sinkovics, N., Hoque, S. F., & Sinkovics, R. R. (2016). Rana Plaza collapse aftermath: are
CSR compliance and auditing pressures effective? Accounting, Auditing &
Accountability Journal, 29(4), 617–649.
14
Expert Systems With Applications 173 (2021) 114690
Sofyalıoğlu, Ç., & Kartal, B. (2012). The selection of global supply chain risk
management strategies by using fuzzy analytical hierarchy process–a case from
Turkey. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 58, 1448–1457.
Tang, C. and Tomlin, B. (2008), “The power of flexibility for mitigating supply chain
risks”, International Journal of Production Economics, Journal Article, , Vol. 116 No.
1, pp. 12–27.
Tang, C.S. (2006), “Perspectives in supply chain risk management”, International Journal
of Production Economics, Vol. 103 No. 2, pp. 451–488.
The World Bank. (2014), Bangladesh Development Update, April 2014, Washington DC.
Trkman, P., & McCormack, K. (2009). Supply chain risk in turbulent environments—A
conceptual model for managing supply chain network risk. International Journal of
Production Economics, 119(2), 247–258.
Tummala, R., & Schoenherr, T. (2011). Assessing and managing risks using the Supply
Chain Risk Management Process (SCRMP). Supply Chain Management: An
International Journal, 16(6), 474–483.
Vedel, M., & Ellegaard, C. (2013). Supply risk management functions of sourcing
intermediaries: an investigation of the clothing industry. Supply Chain Management:
An International Journal, 18(5), 509–522.
Venkatesh, V. G., Rathi, S., & Patwa, S. (2015). Analysis on supply chain risks in Indian
apparel retail chains and proposal of risk prioritization model using Interpretive
structural modeling. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Journal Article, 26,
153–167.
Wagner, S. M., Mizgier, K. J., & Arnez, P. (2014). Disruptions in tightly coupled supply
chain networks: the case of the US offshore oil industry. Production Planning &
Control, 25(6), 494–508.
Wang, X., Chan, H. K., Yee, R. W. Y., & Diaz-Rainey, I. (2012). A two-stage fuzzy-AHP
model for risk assessment of implementing green initiatives in the fashion supply
chain. International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, 135(2), 595–606.
Yazdani, M., Gonzalez, E. D. R. S., & Chatterjee, P. (2019). A multi-criteria decision-
making framework for agriculture supply chain risk management under a circular
economy context. Management Decision. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-10-2018-1088
Yuan, M., Zhang, H., Wang, B., Huang, L., Fang, K., & Liang, Y. (2020). Downstream oil
supply security in China: Policy implications from quantifying the impact of oil
import disruption. Energy Policy, 136.
Zadeh, L. A. (1965). Fuzzy sets. Information and Control, 8(3), 338–353.