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

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

Supply chain
Modelling the supply chain risk risk variables
variables using ISM: a case study
on Indian manufacturing SMEs
Harish Babu, Prabhas Bhardwaj and Anil K. Agrawal 215
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology (BHU),
Varanasi, India Received 4 June 2019
Revised 15 September 2019
29 January 2020
Accepted 16 April 2020

Abstract
Purpose – In the Indian manufacturing SMEs context, supply chains have a complex structure having
multiple echelons, multiple partners and multiple locations. Due to these complexities, most of the Indian
manufacturing SMEs face several types of supply chain risks. This paper aims to identify the dominant risk
variables and to develop the interrelationship among these risk variables.
Design/methodology/approach – Based on the literature review and experts’ opinion, nine dominant
risk variables faced by an Indian manufacturing SMEs have been identified. An interpretive structural
modelling (ISM) approach has been adopted to establish the interrelationship among the risk variables. These
risk variables have been classified by using MICMAC analysis. Based on ISM-MICMAC approach, a case
study on three Indian manufacturing SMEs has been carried out.
Findings – This study would help the supply chain managers to understand and prioritize the significant
risk variables. Nine significant risks variables of Indian manufacturing small and medium enterprises (SMEs)
have been studied. External risk, information technology risk and financial risk have identified as most
influencing risk variables, while delay risk and market risk have emerged as the most dependent risk
variables. These results will provide a guideline to supply chain managers for implementation of supply chain
risk management (SCRM).
Research limitations/implications – In this study, an ISM-based model is developed based on the
opinion of experts from a group of Indian manufacturing SMEs; as such, this model may be biased and
limited to a selected company. This framework can be extended further by adding more risk variables and
sub-risk variables from the other sectors/organizations.
Originality/value – Many SCRM models are available in past literature, but no model has been proposed
for the Indian Manufacturing SMEs. This research finding can be useful for managers to understand the
characteristics and interrelationships among the risk variables for building a robust supply chain. These
results will also help the supply chain managers in making proactive plans for SCRM, especially in the Indian
SMEs context.
Keywords Logistics, Risk analysis, Modeling, Supply chain management, Risk types,
Risk variables, Risk triggers, Interpretive structural modeling (ISM), MICMAC analysis,
Small and medium enterprises (SMEs)
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
Modern supply chain networks are becoming very complex. Nowadays, due to the presence
of various risks and uncertainties associated with supply chain, it is a tough assignment for
supply chain managers to ensure delivery of the product of the right quality, of right
Journal of Modelling in
Management
Vol. 16 No. 1, 2021
The authors gratefully acknowledge the support of editors, Journal of Modelling in Management and pp. 215-239
two anonymous reviewers for their constructive suggestions and helpful comments for improving the © Emerald Publishing Limited
1746-5664
quality of this research paper. DOI 10.1108/JM2-06-2019-0126
JM2 quantity and at the right place within a stipulated delivery period in a cost-effective manner.
16,1 Maintaining uninterrupted supply chain flow is the primary concern of the supply chain
managers, but due to risks involved in the supply chain, managers are not always able to
maintain continuous supply chain flow. Risk can be defined as a “combination of probability
or frequency of occurrence of a defined hazard and magnitude of the occurrence” BS 4778
(1991). A number of definitions of risk are available in the literature of supply chain risk
216 management (SCRM). SCRM can be defined as “the management of supply chain risks
through coordination or collaboration among the supply chain partners to ensure
profitability and continuity” (Tang, 2006). Juttner et al. (2003) defined SCRM as “the
identification and management of risks for the supply chain, through a coordinated
approach amongst supply chain members, to reduce supply chain vulnerability as a whole”.
Harland et al. (2003) defined supply risk as “Adversely affects the inward flow of any
resource to enable operations to take place”. Zsidisin (2003) defined supply risk as:
The probability of an incident associated with inbound supply from individual supplier failures
or the supply market occurring, in which its outcomes result in the inability of the purchasing
firm to meet customer demand or cause threats to customer life and safety.
Chopra and Sodhi (2004) analyzed a case study of Phillips semiconductor plant; this
production disruption resulted in a US$400m loss to Ericsson. Similarly, 9/11 terrorist
attack, Tsunami, earthquake, Uttarakhand disaster, Katerina, etc. had disrupted supply
chain of many organizations and the wave of the impact of these risks was felt in the whole
world. Such disruptions not only have an impact on an organization of that particular
geographical area, but the disruptions also adversely affect the organization’s upstream and
downstream supply partners, respectively.
In the past two decades, SCRM has rapidly become a popular topic amongst researchers
and supply chain managers. Literature review on SCRM indicates that a number of research
studies have been conducted on SCRM, and the findings have been implemented in various
fields, such as automotive industry (Blackhurst et al., 2008), food industry (Diabat et al.,
2012), Indian automotive industry (Gautam et al., 2018), pharmaceutical companies of
Bangladesh (Moktadir et al., 2018). However, few research studies related to evaluation of
supply chain risks in the context of the Indian manufacturing SMEs are available. After
industrialization and the information and communication technology revolution, new
markets and new opportunities have developed for the Indian SMEs. Since then, Indian
SMEs have been growing continuously and are contributing significantly towards the
economic and social development of the country. Indian SMEs are facing several risks
associated with their supply chain. But due to limited resources, it is not feasible to give
equal attention to all types of risks. As such, it creates a strong and justifiable reason to
identify the dominant risk variables and to develop the interrelationship among these risk
variables, in context of the Indian manufacturing SMEs. Supply chain risks can be classified
in two major categories – internal risks and external risks. Internal risk refers to the risk
associated with the internal environment of the supply chain, which is directly associated
with the supplier, manufacturer, distributor and consumer. External risk refers to natural
disasters (e.g. Tsunami, flood, earthquake) and man-made risks (e.g. terrorism, volatile
financial market, war, etc.) (Ho et al., 2015). External risks have a significant impact on the
supply chain compared to internal risks, but on the other hand, while internal risk occurs
frequently, external risk occurs rarely. Tummala and Schoenherr (2011) further classified
internal risk into following subcategories: demand risks, delay risks, disruption risks,
inventory risks, process risks, capacity risks, supply risks, system risks and transportation
risks. In literature, there are several parameters to study the SCRM process, but most
authors focus on two parameters; one is occurrence and the other is impact. Some risk Supply chain
variables have least impact, whereas some have a high impact, so it is a tough task for the risk variables
supply manager to consider all risk variables at the same time. A supply chain manager has
to focus on the significant risk variable, which plays an essential role in SCRM.
A large number of risk variables, having direct and indirect interrelations in the supply
chain, may affect supply chain performance. Although several papers have discussed risk
mitigation strategies, still, risk prioritization is a vital step to mitigate the risk (Hachicha and
Elmsalmi, 2014). Prioritization of risk variables is not just a prioritization, but it includes
217
understanding of the interactions among various risk variables and the external factors that
could affect the prioritization of these risk variables (Venkatesan and Kumanan, 2012).
Understanding the priorities would help firms to develop suitable strategies to manage
supply chain risks according to their relative importance (Faisal, 2009). In supply chain
network, every echelon is equally important for SCRM; therefore, coordination among the
echelons is necessary to manage the supply chain risks.
Moreover, SCRM also facilitates achievement of supply chain targets, speeding up of
supply chain operations and ultimately increasing the supply chain performance.
Anticipation of supply chain risks is a prime requisite to set clear, realistic and measurable
objectives for the SCRM. Developing an SCRM model requires research, time and
commitment, but it is a treasured process that can significantly contribute to supply chain
performance. In the event of a disruption, decision-making often takes a long time, which
makes the supply chain more vulnerable. In the present scenario, SCRM managers lay more
emphasis on potential risk variables and use a preventive approach of SCRM strategies in
anticipation of their destructive impact on the supply chain.
Interpretive structural modelling (ISM) is a tool that is widely used in research to
understand and establish interrelationships among various variables related to the research
problem (Warfield, 1974; Sage, 1977). It provides an understanding of and the hierarchy of
complex inter-relationship among various variables of the problem (Jharkharia and
Shankar, 2004; Ravi and Shankar, 2005). In this study, based on the literature review on
SCRM and from experts’ opinion, nine risk variables are identified. An SCRM–ISM model is
developed, by using ISM for Indian manufacturing SMEs. This model exhibits the
interrelationship among all identified risk variables. In the literature, several methods are
used to allocate the weight of risk variables. These weights can be used for further
quantitative analysis. This research paper focuses mainly on SCRM and risk variables in the
context of Indian manufacturing SMEs. The main objectives of this research are:

to identify significant risk variables that have a considerable impact in decision
making in SCRM;

to analyze and establish interrelationship among all potential risk variables by
using ISM; and

to find out a hierarchy of risk variables based on their driving power and
dependence.

Apart from the above, the study has been grouped under the following sections: Section 2
reviews the literature on SCRM and ISM. Research methodology, along with a case study, is
elaborated in Section 3. Section 4 explains the classification of risk variables based on
MICMAC analysis. The results of the present study are discussed in Section 5. Section 6
summarizes the research and findings arrived at by the above methodology. At the end,
managerial implications and future scope of this research are discussed in Sections 7 and 8,
respectively.
JM2 2. Literature review
16,1 With the increase in product and service complexity and global outsourcing, the emphasis
on supply chain risk has increased, and hence, under the present circumstances the SCRM
has become a key concern for organizations. It is necessary for the decision-maker to
understand the various risk variables for effective supply chain risk mitigation. In this
section, a literature review related to SCRM and risk variables has been carried out.
218 Hallikas et al. (2004) have carried out an empirical study which deals with risk
management in supplier networks. They outlined the general structure of the risk
management process and have presented methods for risk management in a complex
network environment. The results indicate that risk management is a crucial development
target in the studied supplier networks. When the dependency between companies
increases, they become more exposed to the risks of other companies. The presented
processes facilitate understanding and managing of uncertainties and risks in supplier
networks. Gaudenzi and Borghesi (2006) provided a method to evaluate supply chain risks.
An analytical hierarchy process model was proposed by them to identify supply chain risk
factors to improve customer value. The two phases of the method are the prioritization of
supply chain objectives and the selection of risk indicators. A case study is also conducted to
validate the model. Salehi Heidari et al. (2018) have developed an SCRM model using
integrated fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (AHP) and fuzzy Technique of Order Preference
Similarity to the Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) approach. The proposed model considered
the product life cycle (PLC) and the operational process cycle (OPC), organizational
performance factors (OPF) and the risk operational practices (ROP) factors to decrease the
risks in the automotive industry. They have evaluated the model by conducting a case study
of an automotive company in Iran. Faisal et al. (2006) presented an approach to effective
supply chain risk mitigation by understanding the dynamics between various enablers that
help to mitigate risk in a supply chain. Using ISM, the research presents a hierarchy-based
model and the mutual relationships among the enablers of risk mitigation. The study
showed that there exists a group of enablers having a high driving power and low
dependence, requiring maximum attention and of strategic importance, while another group
consists of those variables which have high dependence and are the resultant actions.
The phenomenon of risk management and risk management strategies in global supply
chains is explored by Manuj and Mentzer (2008). Their research is based on an extensive
literature review and a qualitative study comprising 14 in-depth interviews and a focus
group meeting with senior supply chain executives. The study provided insights into the
applicability of six risk management strategies concerning environmental conditions and
the role of three moderators. Shenoi et al. (2018) conducted a study on SCRM in Indian
manufacturing industries. They considered eight major risks and four mitigation strategies
associated with Indian industries to identify and to provide strategic recommendations for
improving their supply chain performance by using the strategic action grids. Oehmen et al.
(2009) contributed to the area of SCRM by proposing two new, interrelated modelling
approaches. These two approaches are a supply chain risk structure model and supply chain
risk dynamics model. The first model described the system that determined the causes and
effects of supply chain risks, i.e. the factors and their relationships. The second one is used to
model the possible dynamics of risk development. This article also demonstrated how these
models integrated into an SCRM process framework. They showed the feasibility of the
approach with case study comprising three companies.
Tummala and Schoenherr (2011) proposed a comprehensive and coherent approach for
the management of risks in supply chains. According to them, supply chain risks can be
managed more effectively by using the SCRM process (SCRMP). The SCRMP ensures
supply chain (SC) managers adopt strategic thinking and strategic decision-making in Supply chain
evaluating options to improve supply chain performance. The analysis can be used not only risk variables
for assessing progress but also for selecting alternative courses of action, based on their
respective SC risk profiles. Ultimately, the SCRMP provides insight into how to make the
most appropriate decision. Kern et al. (2012) developed a model, for upstream SCRM linking
risk identification, risk assessment and risk mitigation to risk performance and validated
the model empirically. The model was tested with path analytical model using partial least
squares analysis on survey data from 162 large and mid-sized manufacturing companies 219
located in Germany. Alkhalidi et al. (2019) used AHP and proposed a risk assessment model
for wind energy projects, to minimize the risks while selecting the best location in Jordan, for
further investment. Kumar Pradhan and Routroy (2014) worked on the risk issues involved
in an Indian manufacturing supply chain. In addition to this, they showed the direction to
use the proposed comprehensive risk management framework in different manufacturing
supply chains. Various risks associated with an Indian manufacturing company were
identified through brainstorming session held with managers and engineers. These risks
were categorized with the domain of each risk for further analysis. A failure mode and effect
analysis was used to rank the impact of all the relevant risks associated with various risk
categories and action plans were suggested by proposing a risk treatment process. The
degree of impact of each related risk is determined and the same is used for deriving
managerial insights. Through Pareto analysis, it was concluded that the top 20% risk
factors are from supplier and organization domain. It is interesting to note that no relevant
risk related to customer domain is appearing in the top 20%. It is also noted that 54% risk is
from supplier-related risk domain and 46% risk exists in the organization-related risk
domain among top 20% risk. Venkatesh et al. (2015) worked with risks associated with the
apparel retail supply chains in India by structural analysis of the identified controllable
risks. They used ISM to establish the interdependencies between these risks spread across
various supply chain functions of the retail industry. Relationships were established based
on expert opinions using the Delphi technique, followed by ISM technique and fuzzy
MICMAC analysis. Chaudhuri et al. (2016) explored different risks associated with food
processing SC and defined their impact on the performance of an SC by using the ISM–
MICMAC approach. Thakkar et al. (2013) explored supply chain issues in Indian SMEs by
using “EBM–REP” and “role interaction model” diagnostic tools. The study had not
established the driver-dependence relationship among the various factors; hence, they
suggested ISM technique for future research to explore the SC issues in Indian SMEs. Chen
et al. (2016) have examined how to mitigate supply risk by discussing the concept of risk in
association with three closely related concepts, which are: uncertainty, variability and trust.
The proposed three perspectives are supported and explained using four case studies
comprising of two manufacturers based in Australia and four suppliers based in China. This
study provided evidence that supply risk can be mitigated by a high level of information
and knowledge sharing as well as by building trust, commitment and goal congruence in a
buyer–supplier relationship. Qazi et al. (2017) introduced an integrated SCRMP. The
proposed method captured interdependency between risks and risk mitigation strategies
and integrated all stages of the risk management process. This process is also helpful for
modelling of risks for an extensive network to determine an optimal mix of strategies
concerning budget and resource constraints. Moktadir et al. (2018) proposed a decision-
making model, based on the AHP method to evaluate the risks associated with
pharmaceutical SCs. From the literature review, they identified four major risks and 16 sub-
risks and validated the same by conducting a case study on five pharmaceutical companies
of Bangladesh. The results revealed that supply-related risks, such as fluctuation in imports
JM2 arrival, lack of information sharing, key supplier failure and non-availability of materials
16,1 should be prioritized over operational, financial and demand-related risks. Macdonald et al.
(2018) identified risk factors, the impact of identified risk and disruptions on performance.
They worked on the tactics and strategies that are essential for building SC resilience. They
used structured experimental design with discrete-event simulations of SCs to develop a
better understanding of the factors that link a disruption to its impact on SC performance
220 through both direct and interaction effects. Chowdhury et al. (2019) conducted a case study
on SC risks associated with the ready-made garment (RMG) industry of Bangladesh. They
identified the potential risks of the RMG industry and developed a hierarchical structural
model using the ISM methodology and further classified them using MICMAC analysis.
From the literature review, it is noted that various models were proposed by researchers on
SCRM. But, only a few SCRM models are available based on Indian manufacturing SMEs.
Through this paper, an attempt has been made to explore the SC risks in context of the
Indian manufacturing SMEs.

3. Research methodology and model development

Researchers have identified and developed various models to show the relationship among
various risks associated with the SC. In literature, ISM methodology has been widely used
by researchers to understand the relationship among variables of complex problems. The
objective of this paper is to analyze the risk variables, to establish inter-relationship among
variables and to build a hierarchy of risk variables to understand their importance, in
relation to Indian manufacturing SMEs.
The ISM method is a structured technique widely used for social science, technology,
education, etc. This method was proposed by Warfield (1974, 1976) to understand and
establish interrelationship among variables of complex problems. ISM is an interactive
learning process whereby a set of different directly and indirectly related elements are
structured into a comprehensive systemic model. The model so formed portrays the
structure of a complex issue, a system of a field of study, in a carefully designed pattern
using graphics as well as words (Faisal et al., 2006). ISM methodology has been used to
analyze the criteria for vendor selection to exhibit the relationship among these criteria and
their levels (Mandal and Deshmukh, 1994).
The ISM method converts the variables of a complex problem into a digraph. With this
digraph, the interrelationship among variables can be understood. This digraph is converted
into final “interpretive structure model”. With the help of this method and MICMAC
analysis, various risk variables of the SC can be classified. The main objective of MICMAC
analysis is to estimate the dependence and the driving power of SCRM variables. ISM
methodology is purely based on the judgement of experts, and through these judgements, it
shows the interrelationship among variables (Digalwar and Giridhar, 2015). Several risk
variables affect the SCRM; some are directly associated with SCRM, and some are indirectly.
Therefore, ISM provides an understanding of their interrelationship. Figure 1 illustrates the
various steps of ISM. These steps of the ISM methodology are as follows:

Step 1:The first step is to identify the key risk variables that are relevant to the
research problem by using primary or secondary research.

Step 2:From the identified risk variables in Step 1, a contextual relationship is
established among the variables, for which pairs of variables would be examined.

Step 3:To develop a structural self-interaction matrix (SSIM) for risk variables,
which indicates pairwise relationships among risk variables of the system.
 Supply chain
risk variables

221

Figure 1.
Flow diagram for
SCRM–ISM

Step 4:An initial reachability matrix is developed from the SSIM and is checked for
transitivity, leading to the development of final reachability matrix. In ISM model
transitivity is a basic assumption, i.e. if a variable A is related to B and B is related
to C, then A is necessarily related to C. After incorporating transitivity, the final
reachability matrix is obtained.

Step 5:Identify reachability sets (Rsi), antecedents sets (Asi) and intersection sets
(Isi) and partition the final reachability matrix into different levels.

Step 6:From the final reachability matrix, a conical matrix is developed by
clustering the variables of the same level.

Step 7:A digraph is drawn based on the relationship given in the final reachability
matrix. The final digraph is obtained after removing the transitive links.

Step 8:In the last step, a final digraph is converted into an ISM model. The
developed ISM model is reviewed for conceptual inconsistency and necessary
modifications are made.

3.1 Identification of relevant elements to the problem

The first step is to identify the SC risk variables that are relevant to the SC of Indian
manufacturing SMEs. This could be done either by primary research (survey method, etc.)
or secondary research (literature review and expert opinion, etc.). In literature, various types
of risks (usually called risk variables) are available, which contribute to SCRM. An effort has
JM2 been made to identify the risk published in literature from 2001–2019 using various
16,1 keywords. Only peer-reviewed journals were considered for the purpose. A summary of
literature review on SC risk variables is exhibited in Table 1.
After a literature survey, the research problem was discussed with experts from industry
and academic organizations. One author of this paper, two experts from academia and six
experts from the case organizations were included in the pilot study to obtain expert
222 opinion. From this discussion, nine significant risk variables, associated with the SC of the
case organizations, were identified. After identification of these nine risk variables, the
contextual relationship has been developed through detail discussions with experts. This
contextual relationship among variables is illustrated in the subsequent section. For better
SCRM, it is necessary to understand the risk triggers or sources of identified SC risk
variables. A better understanding of risk variables and risk triggers reduce the vulnerability
of the SC. An illustrated list of SC risks and their triggers, shown in Table 2, have been
compiled from literature, most notably from Chopra and Sodhi, (2004), Diabat et al. (2012)
and Tummala and Schoenherr (2011).

3.2 Establishing a contextual relationship among enablers

In this step, a contextual relationship among identified variables is established. Austin and
Burns (1985) explained the different types of relations like comparative, influence, neutral or
temporal relations. In this step, the contextual relationship between risk variable is
represented as “lead to” type, implies that how one risk variable leads to another risk
variable. Several management techniques like Delphi method, brainstorming, nominal
group technique (NGT), etc. were used for experts’ opinion. A group of six experts from the
case-organizations and two experts from academia were consulted for establishing the
contextual relationship among identified SCRM variables. Both the experts from academia
are professors in the area of industrial engineering and management from prestigious
institutions, and the experts from industry are the senior managers from the case-
organizations. These experts, having more than 15 years’ experience in the SC and
production management domain, helped in establishing the relationships among risk
variables. Thus, contextual relationships among risk variables were obtained. Four symbols
are used to represent the direction of the relationship between any two variables (i and j):
(1) V: risk variable i will proliferate/lead to risk variable j (relation from i to j, but not
in both direction);
(2) A: risk variable j will lead to risk variable i (relation from j to i, but not in both
direction);
(3) X: risk variable i and j will lead to each other (relation from i to j and j to i); and
(4) O: risk variables i and j will not lead to each other (no relationship).

3.3 Constructing a structural self-interaction matrix (SSIM)

After obtaining contextual relationship among risk variables, an SSIM is formed. This
matrix shows the pair-wise relationship among risk variables. Table 3 represents the
pairwise relationship among identified risk variables for the present case.
For example:

Risk variable 1 (“ER” – environmental risk) leads to risk variable 9 (“FR” – financial
risk), and on the other hand, risk variable “FR” is not playing a significant role to
lead the risk variable ER. Therefore, symbol “V” is used to denote the direction of
the relationship between these risk variables (“ER” and “FR”) in SSIM (Table 3).
 Chopra and Faisal Cucchiella and Rao and Tummala and Pfohl Venkatesan Ghadge Kumar Pradhan
Finch Sodhi et al. Gastaldi Goldsby Schoenherr et al. and Kumanan et al. and Routroy
Risk variables (2004) (2004) (2006) (2006) (2009) (2011) (2011) (2012) (2013) (2014)

Environmental H H H H H H H H H
risk
Information H H H H H H H H H
technology risk
Supply risk H H H H H H H H H
Market risk H H H H H
Transportation H H H H
risk
Delay risk H H H H
Demand risk H H H H
Process risk H H H H H H H H
Financial risk H H H H

Notes: *Values after incorporating the transitivity

(continued)
Summary of SC risks

risk variables
Supply chain
identified by
researchers

Table 1.

223
 224

16,1
JM2
Table 1.

Chand Rogers Chand Shenoi

Hachicha and et al. Venkatesh Faisal et al. et al. et al. Moktadir Abdel-Basset Chowdhury
Risk variables Elmsalmi (2014) (2015) et al. (2015) (2016) (2016) (2017) (2018) et al. (2018) et al. (2019) et al. (2019)

Environmental H H H H H H H H
risk
Information H H H H H
technology risk
Supply risk H H H H H H H H H H
Market risk H H H H
Transportation H H H H H H H H
risk
Delay risk H H H H H
Demand risk H H H H H H H H
Process risk H H H H H H H H
Financial risk H H H H H H H H
Sr. no. Risk variables
1 Environmental risk
(ER)/disruption risk
2 Information
technology risk (IR)
3 Supply Risk (SR)
4 Market Risk (MR)
5 Transportaion Risk
(TR)
6 Delay Risk (DE)
7 Demand Risk (DR)
8 Process risk (PR)
9 Financial risk(FR)

Risk variable 3 (“SR” – supply risk) is led by risk variable 9 (“FR” – financial risk),
but “SR” does not affect the “FR”. Hence, the relationship among these variables is
reverse (the only relation from j to i) and unidirectional, so it is shown as “A” in
SSIM (Table 3).
Risk triggers Source
Supply chain
risk variables
Natural disaster (such as an earthquake or flood) Kersten (2006);
Man-made disaster (such as a fire, war, labour strike, Hachicha and
terrorist attack) Elmsalmi, (2014)
Political instability and unrest
Change in government regulation (legal system)
Distortions in information sharing Chopra and Sodhi, 225
Failure in IT systems (2004), Diabat et al.
System integration or extensive system networking (2012)
Cyber-attacks, virus, etc
Supplier failure Zsidisin (2003),
Supplier fulfilment errors Tummala and
Selection of wrong partners Schoenherr, (2011)
Poor responsiveness and delivery performance
Inflexibility of supply source
Supplier bankruptcy
Limited market segment Finch (2004), Song
Short life cycle due to changes in customer needs et al. (2013); Dewi
competitors’ actions et al. (2015);
High paperwork and scheduling process Tummala and
Transport union strikes Schoenherr, (2011),
Delay at ports due to limited port capacity Soni and Kodali,
Higher costs of transportation (2013)
Depends on transportation mode chosen
Excessive handling due to border crossings Tummala and
Port capacity and congestion Schoenherr, (2011),
Long custom clearance process at ports Mohammaddust et al.
Delay in material or information flow (2017)
Production failure
Supplier’s inability to respond quickly to a change in
demand
Inaccurate forecasts due to longer lead times Chopra and Sodhi,
Bullwhip effect or information distortion (2004)
Demand uncertainty
Product variety
Information distortion due to sales promotions and
incentives
Exaggeration of demand during product shortage
Internal labour strikes Tummala and
Shortage of skilled employees Schoenherr, (2011),
Productivity and quality failure Hachicha and
Inventory and stock failure Elmsalmi, (2014)
High product cost
Changes in product designs
Lack of flexibility in the manufacturing process
Product development budget constraint Chopra and Sodhi,
Exchange rate (2004); Faisal(2016); Table 2.
Unstable pricing Chowdhury et al. SC risk variables and
Untimely payment (2019) their triggers
JM2
Risk variable 2 (“IR” – information risk) and risk variable 9 (“FR” – financial
16,1 risk) proliferated each other, so the relationship is shown as “X” in SSIM
(Table 3).

No relationship seems to exist among risk variable 6 (“DR” – demand risk) and risk
variable 9 (“FR” – financial risk) so it is represented as “O” in SSIM (Table 3).

226
3.4 Developing a reachability matrix and examine transitivity
This step of ISM methodology is mainly concerned with the conversion of SSIM into a
binary matrix. This matrix is known as initially reachability matrix. Rules for the
conversion of V, A, X and O into binary (0 and 1) are as following:

If the (i, j) entry in the SSIM is V, then the (i, j) entry in the reachability matrix
becomes 1, and the (j, i) entry becomes 0.

If the (i, j) entry in the SSIM is A, then the (i, j) entry in the reachability matrix
becomes 0, and the (j, i) entry becomes 1.

If the (i, j) entry in the SSIM is X, then both the (i, j) and (j, i) entries of the
reachability matrix become 1.

If the (i, j) entry of the SSIM is O, then both the (i, j) and (j, i) entries of the
reachability matrix become 0.

Based on the above rules, the SSIM is converted into an initial reachability matrix, as shown
in Table 4.
Checking transitivity is an important aspect of ISM methodology. Transitivity can be
verified with the help of the method suggested by Malone (1975), which is further explained
and used by many researchers (Faisal et al., 2006; Pfohl et al., 2011; Ojha et al., 2014). The
following steps explain the transitivity checking process:

Initial reachability matrix multiplied with itself and check the values 1, replace all
such values with 1.

Check the new matrix, which should be the same as the initial reachability matrix,
final reachability has been obtained. If both are not same, then repeat this process
on the obtained matrix.

If the newly obtained matrix is the same as the previous matrix, transitivity is
obtained. If not, then repeat this process until the final matrix is penultimate and
final matrix are similar.

Risk variables 9. FR 8. PR 7. DR 6. DE 5. TR 4. MR 3. SR 2. IR 1. ER

1. ER V X V V V X V X –
2. IR X V V V V V V –
3. SR A X X V X X –
4. MR A A X V V –
5. TR A X A V –
6. DE O A A –
Table 3. 7. DR O O –
Structural self- 8. PR X –
interaction matrix 9. FR –

Compare the cells of the initial and final matrix; if the value of any cell Supply chain
changes from 0 to 1 (from initial to final matrix after incorporating risk variables
transitivity), then mark 1 as “1*” in the final reachability matrix, where 1*
denotes transitivity.

After incorporating transitivity, the final reachability matrix is obtained, as shown in

Table 5. The driving power of each risk variable is calculated by the total number of risk
variables (including itself) which are affected by a particular variable, i.e. the sum of binary 227
values in the row. The driving power and dependence of each variable are represented in
this final reachability matrix (Table 5). With the help of this driving power, the ranking of
each risk variable can be found. Higher the driving power implies higher the rank of risk
variable (Mitra Debnath and Shankar, 2012). Table 6 also exhibits the rank of each risk
variable. The dependence power is the total number of risk variables (including itself),
which may be impacting it, i.e. the sum of binary values in the rows (Faisal et al., 2006).
These driving power and dependence power of variables are used as input for level
partitioning.

3.5 Level partitioning of reachability matrix

The reachability and antecedent set for each risk variable were obtained from the final
reachability matrix (Warfield, 1974, 1976). The reachability set (Rsi) for a particular enabler
consists of the element itself and the other elements which it may impact, whereas the
antecedent set (Asi) consists of the element itself and the other elements which may impact it
(Pandey and Garg, 2009). These reachability and antecedent sets lead to the interaction sets

Risk variables 1. ER 2. IR 3. SR 4. MR 5. TR 6. DE 7. DR 8. PR 9. FR

1. ER 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
2. IR 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0
3. SR 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0
4. MR 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
5. TR 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0
6. DE 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
7. DR 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 Table 4.
8. PR 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 Initial reachability
9. FR 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 matrix

Risk variables 1. ER 2. IR 3. SR 4. MR 5. TR 6. DE 7. DR 8. PR 9. FR

1. ER 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
2. IR 1 1 1 1* 1* 1 1 1 0
3. SR 0 0 1 1* 1 1 1* 1* 0
4. MR 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
5. TR 0 0 1 1* 1 1* 1 1 0
6. DE 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
7. DR 0 0 1 1 1* 1 1 1 0
8. PR 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0
9. FR 0 0 1 1* 1 1 1 1* 1 Table 5.
Final reachability
Note: * Values after incorporating the transitivity matrix
JM2 Reachability set Antecedent set Intersection set
16,1 Risk variables (Rsi) (Asi) (ISi= Rsi \ Asi) Level

Iteration 1
1. ER 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 1 1
2. IR 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 1,2 1,2
3. SR 3,4,5,6,7,8 1,2,3,5,7,9 3,5,7
228 4. MR 4 1,2,3,4,5,7,8,9 4 1
5. TR 3,4,5,6,7,8 1,2,3,5,7,9 3,5,7
6. DE 6 1,2,3,5,6,7,8,9 6 1
7. DR 3,4,5,6,7,8 1,2,3,5,7,9 3,5,7
8. PR 4,6,8 1,2,3,5,7,8,9 8
9. FR 3,4,5,6,7,8,9 1,9 9
Iteration 2
1. ER 1,2,3,5,7,8,9 1 1
2. IR 1,2,3,5,7,8 1,2 1,2
3. SR 3,5,7,8 1,2,3,5,7,9 3,5,7
5. TR 3,5,7,8 1,2,3,5,7,9 3,5,7
7. DR 3,5,7,8 1,2,3,5,7,9 3,5,7
8. PR 8 1,2,3,5,7,8,9 8 2
9. FR 3,5,7,8,9 1,9 9
Iteration 3
1. ER 1,2,3,5,7,9 1 1
2. IR 1,2,3,5,7 1,2 1,2
3. SR 3,5,7 1,2,3,5,7,9 3,5,7 3
5. TR 3,5,7 1,2,3,5,7,9 3,5,7 3
7. DR 3,5,7 1,2,3,5,7,9 3,5,7 3
9. FR 3,5,7,9 1,9 9
Iteration 4
Table 6. 1. ER 1,2,9 1 1 5
Level partition of 2. IR 1,2 1,2 1,2 4
reachability matrix 9. FR 9 1,9 9 4

(Isi), i.e. Isi = Rsi \ Asi, the common elements in both sets, are derived for each element
(Pfohl et al., 2011).
On the basis of reachability, antecedent and intersection sets, the final reachability
matrix is partitioned into different levels. For level partitioning, any reachability set
which is mostly similar element to intersection set (Rsi = Isi) is assigned as Level 1, and
this level is placed at the top in the ISM hierarchy. Now, Level 1 is identified, so it is
eliminated from the table and repeat the same process undergoes iterations until the
level of each risk variable is identified. These identified levels help in building the
digraph and the final ISM model. The reachability, antecedent and interaction sets for
each risk variable and their level are shown in Table 6. The entire level partitioning
process is completed in four iterations (Table 6). From Table 6, the risk variables 4 and
6 (“MR” – market risk and “DE” – delay risk) is identified as Level I or top level, so it is
located at the top of the ISM model. Now, this variable is extracted for consideration for
the next iterations. The same process is repeated until all levels of the hierarchy are
identified. From Iteration 2, risk variable 8 (“PR” – process risk) is identified at Level II.
There are three risk variables (3 – “SR”, 5 – “TR”, 7 – “DR”) identified at Level III from
Iteration 3. Iteration 4, risk variables 2 and 9 (“IR” and “FR”) identified at Level IV and
risk variable 1 (“ER” – external risk) identified at Level V. These levels lead to the Supply chain
development of digraph and final ISM model. risk variables
3.6 Development of conical matrix
A conical matrix (lower triangular format) is developed by the conglomeration of all risk
variable in the same level, across rows and columns of the final reachability matrix (Chand
et al., 2015). In the conical matrix, all the variables having the same level are pooled together,
i.e. top-level variable with almost zero (0) in the upper diagonal of the matrix and lower level
229
of variables most unitary (1) in the lower half of the matrix. The conical matrix is achieved
by rearranging risk variables based on their levels. Table 7 exhibits the conical matrix of
this case.

3.7 Development of digraph and formation of interpretive structural modelling-based model

The structural model is developed from the conical form of the reachability matrix
(Table 7). It is developed by nodes and lines; the risk variables are serialized according
to their level, and transitive links can also be obtained from the conical matrix. The
relationship between risk variable i and j, is shown by an arrow which points from i to j.
From the conical matrix, an initial digraph is obtained, and after removing indirect
links, a final digraph is obtained as shown in Figure 2. ISM model is a representation of
the simple hierarchical pattern of all identified risk variables, and it is derived from the
final digraph. In this model, the risk variable at Level I, is placed at the top position, and
similarly, Level II risk variables set at the second position in the ISM model. In this
case, three risk variables are at Level III, so all three risk variables are placed at the
third position from top in the ISM model. The final obtained ISM model is shown in
Figure 3.

4. Classification of risk variables on the basis of MICMAC analysis

MICMAC (matrix of cross-impact multiplications applied to classification) analysis is
widely used to understand and analyze the driving power and dependence power of
the variables. Kumar Sharma and Bhat (2014) used the MICMAC approach to
differentiate between independent and dependent variables of the agile SC. This
analysis is carried out with the help of driving power and dependence power of
variables. It divides all the risk variables into four clusters based on their driving
power and dependence power, i.e. autonomous, dependent, linkage and independent
risk variables. These clusters can be easily understood by plotting dependency-driver

Risk variables 4. MR 6. DE 9. PR 3. SR 5. TR 7. DR 2. IR 9. FR 1. ER

4. MR 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
6. DE 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
9. PR 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
3. SR 1* 1 1* 1 1 1* 0 0 0
5. TR 1* 1* 1 1 1 1 0 0 0
7. DR 1 1 1 1 1* 1 0 0 0
9. FR 1* 1 1* 1 1 1 0 1 0
2. IR 1* 1 1 1 1* 1 1 0 1
1. ER 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Table 7.
Note: *Values after incorporating the transitivity Conical matrix
JM2
16,1

230

Figure 2.
ISM digraph

Figure 3.
ISM model

diagram, i.e. the dependency is shown on x-axis, and the driving power is shown on
the y-axis. Four quadrants show these four clusters in Figure 4 and are explained as
under:

Cluster I: It consists of autonomous variables, which have both weak driving and
dependence power. These variables are relatively disconnected from the system
with which they have only a few links, which may be strong (Faisal et al., 2006). In
this case, no risk variable is identified as autonomous variable.
 Supply chain
risk variables

231

Figure 4.
Classification of risk
variables on the basis
of MICMAC analysis

Cluster II: It consists of dependent variables, which have weak driver power and
strong dependence power. In this case, risk variable “PR”, “MR” and “DE” are
identified as the dependent variable.

Cluster III: It consists of linkage variables, which have both strong driving and
strong dependence power. These variables are unstable, i.e. any action on these risk
variables will affect other risk variables and also feedback on themselves. “SR”,
“DR”, “TR” are identified as linkage variables.

Cluster IV: It consists of independent variables, which have strong driving, but
weak dependence power. These variables have extreme driving power so it is also
called as critical variables. Here risk variables “FR”, “IR” and “ER” are identified as
the critical risk variables.

5. Calculation of weights of risk variables

Pareto’s principle states that “20% of the known variables will account for 80% of the
results” (Basile, 1996). The same principle applies on SCRM; there are few risks that have a
significant impact and large number of risks that have an insignificant impact. Therefore, it
is essential for SC managers to prioritize these risk variables and identify significant and
insignificant risks. The ISM model only exhibits the interrelationship among risk variables,
i.e. how a particular risk variable affects (drive) other risk variables and how a particular
risk variable is affected (dependent) by other risk variables. The ISM methodology only
provides the interrelationship and hierarchical structure of the variables. The relative
weights of the variables is not provided by ISM methodology. In the literature, many
JM2 mathematical methods are used by researchers to assign relative weights of the variables.
16,1 These models can be combined with the ISM methodology to assign the relative weights.
Patel et al. (2018) used the rank-sum weight method to allocate the weight of agile SC
enablers. By using the rank-sum weight method, for “N” number of variables, the relative
weight of “Wi” is calculated as follows (Canada and Sulliva, 1989):

232 N  Ri þ 1
Wi ¼ *100 (1)
P
N
ð N  Ri þ 1Þ
i¼1

(where N: total number of risk variables, Ri: rank of risk variable i, Wi: weight of risk
variable i.)
In the present study, total number of risk variables (N) is 9. Using equation (1), weight of
each risk variable (Wi) can be calculated. This model can be applied in other industries to
identify weights of risk variables associated with their SC. These relative weights (Table 8)
help an SC manager to assign the priority to each risk variable.

6. Discussion of results
SCRM is an emerging field, not only for researchers but also for SC managers. Indian
manufacturing SMEs are facing various risks associated with their SC. These risks directly affect
the efficiency of the SC at a country level (Rogers et al., 2016). Therefore, for implementation of
SCRM, it is essential for the SC managers to identify significant SC risks and understand the
interrelationship among them. For example, mitigation of a risk may prorogue another risk;
hence, the interrelationship among the risks needs to be analyzed; how a risk relates to/impacts
other risks. This study presents an ISM-based SCRM model for Indian manufacturing SMEs to
understand the characteristics and interrelationship among the SC risks. In this study, nine major
risks are identified from the literature review through a pilot study with academic and industry
experts. The major findings of this research are: an ISM-based interrelationship model for
identified risk variables, classification of risk variables using MICMAC analysis and
identification of relative weight of each risk variable by using the rank-sum method.
The proposed ISM model provides a hierarchical structure of the risk variables and
exhibits the interrelationship among these risk variables. This ISM model is structured into
five levels. In this model, the risk variable “ER” is positioned at the bottom level, i.e. fifth

N  Ri þ 1
Wi ¼ *100
P
N
ð N  Ri þ 1Þ
Sr. Risk variables Rank (Ri) N  Ri þ 1 i¼1

1. MR 5 5 8.06
2. DE 5 5 8.06
3. PR 4 6 9.68
4. SE 3 7 11.29
5. TR 3 7 11.29
6. DR 3 7 11.29
7. FR 2 8 12.90
Table 8. 8. IR 2 8 12.90
Relative weights of 9. ER 1 P9 P 14.52
risk variables = 62 Wi =100
level, and risk variables “IR” and “FR” are placed just above the bottom level, i.e. fourth Supply chain
level, in the ISM model (Figure 3). These risk variables have high driving power and low risk variables
dependence power. High driving power means that any change that occurs in these risk
variables will highly affect the other risk variables; thus, other risk variables are highly
dependent on this risk variable, and low dependency power means any change in other risk
variables will not have significant impact on this risk variable. These risk variables should
be the primary concern for SC managers while implementing the SC risk management. The
third level of the ISM model consists of three risk variables, namely, supply risk “SR”, 233
transportation risk “TR” and demand risk “DR”. These risk variables have a high
dependence power as well as driving power; these risk variables are associated with each
other and also with other risk variables, which means if any change occurs in these risk
variables, it will affect the other risk variables as well as themselves. The “SR”, “TR” and
“DR” are at the same level and interconnected to each other, which means “SR” and “TR” are
related to each other, “SR” and “DR” are related to each other and similarly “TR” and “DR”
are related to each other. These results show that any action on any pair of risk variable at
this level will directly impact the other pair of risk variables. Tang (2006) suggested various
strategies to mitigate these type of risks, such as flexible supply base, flexible
transportation, dynamic assortment planning. These risk variables also require careful
attention of SC managers during the risk management process. Risk variable “PR” is
positioned at the second level, suggesting that this risk variable is affected by other risk
variables such as “SR”, “TR”, “DR”, but it only affects the risk variable “DE” and “MR”.
Diabat et al. (2012) suggested better production planning, flexible manufacturing system
and preventive maintenance as the mitigation strategy for risk variable “PR”. Risk variables
“DE” and “MR” got a position at the top level of the ISM model. “DE” and “MR” are highly
dependent on other risk variables because of high dependency which means that any action
on other risk variables will directly or indirectly affect these risk variables. On the other
hand, “DE” and “MR” have very low driving power; it means that these risk variables have
least effect on other risk variables of the model. SC managers should give attention to these
risks based on their level, high attention to high level of risk, i.e. environmental risk,
financial risk and information security risk, and least attention to low level of risks, i.e. delay
risk and market risk in the present study.
SCRM can also proactively reduce susceptibilities by identifying potential risk and its
dependency and impact on other risks. This would help the SC managers to implement
actions that prevent the risk or, at least, minimize its impact (Wieland and Marcus
Wallenburg, 2012). To understand the dependencies and impact of risk variables, MICMAC
analysis is used. With the help of driving and dependent power (Table 6), MICMAC analysis
classified risk variables into four clusters, i.e. autonomous risk variables, dependent risk
variables, linkage risk variables and independent risk variables (Figure 4). Autonomous
variables have weak dependence and weak driving power, so they do not have a significant
influence on other risk variables. No autonomous risk variable is found. This indicates that
all identified risk variables have a considerable impact on SCRM. The next cluster consists
of dependent variables, which have weak driver power and strong dependence power. In
this study, three risk variables “PR”, “MR” and “DE” were identified in this cluster. The next
cluster is of linkage variables that have both strong driving and also strong dependence
power. These variables are unstable in nature, i.e. any action on these risk variables will
affect other risk variables as well as themselves. Three risk variables “SR”, “DR”, “TR” are
identified in this cluster. Finally, the last cluster consists of independent variables, which
have strong driving, but weak dependence power. “IR”, “FR” and “ER” were identified as the
independent risk variables. Because of high driving power, these risk variables drive the
JM2 other risk variables critically and are considered as the dominant risk variables for Indian
16,1 manufacturing SMEs. Because of a very low probability of occurrence but high significant
consequences, environmental risks make the SC more vulnerable, thus proactive planning
should be a priority for SC managers to anticipate these type of risks.
This study also provides relative weights of risk variables. Relative weights are
calculated by using the rank-sum weight method. “ER”, “FR” and “IR” are obtained high
234 relative weights, identified as key risk variable. These three risk variables jointly account
for more than 40% weight because these risk variables are most significant risk variables
and all other risk variables are dependent on these risk variables. Hence, these risk variables
considered as critical risk variables for SCRM. “SR”, “TR” and “DR” risk variables
obtained moderate weights, and these three risk variables combined account for 34% of all
risk variables; therefore, these variables considered as major risk variables for SCRM. Risk
variables “PR” “DE” and “MR” obtained low weights. This indicates that these risk
variables have less significant effect on other risk variables.

7. Conclusion
In this study, the SC risks associated with the Indian manufacturing SMEs were studied and
for better understanding of these risk variables a hierarchical model of risk variables is
developed so that SCRM can be successfully implemented in the case-organizations. From
the literature review, it is observed that several risks were identified by the researchers, for
different industries and different countries. Based on the experts’ opinion, nine significant
risk variables of Indian manufacturing SMEs are considered for the development of the
hierarchical model. The interrelationship and relative importance of each risk variable is
explored by using the ISM–MICMAC methodology. MICMAC analysis provides
information about the strength and weakness of these risks, and based on their dependence
and driving power, also classifies them into four clusters. Moreover, the relative weight of
each risk variable is calculated by using the rank-sum weight method, which can be
concluded as the risk variables “ER”, “FR” and “IR” are considered as critical risk variables.
“SR”, “TR” and “DR” are considered as major risk variables, and “PR”, “DE” and “MR” are
considered as minor risk variables for SCRM. Chowdhury et al. (2019) also considered
“disruption” to be the most significant risk in the readymade garment industry of
Bangladesh. Therefore, SC mangers should give more attention to these risks and should
give priority while implementing SCRM.

8. Managerial implications
The Indian manufacturing SMEs play an important role in the economic growth of India.
Because of globalization, advancement in technologies and other factors, this sector is facing
various risks. Primarily, risks are associated with the SCs, which make their SC more
vulnerable. These SC risks cannot be completely eliminated, but the impact of such risks can
be mitigated by proactively identifying, understanding and analyzing the risks. Therefore,
the study of SCRM is essential and relevant for the SC managers. To implement SCRM,
Indian manufacturing SMEs particularly require a comprehensive approach, and this study
provides a comprehensive understanding of SC risks associated with Indian manufacturing
SMEs. The developed ISM model would help SC managers to understand the relative
importance of risk variables, i.e. to help them identify the most significant risks, which
require more attention. The proposed model and results of this study are not limited to
evaluating the SC risks of the particular case-organizations, but it also aims to provide a
practical guideline to SC managers for implementing the SCRM in other sectors too. This
study would help SC managers in strategic decision-making to select risk mitigation
strategies, to make a robust and efficient SC. Further, this study would also be beneficial for Supply chain
the upstream and downstream SC members. This model may be considered as a benchmark risk variables
for other SCRM studies in the context of Indian SMEs and would also help the researchers
and academicians to understand and develop the conceptual framework for other Indian
manufacturing SMEs.

9. Limitation and future scope

This ISM model is based on case studies of three Indian manufacturing SMEs, and this
235
model may be biased and limited to a specific industry. However, this model can also be
generalized to other sectors with some modifications, as the contextual relationship among
variable varies from industry to industry. In the present research work, nine risk variables
were identified for modelling the risk variable. In future work, additional risk variables and
sub-risk variables can be identified from other sectors/organizations and can be assessed
and prioritized using multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) tools such as AHP, analytic
network process (ANP). Although, a relationship model among the risk variables of SCRM
has been developed by using the ISM methodology, this model is not statistically validated.
In the future extension of this work, this model may be verified by using systems dynamics
modelling (SDM) or statistical methods like structural equation modelling (SEM), etc.

References
Abdel-Basset, M., Gunasekaran, M., Mohamed, M. and Chilamkurti, N. (2019), “A framework for risk
assessment, management and evaluation: economic tool for quantifying risks in supply chain”,
Future Generation Computer Systems, Vol. 90, pp. 489-502.
Alkhalidi, A., Tahat, S., Smadi, M., Migdady, B. and Kaylani, H. (2019), “Risk assessment using the
analytic hierarchy process while planning and prior to constructing wind projects in Jordan”,
Wind Engineering.
Austin, L.M. and Burns, J.R. (1985), Management Science: An Aid for Managerial Decision Making,
Macmillan Publishing Company.
Basile, F. (1996), “Great management ideas can work for you”, Indianapolis Business Journal, Vol. 16
No. 1, pp. 53-54.
Blackhurst, J.V., Scheibe, K.P. and Johnson, D.J. (2008), “Supplier risk assessment and monitoring for
the automotive industry”, International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics
Management, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 143-165.
Canada, J.R. and Sulliva, W.G. (1989), Economic and Multi Attribute Evaluation of Advanced
Manufacturing Systems, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Chand, M., Raj, T. and Shankar, R. (2015), “A comparative study of multi criteria decision making
approaches for risks assessment in supply chain”, International Journal of Business Information
Systems, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 67-84.
Chand, M., Raj, T., Shankar, R. and Agarwal, A. (2017), “Select the best supply chain by risk analysis
for Indian industries environment using MCDM approaches”, Benchmarking: An International
Journal, Vol. 24 No. 5, pp. 1400-1413.
Chaudhuri, A., Srivastava, S.K., Srivastava, R.K. and Parveen, Z. (2016), “Risk propagation and its
impact on performance in food processing supply chain: a fuzzy interpretive structural modeling
based approach”, Journal of Modelling in Management, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 660-693.
Chen, J., Sohal, A.S. and Prajogo, D.I. (2016), “Supply risk mitigation: a multi-theoretical perspective”,
Production Planning and Control, Vol. 27 No. 10, pp. 853-863.
Chopra, S. and Sodhi, M.S. (2004), “Managing risk to avoid supply-chain breakdown”, MIT Sloan
Management Review, Vol. 46 No. 1, p. 53.
JM2 Chowdhury, N.A., Ali, S.M., Mahtab, Z., Rahman, T., Kabir, G. and Paul, S.K. (2019), “A structural
model for investigating the driving and dependence power of supply chain risks in the
16,1 readymade garment industry”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 51, pp. 102-113.
Cucchiella, F. and Gastaldi, M. (2006), “Risk management in supply chain: a real option approach”,
Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol. 17 No. 6, pp. 700-720.
Dewi, D.S., Syairudin, B. and Nikmah, E.N. (2015), “Risk management in new product development
236 process for fashion industry: case study in hijab industry”, Procedia Manufacturing, Vol. 4,
pp. 383-391.
Diabat, A., Govindan, K. and Panicker, V. (2012), “Supply chain risk management and its mitigation in
a food industry”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 50 No. 11, pp. 3039-3050.
Digalwar, A.K. and Giridhar, G. (2015), “Interpretive structural modeling approach for development of
electric vehicle market in India”, Procedia Cirp, Vol. 26, pp. 40-45.
Faisal, M.N. (2009), “Prioritization of risks in supply chains”, Managing Supply Chain Risk and
Vulnerability: Tools and Methods for Supply Chain Decision Makers, pp. 41-66.
Faisal, M.N. (2016), “Assessment of supply chain risks susceptibility in SMEs using digraph and
matrix methods”, International Journal of Industrial and Systems Engineering, Vol. 24 No. 4,
pp. 441-468.
Faisal, M.N., Banwet, D.K. and Shankar, R. (2006), “Supply chain risk mitigation: modeling the
enablers”, Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 535-552.
Finch, P. (2004), “Supply chain risk management”, Supply Chain Management: An International
Journal, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 183-196.
Gaudenzi, B. and Borghesi, A. (2006), “Managing risks in the supply chain using the AHP method”, The
International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 114-136.
Gautam, A., Prakash, S. and Soni, U. (2018), “Supply chain risk management and quality: a case study
and analysis of Indian automotive industry”, International Journal of Intelligent Enterprise,
Vol. 5 Nos 1/2, pp. 194-212.
Ghadge, A., Dani, S., Chester, M. and Kalawsky, R. (2013), “A systems approach for modelling supply
chain risks”, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 18 No. 5, pp. 523-538.
Hachicha, W. and Elmsalmi, M. (2014), “An integrated approach based-structural modeling for risk
prioritization in supply network management”, Journal of Risk Research, Vol. 17 No. 10,
pp. 1301-1324.
Hallikas, J., Karvonen, I., Pulkkinen, U., Virolainen, V.M. and Tuominen, M. (2004), “Risk management
processes in supplier networks”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 90 No. 1,
pp. 47-58.
Harland, C., Brenchley, R. and Walker, H. (2003), “Risk in supply networks”, Journal of Purchasing and
Supply Management, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 51-62.
Ho, W., Zheng, T., Yildiz, H. and Talluri, S. (2015), “Supply chain risk management: a literature review”,
International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 53 No. 16, pp. 5031-5069.
Jharkharia, S. and Shankar, R. (2004), “IT enablement of supply chains: modeling the enablers”,
International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, Vol. 53 No. 8, pp. 700-712.
Juttner, U., Peck, H. and Christopher, M. (2003), “Supply chain risk management: outlining an agenda
for future research”, International Journal of Logistics Research and Applications, Vol. 6 No. 4,
pp. 197-210.
Kern, D., Moser, R., Hartmann, E. and Moder, M. (2012), “Supply risk management: model development
and empirical analysis”, International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics
Management, Vol. 42 No. 1, pp. 60-82.
Kersten, W. (2006), “Supply chain risk management: development of a theoretical and empirical
framework”, Managing Risks in Supply Chains, Erich Schmidt Verlag GmbH \& Co.
Kumar Pradhan, S. and Routroy, S. (2014), “Analyzing the supply chain risk issues for an Indian Supply chain
manufacturing company”, Journal of Advances in Management Research, Vol. 11 No. 2,
pp. 144-162.
risk variables
Kumar Sharma, S. and Bhat, A. (2014), “Modelling supply chain agility enablers using ISM”, Journal of
Modelling in Management, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 200-214.
Macdonald, J.R., Zobelb, C.W., Melnykc, S.A. and Griffis, S.E. (2018), “Supply chain risk and resilience:
theory building through structured experiments and simulation”, International Journal of
Production Research, Vol. 56 No. 12, pp. 4337-4355. 237
Malone, D.W. (1975), “An introduction to the application of interpretive structural modeling”,
Proceedings of the Ieee, Vol. 63 No. 3, pp. 397-404.
Mandal, A. and Deshmukh, S.G. (1994), “Vendor selection using interpretive structural modelling
(ISM)”, International Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol. 14 No. 6,
pp. 52-59.
Manuj, I. and Mentzer, J.T. (2008), “Global supply chain risk management strategies”,
International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, Vol. 38 No. 3,
pp. 192-223.
Mitra Debnath, R. and Shankar, R. (2012), “Improving service quality in technical education: use of
interpretive structural modeling”, Quality Assurance in Education, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 387-407.
Mohammaddust, F., Rezapour, S., Farahani, R.Z., Mofidfar, M. and Hill, A. (2017), “Developing lean and
responsive supply chains: a robust model for alternative risk mitigation strategies in supply
chain designs”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 183, pp. 632-653.
Moktadir, M.A., Ali, S.M., Mangla, S.K., Sharmy, T.A., Luthra, S., Mishra, N. and Garza-Reyes, J.A.
(2018), “Decision modeling of risks in pharmaceutical supply chains”, Industrial Management
and Data Systems, Vol. 118 No. 7, pp. 1388-1412.
Oehmen, J., Ziegenbein, A., Alard, R. and Schönsleben, P. (2009), “System-oriented supply chain risk
management”, Production Planning and Control, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 343-361.
Ojha, R., K. Vij, A. and Vrat, P. (2014), “Manufacturing excellence and its critical factors: an interpretive
structural methodology application”, Journal of Advances in Management Research, Vol. 11
No. 3, pp. 312-332.
Pandey, V.C. and Garg, S. (2009), “Analysis of interaction among the enablers of agility in supply
chain”, Journal of Advances in Management Research, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 99-114.
Patel, B.S., Samuel, C. and Sharma, S.K. (2018), “Analysing interactions of agile supply chain enablers
in the Indian manufacturing context”, International Journal of Services and Operations
Management, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 235-259.
Pfohl, H.C., Gallus, P. and Thomas, D. (2011), “Interpretive structural modeling of supply chain risks”,
International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, Vol. 41 No. 9, pp. 839-859.
Qazi, A., Quigley, J., Dickson, A. and Ekici, S Ö. (2017), “Exploring dependency based probabilistic
supply chain risk measures for prioritising interdependent risks and strategies”, European
Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 259 No. 1, pp. 189-204.
Rao, S. and Goldsby, T.J. (2009), “Supply chain risks: a review and typology”, The International Journal
of Logistics Management, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 97-123.
Ravi, V. and Shankar, R. (2005), “Analysis of interactions among the barriers of reverse logistics”,
Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 72 No. 8, pp. 1011-1029.
Rogers, H., Srivastava, M., Pawar, K.S. and Shah, J. (2016), “Supply chain risk management in India–
practical insights”, International Journal of Logistics Research and Applications, Vol. 19 No. 4,
pp. 278-299.
Sage, A. (1977), Interpretive Structural Modeling: methodology for Large-Scale Systems, McGraw-Hill,
pp. 91-164.
JM2 Salehi Heidari, S., Khanbabaei, M. and Sabzehparvar, M. (2018), “A model for supply chain risk
management in the automotive industry using fuzzy analytic hierarchy process and fuzzy
16,1 TOPSIS”, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 25 No. 9, pp. 3831-3857.
Shenoi, V.V., Dath, T.S., Rajendran, C. and Shahabudeen, P. (2018), “Strategic action grids: a study on
supply chain risk management in manufacturing industries in India”, Benchmarking: An
International Journal, Vol. 25 No. 8, pp. 3045-3061.
238 Song, W., Ming, X. and Xu, Z. (2013), “Risk evaluation of customer integration in new product
development under uncertainty”, Computers and Industrial Engineering, Vol. 65 No. 3,
pp. 402-412.
Soni, G. and Kodali, R. (2013), “A decision framework for assessment of risk associated with global
supply chain”, Journal of Modelling in Management, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 25-53.
Tang, C.S. (2006), “Perspectives in supply chain risk management”, International Journal of Production
Economics, Vol. 103 No. 2, pp. 451-488.
Thakkar, J., Kanda, A. and Deshmukh, S.G. (2013), “Supply chain issues in SMEs: select insights from
cases of Indian origin”, Production Planning and Control, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 47-71.
Tummala, R. and Schoenherr, T. (2011), “Assessing and managing risks using the supply chain risk
management process (SCRMP)”, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 16
No. 6, pp. 474-483.
Venkatesan, S.P. and Kumanan, S. (2012), “Supply chain risk prioritisation using a hybrid AHP and
PROMETHEE approach”, International Journal of Services and Operations Management,
Vol. 13 No. 1, p. 19.
Venkatesh, V.G., Rathi, S. and 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, Vol. 26, pp. 153-167.
Warfield, J.N. (1974), “Developing interconnection matrices in structural modeling”, IEEE Transactions
on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Vol. SMC-4 No. 1, pp. 81-87.
Warfield, J.N. (1976), “Implication structures for system interconnection matrices”, IEEE Transactions
on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Vol. SMC-6 No. 1, pp. 18-24.
Wieland, A. and Marcus Wallenburg, C. (2012), “Dealing with supply chain risks: linking risk
management practices and strategies to performance”, International Journal of Physical
Distribution and Logistics Management, Vol. 42 No. 10, pp. 887-905.
Zsidisin, G.A. (2003), “A grounded definition of supply risk”, Journal of Purchasing and Supply
Management, Vol. 9 Nos 5/6, pp. 217-224.

Further reading
Standard, B. (1991), Glossary of Terms Used in Quality Assurance (Including Reliability and
Maintainability), British Standards Institution, London.

About the authors

Harish Babu is a Research Scholar in the Department of Mechanical Engineering at Indian Institute
of Technology (Banaras Hindu University), Varanasi, India. He received his Master of Business
Administration degree from Graphic Era University Dehradun. He has more than five years of
experience in teaching and research. His areas of research interest are supply chain risk management
and materials management. Harish Babu is the corresponding author and can be contacted at:
harish.rs.mec14@iitbhu.ac.in
Prabhas Bhardwaj is a Professor in the Department of Mechanical Engineering at Indian Institute
of Technology (BHU), Varanasi, India. He obtained his BSc Engineering in Mechanical Engineering
and MTech in Engineering Systems and Management from Dayalbagh Educational Institute, Agra,
and PhD from Indian Institute of Technology (BHU), Varanasi. He has more than 20 years of
experience in teaching and research. He has publications in peer-reviewed international journals. His Supply chain
current area of research includes industrial management, supply chain management, cellular
manufacturing system, simulation methodology in manufacturing system design and analysis, risk variables
engineering economics, quality engineering, OR, PPC.
Anil K. Agrawal is a Professor in the Department of Mechanical Engineering at Indian Institute of
Technology (BHU), Varanasi, India. He obtained his Bachelor in Mechanical Engineering from
Motilal Nehru National Institute of Technology Allahabad. He obtained his Masters in Industrial and
Management Engineering and Doctoral degree from IIT Kanpur. He has more than 30 years of
experience in teaching and research. He has publications in peer-reviewed international journals. His
239
current area of research includes quality control, six sigma, optimization, industrial engineering,
operation management, supply chain management.

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com