Sustainable and Resilient Infrastructure

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tsri20

Resilient and sustainable supplier selection: an

integration of SCOR 4.0 and machine learning
approach

Md Muzahid Khan, Imranul Bashar, Golam Morshed Minhaj, Absar Ishraq

Wasi & Niamat Ullah Ibne Hossain

To cite this article: Md Muzahid Khan, Imranul Bashar, Golam Morshed Minhaj, Absar Ishraq
Wasi & Niamat Ullah Ibne Hossain (2023): Resilient and sustainable supplier selection:
an integration of SCOR 4.0 and machine learning approach, Sustainable and Resilient
Infrastructure, DOI: 10.1080/23789689.2023.2165782

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/23789689.2023.2165782

© 2023 The Author(s). Published by Informa

UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis
Group.

Published online: 16 Jan 2023.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1266

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tsri20
SUSTAINABLE AND RESILIENT INFRASTRUCTURE
https://doi.org/10.1080/23789689.2023.2165782

ARTICLE

Resilient and sustainable supplier selection: an integration of SCOR 4.0 and

machine learning approach
Md Muzahid Khana, Imranul Bashara, Golam Morshed Minhaja, Absar Ishraq Wasia
and Niamat Ullah Ibne Hossain b
a
Department of Industrial and Production Engineering, Military Institute of Science and Technology, Dhaka, Bangladesh; bEngineering
Management Department, College of Engineering and Computer Science, Arkansas State University, Jonesboro, Arkansas, USA

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

The purpose of this research paper is to implement a machine learning model with the integration Received 8 September 2022
of the supply chain occupational reference (SCOR) model to develop an artificial intelligence-based Accepted 29 December 2022
system for resilient and sustainable supplier selection for a pharmaceutical company. Initially, the KEYWORDS
SCOR 4.0 model with the integration of Best Worst Method (BWM) has been used to develop the Supplier selection; resilience;
framework of customer satisfaction and to identify the critical elements of the suppliers. Later, the machine learning; SCOR 4.0;
gradient boosting machine learning model has been implemented to classify the supplier as well Pharmaceutical Supply
as rank the suppliers from best to worst based on the acceptability score. The result shows that the Chain; sustainability
gradient boosting algorithm performs well as a classifier, where the supplier with the most
acceptability score represents the best supplier and the supplier with the least acceptability
score represents the worst supplier. This study contributes to our understanding of how and
when integrated SCOR and machine learning models can help improve supplier selection.

1. Introduction
Suppliers are an important component of the supply
chain because their performance has an indirect and
significant impact on customer satisfaction. Over the
last two decades, resilience and sustainability concerns
have grown in importance in SCM (Ghamari et al., 2021).
The idea of sustainability has emerged as an essential way
of thinking across a variety of business domains as
a direct result of the rising awareness of social occupa­
tions and the preservation of the natural environment.
Apart from that, the company supply chain is increas­
ingly threatened by pandemics, natural, man-made, or
mechanical hazards such as surges, seismic tremors, fires,
transportation mishaps, strikes, attacks, and so on. These
disasters interrupt the supply chain, which harms firms
through lost productivity, revenue, competitive advan­
tage, profitability, and so on. As a consequence of this,
it is necessary to take a resilient approach to the supply
chain to secure the buyer from disruptions and deficien­
cies. Since a supplier can affect the overall performance of
a supply chain, companies must take resilience in supplier
selection decisions to reduce risk (Amindoust, 2018;
Didier et al., 2018; Ghamari et al., 2021; Zhaoa et al.,
2021).
The SCOR model was established by the Supply Chain
Council (SCC) to monitor chain performance to acquire
a competitive advantage and improve organizational per­
formance. It establishes a common language for deciding,
organizing, and implementing supply chain procedures
(Delipinar & Kocaoglu, 2016; Munson & Santa-Eulalia,
2014). The SCOR model has been successfully used in
a variety of sectors, including the pharmaceutical industry,
to identify efficient supplier solutions and this model can
be used in conjunction with other Multi-Criteria Decision
Making (MCDM) tools and methods to facilitate supplier
selection (Es-Satty et al., 2020). Nevertheless, in today’s
digital era, there are fundamental changes in the structure
of supply chains such as the integration of new technology.
Supply chain structure development with evolving tech­
nologies is critical for staying up with the times. The new
supply chain requirements should be precisely determined,
and new metrics should be carefully determined, taking
into account new requirements. Digital technology and
information systems are newly treated as two new metrics
in the SCOR model, and this novel model is known as
SCOR 4.0, which is a structured three-level hierarchical
framework to analyze supply chain performance (Ayyildiz
& Taskin Gumus, 2021). Previously researchers have
widely used different MCDM methods such as AHP,
Hybrid Best Worst Method (BWM), Fuzzy Topsis,
Pythagorean fuzzy AHP, or other decision-making models
with the traditional SCOR model for supplier selection

CONTACT Niamat Ullah Ibne Hossain nibnehossain@astate.edu

© 2023 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use,
distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
2 M. D. M. KHAN ET AL.
(Ayyildiz & Taskin Gumus, 2021; Huang et al., 2021; Lima-
Junior & Carpinetti, 2016; Nazim & Yaacob, 2017).
Nevertheless, MCDM procedures frequently result in
enormously complicated models that are challenging to
handle and analyze.
Machine learning (ML) has recently attracted more
attention as a result of its effectiveness in a variety of
applications ranging from image categorization to
a variety of decision-making challenges. The applications
of ML approaches have increased dramatically in recent
years due to the explosion of data. In a predictive setting,
methods such as data envelopment analysis supervised
learning, and unsupervised learning has shown very out­
standing performance (Tavana et al., 2016). Furthermore,
machine learning can tolerate inaccuracies, uncertainty,
and imprecise information to achieve robustness when
replicating human decision-making behavior. These func­
tions not only solve the problem of scalability and rapidity,
but they also reduce the drawbacks of earlier approaches
and meet the demands of ever more difficult supplier net­
works (Sepehri, 2020). The developments of artificial intel­
ligence (AI) have drawn the attention of many researchers,
considering how they can be used in supplier risk manage­
ment (Abdulla et al., 2019; Batta, 2020; Mirkouei &
Haapala, 2014). However, as the amount of data that
needs to be processed expands the efficiency of the tradi­
tional methods decreases. Because of this, researchers came
up with several approaches such as machine learning, big
data analysis, and cloud computing that have a high cap­
ability to analyze and interpret enormous amounts of data.
To give this research a new dimension, we implemented
machine learning with the integration of SCOR 4.0
implemented.
The object of this research is to develop a machine
learning model-based supplier selection system with the
integration of the SCOR 4.0 model. First, we developed
a 3-level based SCOR 4.0 model to identify the supplier
performance related criterion and attributes for a local
pharmaceutical company. Secondly, To calculate the
weights of each attribute and criterion, BWM has been
used for all the 3 levels of the SCOR 4.0 model. Finally, we
implement a gradient boosting machine learning algo­
rithm to classify the supplier and find out the most poten­
tial supplier.
2. Literature review
2.1. SCOR model for supply chain performance
evaluation
Identifying relevant and appropriate criteria for supplier
performance assessment is one of the most challenging
parts of supplier selection (Alavi et al., 2021).
A company’s performance is heavily dependent on the
performance of its suppliers. For this, the evaluation of
a supplier’s performance for development should be
linked with the entire supply chain’s performance eva­
luation. The SCOR model is one way of performance
measurement of the supply chain that is frequently used
by practitioners. The Supply Chain Council (SCC)
established this model back in 1996, which provides
a hierarchy of performance evaluation criteria (Lima-
Junior & Carpinetti, 2016). Hwang et al. (2008) created
a SCOR model based on three-level performance
metrics to evaluate the supply chain process and
enhance the performance of sourcing. The researchers
used a regression model to examine the performance
metrics. Raut et al. (2012) suggested a hierarchical
approach based that incorporates AHP and Data
Envelopment Analysis (DEA) and considers both the
quantitative and qualitative factors for supplier selec­
tion. Authors suggested that the most likely candidates
for such programs are the highly efficient and low effi­
cient suppliers. Badi and Ballem (2018) used BWM for
supplier selection in the pharmaceutical supply chain in
Libya. The researchers considered five different criteria
such as cost, quality, supplier profile, flexibility, and
delivery for supplier selection. The study’s results
showed that price is the most important factor, followed
by quality in second place and the company’s profile in
third. Along the same line, Oroojeni Mohammad Javad
et al. (2020) implemented BWM to find the green sup­
plier Khouzestan Steel Company located in Iran. The
researchers proposed a three-step method that helps the
company decision-makers rank different suppliers and
choose the one with the best green innovations abilities.
With the right deployment of resources, these ven­
dors with efficient infrastructure could achieve high-
performance levels. In another research, Lu et al.
(2016) created a framework using the SCOR model for
evaluating the performance of humanitarian supply
chains. For performance evaluation, the researchers
developed a 14 metrics-based SCOR model addition to
this, numerous decision-making strategies for dealing
with the process of supplier evaluation, particularly in
the context of supplier selection, have been presented in
the relevant body of academic literature (Ayyildiz &
Taskin Gumus, 2021; Luitzen et al., 2001; Wendler-
Bosco & Nicholson, 2020; Wu & Barnes, 2018). Mañay
et al. (2022) used the SCOR model with the integration
of MCDM to assess the supply chain performance of the
Ecuadorian flower industry. The authors measure the
performance level of each construct and identified the
external factors that need to be improved. Jain et al.
(2022) used the SCOR model as the basic performance
evaluation hierarchy. In this research, the authors

assessed the sustainability performance of a company’s
e-waste supply chain to meet the sustainability goal. In
another research, Huang et al. (2021) applied Data DEA
and SCOR model to evaluate the operational efficiency
of ports. The authors analyzed the operational efficiency
of different key ports of different cities based on the
ship’s inward and outward. Along the same line, He and
Zhu (2022) developed a risk indicator system using
DEA and SCOR model for the elderly care service
industry to enhance risk management capabilities.
2.2. Machine learning for supplier selection
In recent years, a variety of strategies have emerged,
each based on a different set of criteria, to identify the
best possible suppliers. The MCDM approach is one of
the methods that is utilized the most frequently.
However, the drawback of existing multi-criteria sup­
plier selection and performance evaluation models for
development is the model itself. Methods such as the
Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), the Analytic
Network Process (ANP), and the Fuzzy Analytic
Hierarchy Process (Fuzzy AHP) are used in the majority
of the studies and these methods require decision-
makers to make judgments based on comparisons.
Even though these methods are good for dealing with
vague or qualitative information, they often restrict the
number of factors and suppliers that can be examined at
analyzed the same time (Park et al., 2010; Pilkington &
Mahmoud, 2016; Zeydan et al., 2011; Zhao et al., 2021).
With the rise of AI, ML has been used in several ways in
various domains of supply chain management, such as
selecting, evaluating, and developing resilient and sus­
tainable suppliers. Mirkouei and Haapala (2014) inves­
tigated how to choose the most suitable supplier for
a biomass supply chain by taking into account both
qualitative and quantitative aspects. The researchers
implemented Decision Tree (DT) for supplier classifica­
tion and Support Vector Machines (SVM) to identify
the potential supplier. Along the same line, Abdulla et
al., (2019) proposed a hybrid supplier selection model
by combining AHP and the machine learning model.
The researchers applied a DT classifier to classify the
good and bad suppliers. In another research, Cavalcante
et al. (2019) proposed a data-driven model combined
with a SML model for resilient supplier selection. The
findings imply that this model can be useful for identi­
fying portfolios of hidden, high-risk suppliers and for
prioritizing risk mitigation actions. Islam et al. (2021)
investigated the influences of forecasting methods on
supplier selection. The researchers suggested a model
with two stages for both the selection of suppliers and
the distribution of orders. They applied Relational
SUSTAINABLE AND RESILIENT INFRASTRUCTURE 3
Regressor Chain (RRC) method for better forecasting
accuracy and identification of suitable suppliers and
order quantities. In another research, Ayyildiz and
Taskin Gumus (2021) proposed a three-level based
SCOR 4.0 model for the evaluation of supply chain
performance. The researchers integrated hybrid BMW
and Pythagorean fuzzy AHP with the SCOR 4.0 model
to find out the weights of the metrics. Alavi et al. (2021)
proposed a model based on MCDM and machine learn­
ing for sustainable supplier selection under uncertainty.
The proposed decision support system can be used for
supplier risk assessment to manage uncertainties in the
field of health care, manufacturing, or other sectors.
Zhang et al. (2016) investigated the Ranking Neural
Network (RankNet) ML model for supplier evaluation
and selection as well. In their research, new suppliers
were taken into account for each customer order, even
when the customer placed multiple orders. The ML
model that was developed as a result of this research
improved with time because it was able to acquire
knowledge from previous experiences, and the more
data that was available, the simpler it became. A Multi-
Agent Systems (MASs) method has been proposed by
Ghadimi et al. (2019) to address sustainable supplier
performance evaluation and selection procedures.
These processes aim to establish an appropriate struc­
ture of communication channels, organized exchange of
information, and clarity among suppliers and manufac­
turers. In another research, Mustafa et al. (2020) imple­
mented several ML models such as artificial neural
network (ANN), DT classifier, bayesian classifiers, and
k-nearest neighbor (KNN). They developed a data set
consisting of 1000 supplier profiles and classify the data
using these ML models to identify the risky suppliers.
Along the same line, Sepehri (2020) This study pro­
posed a framework for predicting supplier future value
that incorporates contract history data, interpersonal
value, and supply network attributes for supplier selec­
tion and managing relationships. The researchers
implemented Clustering techniques and DT for supplier
performance evaluation, selection, and relationship
management.
The relevant literature on supplier selection used
in this research is mentioned in Table 1, followed by
existing research gaps and the contribution of this
research.
The above discussion shows that despite
a gradually growing body of knowledge on resilient
and sustainable supplier selection, till now no
research has used the integration of SCOR 4.0 and
ML approach together that focuses on assessing sup­
plier performance evaluation and selection. To bridge
this gap, we adopted the application of SCOR 4.0
4 M. D. M. KHAN ET AL.

and a supervised machine learning approach to rank
the supplier based on their profile and identify the
most potential suppliers. The adoption of SCOR 4.0
and gradient boosting machine learning model that
could rank the supplier based on their profile and
identify the most potential supplier. The contribution
of this study is summarized as follows:
● Integration SCOR 4.0, and machine learning
approach to select the best resilient and sustainable
supplier.
● Implementation of SCOR 4.0 to develop the assess­
ment framework of supply chain performance eva­
luation and customer satisfaction.
● Implementation of a supervised machine learning
model (gradient boosting) to rank the suppliers
and find out the best supplier.
● Demonstrate the efficacy of SCOR 4.0 integrated
ML approach in supply chain management.
3. Case study: pharmaceutical industry
In the pharmaceutical sector, the challenge of sus­
tainable supplier selection is crucial. Global business
organizations have become increasingly concerned
about the environmental impact of their manufactur­
ing and other practices during the past few decades.
Thus, sustainability factors are integrated into the
supplier selection process to create a green supplier
selection. This issue is enhanced by the fact that the
pharmaceutical sector is unique from other indus­
tries in that patient care is its primary objective
(Stević et al., 2020). Managing and selecting pharma­
ceutical raw materials, and supplies for vital
healthcare services has a significant impact on the
quality and form of patient care and accounts for
a significant proportion of supply chain expenses
(Ishizaka et al., 2022). Apart from that, the
COVID-19 pandemic’s severe shortage of essential
medical supplies created significant procurement dif­
ficulties in the healthcare supply chain. The discus­
sion on how to improve supply chain resilience in
healthcare has picked up steam because maintaining
the availability of such items during disruptions is
essential. Healthcare supply chains now have more
interdependencies and efficiency awareness due to
expanding demand, rising costs, and more competi­
tion. As a supply network’s complexity rises, risk also
does as well (Craighead et al., 2020; Hossain et al.,
2016). Hospitals across the world have been
impacted by the severe shortage of essential medical
supplies like personal protective equipment, ventila­
tion systems, and medicines for COVID-19 treat­
ment (Chamola et al., 2020). During this pandemic,
supply chain resilience is significantly impacted by
the purchasing decisions made by pharma companies
and medical supply manufacturers, as well as by
suppliers (Spieske et al., 2022). Considering these
concerns, we have chosen the pharmaceutical indus­
try as our research field.
4. Methodology of research
This section describes the detailed research methodol­
ogy of our approach. This research was conducted in
a structured way with several stages. The detailed
research methodology is presented in the following

Table 1. Summary of relevant themes in supplier selection literature.

Authors
Hwang et al. (2008)
Raut et al. (2012)
Lu et al. (2016)
Mañay et al. (2022)
Jain et al. (2022)
Huang et al. (2021)
He and Zhu (2022)
Mirkouei and Haapala (2014)
(Amindoust, 2018)
Abdulla et al., (2019)
Cavalcante et al. (2019)
(Amiri et al., 2020)
Islam et al. (2021)
Ayyildiz and Taskin Gumus (2021)
Alavi et al. (2021)
(Zhaoa et al., 2021)
(Ghamari et al., 2021)
(Zhang et al., 2016)
(Ghadimi et al., 2019)
(Mustafa et al., 2020)
(Sepehri, 2020)
Approach Area
Level 3 SCOR model Sourcing performance improvement
AHP and DEA Highly efficient and low efficient supplier identification.
14 metrics-based SCOR model Performance evaluation of humanitarian supply chains
AHP and SCOR model Supply chain performance of the floricultural
sector
MCDM and SCOR model Sustainable supply chain
Data envelopment analysis and SCOR model Operational efficiency evaluation of ports
Data envelopment analysis and SCOR model Elderly services supply chain
DT and SVM Supplier classification of a biomass supply chain network
Hybrid intelligent method Resilient and sustainable supplier selection
AHP and DT Supplier classification
Data driven model Identification of high-risk suppliers
Fuzzy BWM Sustainable supplier selection
Relational Regressor Chain (RRC) Supplier selection and order allocation.
Hybrid BMW and Pythagorean fuzzy AHP with SCOR 4.0 Supply chain evaluation
MCDM and Machine learning Supplier risk assessment
IVIKOR Resilient and sustainable supplier selection
MICMAC and MCDM Resilient and sustainable supplier selection
RankNet Supplier selection
Multi-agent systems Intelligent sustainable supplier selection
ANN, DT, KNN The risk profile of supplier’s identification
Clustering and DT Supplier selection and relationship
 SUSTAINABLE AND RESILIENT INFRASTRUCTURE 5

Figure 1 followed by a detailed description of each
phase.
4.1. Phase I: development of the SCOR 4.0 model
This section discusses the development strategies of the
SCOR 4.0 model for our research.
4.1.1. Data collection and analysis
Data collection and analysis include identification,
screening, eligibility, and final selection. The findings
were analyzed using a combination of theory-driven
and data-driven approaches. For our data collection,
a survey and interview were conducted with different
local industry experts, academicians, and researchers via
face-to-face and phone calls interviews. However,
regarding the inclusion and exclusion criteria, industry
experts work in the supply chain area for pharmaceu­
tical companies, while academic experts conduct exten­
sive research in this area are chosen. As a result, these
experts are capable of understanding supplier data, eva­
luation criteria, and selection criteria effectively.
A paper-based survey form was sent out to ten experts,
of which one was unwilling to participate, and three
have not completed the entire survey. Finally, we pro­
ceed with the survey input from six experts. These
experts have direct experience in the area of subject
interest as well as decent managerial experience (two
of them for a period of five years), while others have
extensive hands-on experience. Our experts have been
selected from a wide range of educational backgrounds
and with different levels of managerial and industry
experience to ensure that we take into account every
individual’s point of view in the selection process. This
resulted in a reduction in bias and was sufficient for the
purpose. Through their years of experience, the experts
in Table 2 are capable of figuring out which factors are
most important when choosing a supplier.
Figure 2 illustrates the strategy for the data collection
and analysis process. We collected data from different
local pharmaceutical companies, and academic and
industry experts. Initially, we received a screened data
set of 33 suppliers from different local suppliers of
a pharmaceutical company. We screened all the data
sets and excluded the data which were not closely
related to this research. In the next step, we evaluated
our existing data to check eligibility. We validated the
data by fitting it into a normal distribution. Finally, we
had a data set of 28 suppliers which were eligible for this
research.
4.1.2. Data validation
After data collection, we validated the data using the
normal distribution. In this phase, we evaluated the
eligibility of the gathered data using MINITAB statisti­
cal software and fit in the normal distribution. Here the
null hypothesis represents that data is normally distrib­
uted and the alternative hypothesis represents that data
is not normally distributed. We used the p value from
the normal distribution of every distinct criterion.

Phase I: Develop SCOR 4.0 Model

• Identify the factors for the SCOR 4.0 model factors based on literature
analysis and expert
• Data collection, analysis and validation
• Create a three level metrics for the pharmacutical company

Phase II: Implementation of Best Worst Method (BWM)

• Asessing the weights of the criterion of each of metrics

• Find out which criteria are the most important (Best) and which are the
least important (Worst)

Phase III: Implementation of Machine Learning Model

• Selection of supervised machine learning model

• Implementation of gradient boosting algorithm

Phase IV: Results Analysis

• Conduct analysis based on the output of machine learning model

• Ranking of the supplier based on the accepatance score

Figure 1. Research methodology.

6 M. D. M. KHAN ET AL.

Table 2. Supply chain expert’s profiles from industry and improve the efficiency of their supply networks and give
academia. a process-based way to measure the performance of the
Level of Managerial Industry experience supply chain (Ayyildiz & Taskin Gumus, 2021). Plan,
Experts education experience (Years) (Years)
Expert 1 PhD 2 5
Source, Make, Deliver, and Return are the five manage­
Expert 2 Masters 7 13 ment processes that makeup SCOR which are further
Expert 3 Masters 5 10 broken down into categories, elements, tasks, and activ­
Expert 4 Masters 1 5
Expert 5 Bachelors 0 3 ities. In addition, performance attributes and metrics
Expert 6 Bachelors 0 2 are the two types of components that comprise the
performance section of the SCOR model.
A performance attribute is a compilation of metrics
A statistically significant result is one with a p-value
that are utilized in the process of describing a strategy,
greater than 0.05, in that case, the null hypothesis is
whereas an attribute is utilized in the process of evalu­
accepted which means the alternative hypothesis is
ating the objectives of a strategy (Ayyildiz & Taskin
rejected. As we have a total of 41 criteria, all p-values
Gumus, 2021). Figure 3 shows the visual representation
were determined individually. We have found all our
of the SCOR model.
p-value to be greater than 0.05, which signifies that the
We identified the performance attributes and devel­
given data is normally distributed.
oped a 3-level based SCOR 4.0 model for the pharma­
ceutical industry from a detailed literature review and
4.1.3. Create SCOR 4.0 model face-to-face interviews with academic and industry
The SCOR model is a screening tool for supply chain experts. Table 3 shows the 3 levels SCOR 4.0 model
performance management. It helps users understand where level 1 defines the process that is used to describe
how an organization runs its business and figure out the high-level configuration in a supply chain and level 2
which parts are most important to better customer differentiates the level 1 process based on strategies and
experience and satisfaction (Munson & Santa-Eulalia, tactics. Finally, the level 3 processes represent the step
2014). In 1996, the Supply Chain Council (SCC) came needed to be performed to accomplish the level 2
up with the idea of the SCOR model to help businesses process.

Figure 2. Strategy for data collection and analysis process.


Figure 3. Framework of SCOR model (Zangoueinezhad et al., 2011).
4.2. Phase II: implementation of best worst method
(BWM)
This section discusses the detailed implementation pro­
cedure of BWM for this research work.
4.2.1. Best worst method (BWM)
Rezaei (2015) introduced BWM as an MCDM approach
for calculating the weight of each criterion by minimiz­
ing the number of pairwise comparisons between cri­
teria and inconsistent preferences. It is also possible to
Figure 4. Supplier selection using machine learning (Cavalcante et al., 2019).
SUSTAINABLE AND RESILIENT INFRASTRUCTURE 7
use it to determine the importance weights of the cri­
teria that are employed in the stages of a problem. BWM
can also be applied to the solution of a variety of deci­
sion-making issues arising in the real world, including
those of business, healthcare, and engineering. In the­
ory, this strategy can be applied in any situation in
which the objective is to rank a group of options and
pick one of those rankings as the best option (Pamučar
et al., 2020). In this research, we chose BWM because of
its calculation flexibilities and decision-making
properties.
8 M. D. M. KHAN ET AL.

Table 3. SCOR 4.0 model for the pharmaceutical industry.

Level 1 metric Level 2 metric Level 3 metric
Reliability Quality Quality Certifications
Product specification
Defect percentage
Packaging and labeling
Transportation quality
Research, development, and innovation
Accuracy Order fulfillment
Delivery performance
Document accuracy
Flexibility Delivery On-time delivery
Deliver proper quantities Safe Delivery
Responsiveness Cycle time Delivery cycle time
Source cycle time
Delivery retail cycle time
Quantity supplied Supply type
Lead time
Cost Transportation cost Shipping
Material cost Mode of transaction
Price
Financial status Previous record
Digital technology Ability Dynamism
Collaboration
Method Digital marketing
Artificial intelligence
Other methods
Systems Facility
Applicability Consistency
Information systems Integration Integrated database
Integrated interface
Partner integration
Content Data management
Tactical level
Documentation Supplier information
Delivery documentation
Qualification and validation
Certification
Services Customer relationship management Communication process
Tracking management system
After sales service Warranty
Return policy

To determine the weight of the criteria for the ML
model, we applied BWM to all three levels of the SCOR
4.0 model. The steps for finding the weights of each
criterion are given below.
Step 1: Determine the set of decision criteria (C1, C2,
C3, . . . . . . Cn).
Step 2: Identify the Most Important (Best) and Least
Important (Worst) criteria.
Step 3: Make a pairwise linguistic comparison using
the linguistic scale as shown in Table 1. Table 4 shows
the scales of linguistic terms and constructs the best to
another vector, AB = (AB1, AB2, AB3 . . . . ABn) where ABj
represents the level of importance of the most impor­
tant criteria B over criterion j (Ayyildiz & Taskin
Gumus, 2021).
Step 4: Similarly, to Step 3, make a pairwise compar­
ison with the worst criterion to the other criterion and
develop the others to the worst vector.
Aw ¼ ðA1W ; A2W ; . . . . . . . . . :AnW ÞT
where Aiw shows the level of importance of criterion
j over the least important criterion W (Ayyildiz &
Taskin Gumus, 2021).
Step 5: Determine the optimal weight of each of the
criteria (W1, W2, W3, . . .. . . . . .Wn). The main objective
of Step 5 is to find the optimal weights �of the criteria
� to
�WB �
maximize
� � the disparity between � Wj A Bj � and
� Wj �
�WB AjW � have to be minimized. The following math­
ematical problem can be constructed by incorporating
nonnegative constraints as well as the constraint for the
Table 4. Linguistic scale for best worst method (BWM).
Numbers Linguistic Term
1 Equally importance
2 Weakly importance
3 Moderately importance
4 Very importance
5 Absolutely importance
6 Strongly importance
7 Strongly plus importance
8 Very strong importance
9 Extreme importance

total sum of all weights (Ayyildiz & Taskin Gumus,
2021).
This mathematical model can be represented as
Equation (1) as follows:
min �
Subject to
8 Pn
> W ¼1
>
> � � j
j¼1
>
> �WB � Table 6. Weight of level 1 criterion.
>
< �� Wj ABj �� � � ; for all j
� Wj � (1)
>
> �WB AjW � � � ; for all j
>
> EX
>
> Wj � 0; for all j
: RES
4.2.2. Calculation of the weights of the criterion
As stated earlier, we applied BWM to find the optimal
weights and rank of the criterion. To rank this type of
large matrix, each level needs to be weighted. In this
study, first, we found out the weights of the level 1
criterion both from industry and academic experts and
reviewed the survey data to find out the importance of
each criterion in terms of weightage. After that, we
followed the weight calculation steps of BWM men­
tioned in section 4.2.1 both for level 2 and level 3,
respectively. We needed at least three criteria in the
MCDM models to find out the weights. But in our
level 2, we had some metrics where the criteria are
only 2. In that case, we took expert opinions. Table 5
shows the terms used in level 1. The glossary of level 2
and level 3 metrics are given in Table A1 in the appendix
section.
After the implementation of BWM for level 1 metrics,
We obtained the weights for REL, FLEX, RES, COS, DT,
IS, SER as 0.26087, 0.156522, 0.015622, 0.078261,
0.026087, 0.034783, 0.286957 respectively. We also got
the value of �� for level 1 matrices as 0.05217. Table 6
represents the weight of the criteria of level 1 metrics.
Table 7 shows the final weights of the SCOR 4.0 model.
A ranking was also done to find out the best and most
important criteria in each of the groups of metrics.
4.3. Phase III: implementation of machine learning
model
This section discusses the selection and implementation
of the ML model in this research.
4.3.1. Gradient boosting machine learning (ML)
model
Machine Learning (ML) is a popular topic right
now for businesses looking for novel ways to use
SUSTAINABLE AND RESILIENT INFRASTRUCTURE 9
Table 5. Glossary of level 1 metric.
Abbreviation Elaboration
REL Reliability
FLEX Flexibility
RES Responsiveness
COS Cost
DT Digital Technology
IS Information Systems
SER Service
Level 1 Weight
REL 0.2608
0.1565
0.1565
COS 0.0782
DT 0.0260
IS 0.0347
SER 0.2869
� 0.0521
data to improve their operations. Companies can
forecast market changes with the help of machine
learning and can ensure that the forecasts are cor­
rect and updated by constantly receiving new data
(Judith & Daniel, 2018). Many different algorithms
are used in machine learning to improve operations
and explain information with possible outputs. The
ML model learns to predict the output using the
training data. After the model has been trained, it
will respond to specific input by returning the
desired output when that input is given (Allgurin
& Filip, 2018). The ML model is broken into three
major parts. The first part is the decision process,
where the model inputs some labeled or unlabeled
data (Zhang, 2017). Based on these data, it predicts
a pattern for their decision-making process.
Followed by a decision process, an error function
helps the model rectify the error and store necessary
information in the memory to assist in future deci­
sion-making (Batta, 2020). An example of supplier
selection using machine learning is illustrated in
Figure 4.
In this research, we selected the gradient boosting
ML model because it uses advanced regularization that
helps to improve model generalization abilities.
Gradient boosting is a highly effective scalable end-to-
end tree boosting system and a widely used ML method.
The concept of boosting came from the sense that
a weak learner can be improved (Bentéjac et al., 2021;
Dorogush et al., 2018). Apart from that, if the iterative
approach is not appropriately regularized, this algo­
rithm may undergo from over-fitting (Bentéjac et al.,
2021). The attributes of gradient boosting are listed
below.
10 M. D. M. KHAN ET AL.
● Learning rate
● Depth (maximum) of the tree
● The rate of subsampling for random samples size
● Number of features
● The minimum of samples needed to segment an
internal node
Algorithm 1 Represents the gradient boosting
pseudo code that we have implemented in this
research.
4.4. Phase IV: results analysis
In this section, the experiment results are presented and
discussed with suitable illustrations.
4.4.1. Confusion matrix of gradient boosting
The confusion matrix visualizes the performance of
a classification model. Figure 5 shows a 2 × 2 confusion
matrix for the gradient boosting algorithm. Here we had
a total of 12 predicted values that aligned the actual value
for true positive (TP) and true negative (TN). One data
point was falsely predicted for the Gradient Boosting
Algorithm 1. Gradient boosting.
algorithm. This false positive value causes Type-I error
due to the prediction of the opposite sign datapoint. The
model predicted one opposite signed value, whereas there
was no false negative (FN) value which means no value
was falsely predicted.
4.4.2. Ranking of the suppliers
As discussed earlier, we applied the gradient boosting
ML algorithm to find out the acceptance score of the
suppliers. To prevent our model from overfitting, we
divided the train and test dataset into a 70:30 ratio
(Roshan et al., 2022). We also applied feature extraction
and feature selection to increase the accuracy of the
model, eliminate redundant data and boost the learning
process. Initially, we fitted our supplier data in a data
frame and fitted X and Y with the supplier ratings and
the ranking of the criteria obtained from BWM shown
in Table 7. We fitted the X and Y training dataset with
the gradient boosting classifier with an ‘n’ estimator of
10 and a random state of 30. After finally fitting the
model, the feature importance was determined between
the supplier ratings and the rank of the BWM. In this
way get the feature importance score, which shows how
the data are related compared to all the suppliers. Now
in our case, as the rank was used for the training dataset,
the less the score the better the supplier is. To visualize
 SUSTAINABLE AND RESILIENT INFRASTRUCTURE 11

Table 7. Final weight calculation using BWM.

Level 1 Weight Rank Level 2 Weight Level 3 Weight Final weight Rank
REL 0.2608 2 Quality 0.3917 REL1 0.13819 0.01412 7
REL2 0.20728 0.02118 4
REL3 0.20728 0.02118 5
REL4 0.08291 0.00847 8
REL5 0.33291 0.03401 3
REL6 0.03140 0.00320 9
Accuracy 0.6083 REL7 0.27272 0.04327 2
REL8 0.63636 0.10098 1
REL9 0.09090 0.01442 6
EX 0.1565 4 Delivery 0.5009 FLEX1 0.6287 0.04929 2
FLEX2 0.3713 0.02911 3
Deliver proper quantities 0.4991 FLEX3 1.0 0.07811 1
RES 0.1565 3 Cycle time 0.4125 RES1 0.68 0.04390 2
RES2 0.24 0.01549 4
RES3 0.08 0.00516 5
Quality supplied 0.5875 RES4 0.5388 0.04954 1
RES5 0.4612 0.04241 3
COS 0.0782 5 Transportation cost 0.1 COS1 1.0 0.00783 4
Material cost 0.75 COS2 0.51943 0.03048 1
COS3 0.48056 0.02821 2
Financial status 0.15 COS4 1.0 0.01173 3
DT 0.0260 7 Ability 0.4358 DT1 0.55095 0.00626 2
DT2 0.44904 0.00510 3
Method 0.0769 DT3 0.79259 0.00159 5
DT4 0.14074 0.00028 6
DT5 0.06666 0.00013 7
Systems 0.4872 DT6 0.29606 0.00376 4
DT7 0.70393 0.00894 1
IS 0.0347 6 Integration 0.0666 IS1 0.08333 0.00019 9
IS2 0.17857 0.00041 8
IS3 0.73809 0.00171 6
Content 0.55 IS4 0.5408 0.01034 1
IS5 0.4592 0.00878 2
Documentation 0.3833 IS6 0.04166 0.00055 7
IS7 0.33333 0.00444 4
IS8 0.41666 0.00555 3
IS9 0.20833 0.00277 5
SER 0.2869 1 Customer relationship management 0.3484 SER1 0.6333 0.06331 3
SER2 0.3667 0.03666 4
After-sales service 0.6515 SER3 0.4598 0.08596 2
SER4 0.5402 0.10099 1

the result, we converted the score to an acceptance score normalized the acceptance score within the range of 0
which made it easy for us to understand that the highest to 1, where 1 represents the best supplier. Table 8 shows
weight is the best supplier. Furthermore, we have the supplier’s acceptance score for the gradient boosting

Figure 5. Confusion matrix of gradient boosting algorithm.

12 M. D. M. KHAN ET AL.

Table 8. Acceptance score for gradient boosting.

Supplier (S) Weight Rank Supplier (S) Weight Rank
S20 1.0 1 S4 0.963368 14
S3 1.0 1 S8 0.962932 15
S27 0.991008 2 S2 0.962827 16
S17 0.983849 3 S26 0.962017 17
S13 0.982626 4 S11 0.957659 18
S28 0.979898 5 S6 0.955517 19
S25 0.976302 6 S18 0.955432 20
S23 0.974312 7 S10 0.952034 21
S16 0.973968 8 S1 0.951576 22
S24 0.972216 9 S5 0.94989 23
S14 0.971372 10 S22 0.946033 24
S19 0.969882 11 S15 0.942426 25
S7 0.969348 12 S12 0.928714 26
S9 0.965242 13 S21 0.89955 27

algorithm and the acceptance scores in descending
order.
5. Discussion of the results
The section provides an explanation and interpretation
of the results by comparing them with the previous
studies. Previously many research works have been con­
ducted where the SCOR model with the integration of
MCDM has been used for supplier selection and very
few research works have been performed only using
machine learning techniques for supplier selection and
performance evaluation. Previously Wilson et al. (2020)
implemented random forest and Zhao et al. (2021) used
K fold cross-validation machine learning algorithm for
supplier selection. In this perspective, the proposed
model in this paper is the first unified approach, where
the SCOR 4.0 model with the integration of gradient
boosting machine learning algorithm has been imple­
mented for supplier selection. In this research, we con­
sidered 28 different raw material suppliers of a local
pharmaceutical company. For this, we grouped the
main criterion of the suppliers under 7 categories
which are reliability, flexibility, cost, responsiveness,
digital technology, information systems, and services.
Extra metrics, such as digital technology and informa­
tion systems, are included in the SCOR model to con­
struct the SCOR 4.0 model with a hierarchical metric
framework. The BWM has been used to determine the
most and least important criteria of the SCOR 4.0
model. We developed the level 1 metrics based on relia­
bility, flexibility, cost, responsiveness, digital technol­
ogy, information systems, and services. Level 2 and
level 3 metrics have been developed based on level 1
metrics. As discussed earlier, we used BWM to find out
the weights of level 2 and level 3 metrics. For this
purpose, we used 9 different linguistic variables to per­
form the pairwise comparison between the criterion of
each level of metrics. After the final weightage
calculation for the criterion of each level of metrics, we
applied the gradient boosting ML algorithm to rank the
supplier. Table 8 represents the acceptance scores and
the rank of the 28 suppliers in descending order. From
Table 8, we can also evaluate the performance of the
suppliers. Among all the 28 suppliers, Supplier number
20 (S20) and supplier number 3 (S3) ranked at the
position of 1 with an acceptance score of 1.0. So, we
can conclude that S21 and S3 are the best performing
supplier. Apart from that, Supplier number 21 (S21)
ranked 27 with an acceptance score of 0.89955, which
represents the weakest performed supplier among all the
28 suppliers. To measure the performance of our imple­
mented gradient boosting model, we have calculated the
accuracy and error rate of our algorithm from the con­
fusion matrix. Figure 5 shows the values of true positive
= 5, false positive = 1, false negative = 0, and true nega­
tive = 6. So, our implemented gradient boosting model
has an accuracy of 91.6% in supplier selection and the
error rate is 8.4%. The performance calculation of gra­
dient boosting algorithm of our research has shown in
Table A2 in the appendix section. Sepehri (2020) used
the K fold cross-validation machine learning technique
for supplier selection, where the researchers were able to
achieve 92.83% accuracy. Because their dataset was lar­
ger compared to ours. However, in our study, we were
able to achieve the precession percentage of 83.33%
which measures the correctly predicted number of sup­
pliers, whereas the precision percentage achieved by
(Sepehri, 2020) was 70.1%. The findings of the experi­
ment demonstrate that using SCOR 4.0 in combination
with machine learning can assist in identifying risk-free
suppliers based on any supplier dataset. The decision-
makers in charge of policy can acquire evaluations of
which suppliers or combinations of suppliers are the
most critical in terms of the risks and can impact supply
chain performance. Therefore, the implementation of
resilient and sustainable supplier selection in conjunc­
tion with artificial intelligence-based decision-making

strategies has the capability of composing a reliable sys­
tem of supplier selection in any manufacturing
environment.
6. Implications
This section discusses the implications of this research
from theoretical, practical, and company perspectives.
6.1. Theoretical contribution and practical
implication
This investigation has several implications for supplier
development strategies. The primary objective of sup­
plier development is to identify prospective suppliers
who can enhance a company’s past performance and
future capabilities. Firstly, machine learning can
improve supply chain risk management methods
because it permits the minimization of complexities
in risk management models through the analysis of
historical data and predicted outcomes, which can sub­
stitute a variety of simplifying hypotheses. Secondly,
because the proposed model is based on a process of
learning, it has the potential to make the decision-
making process more flexible and can dynamically
analyze previous data to make better decisions.
Finally, the methodologies illustrated in this cannot
only can improve existing connections but also
uncover potentially high-value partnerships in
a supplier network based on historical patterns of pro­
files and value outcomes. Compared to the existing
literature on resilient and sustainable supplier selec­
tion, this study appears to be the first to use SCOR
4.0 and machine learning to select the most potential
supplier. This study also demonstrates the effectiveness
and scalability of machine learning in the domain of
supply chain management. The methodology presented
in this research has academic as well as industrial uses.
The insights gained from this artificial intelligence-
based setting show both the flexibility and power of
machine learning techniques for making decisions in
supplier management that are flexible and proactive.
Companies can be more efficient with their resource
allocation when they have a clear understanding of
their suppliers’ different profiles and divide them into
groups that are easy to manage. Additionally, this
methodology can be applied in a variety of industrial
scenarios that can assist policymaker’s intake decisions
while taking into account the choice of suppliers under
diverse circumstances. In addition, humanitarian orga­
nizations operating mostly in distant places can gain
direct insights from this study’s findings. In
SUSTAINABLE AND RESILIENT INFRASTRUCTURE 13
conclusion, the proposed methodology contributes sig­
nificantly to academic and industrial environments.
6.2. Implication for company executives and
policymakers
This research demonstrates an in-depth insight into
choosing the most potential suppliers for
a pharmaceutical company. This research will help pol­
icymakers in an organization determine which potential
suppliers can be included in their supply chain. This
study’s methodology will be a useful resource for deci­
sion-makers seeking to comprehend the impact of
diverse supplier selection criteria and sub-criteria. This
snapshot would act as a standard for firms in the same
field and can enhance the company’s overall growth and
future capabilities. The methodologies described in this
study give a lens for purchasing corporations to not only
strengthen existing connections but also to uncover
potentially high-value partnerships in a supplier net­
work based on historical profiles and performance out­
comes of any supplier.
7. Conclusion and future works
With the advancement of globalization, it is becoming
increasingly apparent that the supply chain must incor­
porate resilience to gain a sustainable competitive ben­
efit. The interconnected imperatives of resilience to
disruption and sustainability in evaluating and selecting
suppliers’ performance have become a serious strategic
problem. In recent years, environmental pressures have
made the supply chain and its management essential for
organizations to remain competitive in the marketplace.
However, a company’s supply chain is exposed to
a greater number of risks, including those posed by
nature, humans, and technology. These risks include
pandemics, floods, earthquakes, accidents involving
transportation, labor strikes, and terrorist attacks.
These disasters cause supply chain disruptions, which
are detrimental to organizations due to lost productiv­
ity, revenue, competitive advantage, profitability, etc. To
protect the buyer from shortages and disruptions, it is
essential to implement a resilient supply chain strategy
for supplier selection. The fundamental objective of this
investigation is to develop a model that incorporates
a novel method for the selection of resilient and sustain­
able suppliers. The proposed methodology is divided
into two phases. At the very first, the SCOR 4.0 model
was created and the evaluation criteria’s relative weights
were solved by using BWM. The final weights of those
criteria are then employed to rank the best and the most
important criteria of each of the group metrics. In
14 M. D. M. KHAN ET AL.
the second phase, the gradient boosting ML algorithm is
implemented to rank the supplier based on the criteria
of the group metrics. The cognitive ambiguity of experts
can be collected separately and then added to the model,
which is one of the advantages of the hybrid method.
The SCOR model is more flexible when it comes to
processing information, which is another competitive
advantage of the method shown.
In this research, there are some limitations. We have
considered the supplier only related to pharmaceutical
sectors. So, in the future other sectors can be explored.
Apart from that, we have applied only a gradient boost­
ing algorithm for supplier ranking. In the future,
researchers can combine the proposed model with
other Machine learning algorithms like Random Forest
(RF), Decision Tree (DT), Support Vector Machine
(SVM), etc. Additionally, the usage of rule-based sys­
tems learning algorithms such as deep learning
approaches, which could be useful in identifying numer­
ous causalities and enhancing model performance,
would also be advantageous.
Disclosure statement
The Coalition for Disaster Resilient Infrastructure (CDRI)
reviewed the anonymised abstract of the article, but had no
role in the peer review process nor the final editorial decision.
Funding
The Article Publishing Charge (APC) for this article is funded
by the Coalition for Disaster Resilient Infrastructure (CDRI).
Notes on contributors
Md Muzahid Khan is a Lecturer in the Department of
Military Institute of Science and Technology, Dhaka,
Bangladesh. His research interests include supply chain man­
agement, sustainability quantification, healthcare and
machine learning.
Imranul Bashar completed his bachelor's in Industrial and
Production Engineering from the Military Institute of Science
and Technology, Dhaka, Bangladesh. His research interests
include supply chain management, machine learning, and
healthcare.
Golam Morshed Minhaj completed his bachelor's in
Industrial and Production Engineering from the Military
Institute of Science and Technology, Dhaka, Bangladesh. His
research interests include supply chain analytics and
healthcare.
Absar Ishraq Wasi completed his bachelor's in Industrial and
Production Engineering from the Military Institute of Science
and Technology, Dhaka, Bangladesh. His research interests
include supplier management, data science, and optimization.
Niamat Ullah Ibne Hossain is an assistant professor in the
Department of Engineering Management at Arkansas State
University, USA. His main research interests include machine
learning, model-based systems engineering (MBSE)/SysML,
data analytics, systems dynamics simulation, and systems
resilience, risk & sustainability management.
ORCID
Niamat Ullah Ibne Hossain http://orcid.org/0000-0002-
6775-585X
References
Abdulla, A., Baryannis, G., & Badi, I. (2019). Weighting the
key features affecting supplier selection using machine
learning techniques. International Conference on
Transport and Logistics. University of Niš. December, 1–6.
https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints201912.0154.v1
Alavi, B., Tavana, M., & Mina, H. (2021). A dynamic decision
support system for sustainable supplier selection in circu­
lar economy. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 27
(February), 905–920. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2021.
02.015
Allgurin, A., & Filip, K. (2018). Exploring machine learning
for supplier selection-A case study at bufab Sweden AB.
1–81.
Amindoust, A. (2018). A resilient-sustainable based supplier
selection model using a hybrid intelligent method.
Computers & Industrial Engineering, 126(September),
122–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2018.09.031
Amiri, M., Hashemi-Tabatabaei, M., Ghahremanloo, M.,
Keshavarz-Ghorabaee, M., Zavadskas, E. K., &
Banaitis, A. (2020). A new fuzzy BWM approach for eval­
uating and selecting a sustainable supplier in supply chain
management. International Journal of Sustainable
Development and World Ecology, 00(00), 1–18. https://doi.
org/10.1080/13504509.2020.1793424
Ayyildiz, E., & Taskin Gumus, A. (2021). Interval-valued
pythagorean fuzzy AHP method-based supply chain per­
formance evaluation by a new extension of SCOR model:
SCOR 4.0. Complex & Intelligent Systems, 7(1), 559–576.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40747-020-00221-9
Badi, I., & Ballem, M. (2018). Supplier selection using rough
bwm-mairca model : A case study in pharmaceutical sup­
plying in libya. Decision Making: Applications in
Management and Engineering, 1(2), 1–18. https://doi.org/
10.31181/dmame1802016b
Batta, M. (2020). Machine learning algorithms - a review.
International Journal of Science and Research (IJ interna­
tional Journal of Science and Research (IJ, 9(1), 381. https://
doi.org/10.21275/ART20203995
Bentéjac, C., Csörgő, A., & Martínez-Muñoz, G. (2021).
A comparative analysis of gradient boosting algorithms.
In Artificial Intelligence Review (Vol. 54, Issue 3). Springer
Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10462-020-09896-5
Cavalcante, I. M., Frazzon, E. M., Forcellini, F. A., &
Ivanov, D. (2019). A supervised machine learning approach
to data-driven simulation of resilient supplier selection in
digital manufacturing. International Journal of Information

Management, 49, 86–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijin
fomgt.2019.03.004
Chamola, V., Hassija, V., Gupta, V., & Guizani, M. (2020).
A comprehensive review of the COVID-19 pandemic and
the role of IoT, drones, AI, blockchain, and 5G in managing
its impact. IEEE Access, 8, 90225–90265. https://doi.org/10.
1109/ACCESS.2020.2992341
Craighead, C. W., Ketchen, D. J., & Darby, J. L. (2020).
Pandemics and supply chain management research:
Toward a theoretical toolbox*. Decision Sciences, 51(4),
838–866. https://doi.org/10.1111/DECI.12468
Delipinar, G. E., & Kocaoglu, B. (2016). Using SCOR model to
gain competitive advantage: A literature review. Procedia -
Social and Behavioral Sciences, 229, 398–406. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.07.150
Didier, M., Broccardo, M., Esposito, S., & Stojadinovic, B.
(2018). A compositional demand/supply framework to
quantify the resilience of civil infrastructure systems
(Re-CoDes). Sustainable and Resilient Infrastructure, 3(2),
86–102. https://doi.org/10.1080/23789689.2017.1364560
Dorogush, A. V., Ershov, V., & Gulin, A. (2018). CatBoost:
Gradient boosting with categorical features support. https://
doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1810.11363
Es-Satty, A., Lemghari, R., & Okar, C. (2020). Supply chain
digitalization overview SCOR model implication. 2020 13th
International Colloquium of Logistics and Supply Chain
Management, LOGISTIQUA 2020, 2–4. https://doi.org/10.
1109/LOGISTIQUA49782.2020.9353936
Ghadimi, P., Wang, C., Lim, M. K., & Heavey, C. (2019).
Intelligent sustainable supplier selection using multi-agent
technology: Theory and application for industry 4.0 supply
chains. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 127
(September 2018), 588–600. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.
2018.10.050
Ghamari, R., Mahdavi-Mazdeh, M., & Ghannadpour, S. F.
(2021). Resilient and sustainable supplier selection via
a new framework: A case study from the steel industry. In
Environment, development and sustainability (Vol. 24,
Issue 8). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10668-021-01872-5
He, J., & Zhu, J. (2022). Evaluation on risk factors of elderly
services from the perspective of integrated SCOR model.
International Journal of Information Systems in the Service
Sector, 14(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJISSS.
2022010102
Hossain, N. U. I., Nur, F., & Jaradat, R. M. (2016). An analy­
tical study of hazards and risks in the shipbuilding industry.
In Proceedings of the international annual conference of the
American society for engineering management (pp. 1–8).
American Society for Engineering Management.
Huang, T., Chen, Z., Wang, S., & Jiang, D. (2021). Efficiency
evaluation of key ports along the 21st-century maritime silk
road based on the DEA–SCOR model. Maritime Policy &
Management, 48(3), 378–390. https://doi.org/10.1080/
03088839.2020.1773558
Hwang, Y. D., Lin, Y. C., & Lyu, J. (2008). The performance
evaluation of SCOR sourcing process—the case study of
Taiwan’s TFT-LCD industry. International Journal of
Production Economics, 115(2), 411–423. https://doi.org/10.
1016/J.IJPE.2007.09.014
Ishizaka, A., Khan, S. A., Kheybari, S., & Zaman, S. I. (2022).
Supplier selection in closed loop pharma supply chain:
SUSTAINABLE AND RESILIENT INFRASTRUCTURE 15
A novel BWM–GAIA framework. Annals of Operations
Research. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-022-04710-7
Islam, S., Amin, S. H., & Wardley, L. J. (2021). Machine
learning and optimization models for supplier selection
and order allocation planning. International Journal of
Production Economics, 242, 108315. https://doi.org/10.
1016/J.IJPE.2021.108315
Jain, V., Kumar, S., Mostofi, A., & Arab Momeni, M. (2022).
Sustainability performance evaluation of the E-waste
closed-loop supply chain with the SCOR model. Waste
Management, 147, 36–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
WASMAN.2022.05.010
Judith, H., & Daniel, K. (2018). Machine learning for
dummies. Journal of the American Society for Information
Science, 35(5). https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.4630350509
Lima-Junior, F. R., & Carpinetti, L. C. R. (2016). Combining
SCOR® model and fuzzy TOPSIS for supplier evaluation
and management. International Journal of Production
Economics, 174, 128–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.
2016.01.023
Lu, Q., Goh, M., & De Souza, R. (2016). A SCOR framework to
measure logistics performance of humanitarian
organizations. Journal of Humanitarian Logistics and
Supply Chain Management, 6(2), 222–239. https://doi.org/
10.1108/JHLSCM-09-2015-0038
Luitzen, D. B., Eva, L., & Pierangela, M. (2001). A review of
methods supporting supplier selection. European Journal of
Purchasing & Supply Management, 80(3), 66–73. https://
doi.org/10.1002/ad.1077
Mañay, L. O. R., Guaita-Pradas, I., & Marques-Perez, I.
(2022). Measuring the supply chain performance of the
floricultural sector using the SCOR model and
a multicriteria decision-making method. Horticulturae, 8
(2), 168. https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae8020168
Mirkouei, A., & Haapala, K. R. (2014). Integration of machine
learning and mathematical programming methods into the
biomass feedstock supplier selection process. FAIM 2014 -
Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on Flexible
Automation and Intelligent Manufacturing: Capturing
Competitive Advantage via Advanced Manufacturing and
Enterprise Transformation, January, 443–450. https://doi.
org/10.14809/faim.2014.0443
Munson, A. D., & Santa-Eulalia, L. A. D. (2014). A Systematic
literature review of the supply chain operations reference
(SCOR) model application with special attention to envrionn­
mental issues a systematic literature review of the supply
chain operations reference (SCOR) model application with
spec. January. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.3618.7606
Mustafa, S. K., Engin, E., Belkız, T., & Turan, P. (2020).
Supplier selection with machine learning algorithms.
Logistics 4 0, (Issue December 2020). https://doi.org/10.
1201/9780429327636-3
Nazim, R., & Yaacob, R. A. I. R. (2017). Criteria for supplier
selection: An application of AHP-SCOR integrated model
(ASIM). International Journal of Supply Chain
Management, 6(3), 284–290.
Oroojeni Mohammad Javad, M., Darvishi, M., & Oroojeni
Mohammad Javad, A. (2020). Green supplier selection for
the steel industry using BWM and fuzzy TOPSIS: A case
study of Khouzestan steel company. Sustainable Futures, 2
(October 2019), 100012. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sftr.2020.
100012
16 M. D. M. KHAN ET AL.
Pamučar, D., Ecer, F., Cirovic, G., & Arlasheedi, M. A. (2020).
Application of improved best worst method (BWM) in
real-world problems. Mathematics, 8(8), 1342. https://doi.
org/10.3390/MATH8081342
Park, J., Shin, K., Chang, T. W., & Park, J. (2010). An inte­
grative framework for supplier relationship management.
Industrial Management & Data Systems, 110(4), 495–515.
https://doi.org/10.1108/02635571011038990
Pilkington, S. F., & Mahmoud, H. N. (2016). Using artificial
neural networks to forecast economic impact of
multi-hazard hurricane-based events. Sustainable and
Resilient Infrastructure, 1(1–2), 63–83. https://doi.org/10.
1080/23789689.2016.1179529
Raut, R. D., Bhasin, H. V., & Kamble, S. S. (2012). Supplier
selection using integrated multi-criteria decision-making
methodology. International Journal of Operational
Research, 13(4), 359–394. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJOR.
2012.046223
Rezaei, J. (2015). Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making
method. Omega, 53, 49–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
OMEGA.2014.11.009
Roshan, V., Stewart, J. H. M., Joseph, R., & Stewart, H. M.
(2022). Optimal ratio for data splitting. Stat Anal Data Min:
The ASA Data Sci Journal, 15(4), 15. https://doi.org/10.
1002/sam.11583
Sepehri, S. (2020). Supplier selection and relationship man­
agement : An application of machine learning techniques.
Ontario, Canada: Brock University. https://dr.library.
brocku.ca/handle/10464/14831
Spieske, A., Gebhardt, M., Kopyto, M., & Birkel, H. (2022).
Improving resilience of the healthcare supply chain in
a pandemic: Evidence from Europe during the COVID-19
crisis. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, 28
(5), 100748. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.PURSUP.2022.
100748
Stević, Ž., Pamučar, D., Puška, A., & Chatterjee, P. (2020).
Sustainable supplier selection in healthcare industries using
a new MCDM method: Measurement of alternatives and
ranking according to COmpromise solution (MARCOS).
Computers & Industrial Engineering, 140, 106231. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2019.106231
Tavana, M., Fallahpour, A., DiCaprio, D., & Santos-Arteaga,
F. J. (2016). A hybrid intelligent fuzzy predictive model
with simulation for supplier evaluation and selection.
Expert Systems with Applications, 61, 129–144. https://doi.
org/10.1016/J.ESWA.2016.05.027
Wendler-Bosco, V., & Nicholson, C. (2020). Port disruption
impact on the maritime supply chain: A literature review.
Sustainable and Resilient Infrastructure, 5(6), 378–394.
https://doi.org/10.1080/23789689.2019.1600961
Wilson, V. H., Prasad, A. N. S., Shankharan, A., Kapoor, S., &
Rajan, J. A. (2020). Ranking of supplier performance using
machine learning algorithm of random forest. International
Journal of Advanced Research in Engineering and
Technology, 11(5), 298–308. https://doi.org/10.34218/
IJARET.11.5.2020.031
Wu, C., & Barnes, D. (2018). Design of agile supply chains
including the trade-off between number of partners and
reliability. International Journal of Advanced
Manufacturing Technology, 97(9–12), 3683–3700. https://
doi.org/10.1007/S00170-018-2205-5
Zangoueinezhad, A., Azar, A., & Kazazi, A. (2011). Using
SCOR model with fuzzy MCDM approach to assess com­
petitiveness positioning of supply chains: Focus on ship­
building supply chains. Maritime Policy & Management, 38
(1), 93–109. https://doi.org/10.1080/03088839.2010.533715
Zeydan, M., Çolpan, C., & Çobanoģlu, C. (2011). A combined
methodology for supplier selection and performance
evaluation. Expert Systems with Applications, 38(3),
2741–2751. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2010.08.064
Zhang, X. -D. (2017). Chapter 6 machine learning. A Matrix
Algebra Approach to Artificial Intelligence, 45(13), 223–235.
Zhang, R., Li, J., Wu, S., Meng, D., & Deng, Y. (2016).
Learning to select supplier portfolios for service supply
chain. Plos One, 11(5), e0155672. https://doi.org/10.1371/
journal.pone.0155672
Zhaoa, P., Jia, S., & Xuea, Y. (2021, October). Resilient-
sustainable supplier selection and order allocation under
multi-tier supplier network. Researchgate.Net, https://www.
researchgate.net/profile/Shoufeng-Ji/publication/
355788632_Resilient-sustainable_supplier_selection_and_
order_allocation_under_multi-tier_supplier_network
/links/617e09c4eef53e51e10c4b17/Resilient-sustainable-
supplier-selection-and-order-alloca
Zhao, L., Qi, W., Zhu, M., & Xie, L. (2021). A study of supplier
selection method based on SVM for weighting expert
evaluation. Discrete Dynamics in Nature and Society, 2021,
1–11. https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/8056209
 SUSTAINABLE AND RESILIENT INFRASTRUCTURE 17

Appendix

Table A1. Glossary of level 2 and 3 metrics.

Abbreviation Elaboration Abbreviation Elaboration
REL1 Quality certification DT2 Collaboration
REL2 Product specification DT3 Digital marketing
REL3 Defect percentage DT4 Machine learning
REL4 Packing and labeling DT5 Other methods
REL5 Transportation quality DT6 Facility
REL6 Research, Development, and Innovation DT7 Consistency
REL7 Order fulfillment IS1 Integrated database
REL8 Delivery performance IS2 Integrated interface
REL9 Document accuracy IS3 Partner interface
FLEX1 On-time delivery IS4 Consistent data
FLEX2 Delivery performance IS5 Tactical Level
FLEX3 Document accuracy IS6 Supplier information
RES1 Delivery cycle time IS7 Delivery documentation
RES2 Source cycle time IS8 Qualification and validation
RES3 Delivery retail cycle time IS9 Accord certification
RES4 Supply time SER1 Communication process
RES5 Lead time SER2 Tracking management system
COS1 Shipping SER3 Warranty
COS2 Mode of transaction SER4 Return Policy
COS3 Price DT1 Dynamism
COS4 Previous record DT2 Collaboration
DT1 Dynamism

Table A2. Performance calculation of gradient boosting algorithm.

Performance properties Equations Percentage
Accuracy True positiveþTrue negative 91.6%
True falseþTrue negative True positiveþTrue negative
Error 1-Accuracy 8.4%
Precession True positive 83.33%
True positiveþFalse positive