The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
https://www.emerald.com/insight/1463-5771.htm
BIJ
30,3
950
Received 21 November 2021
Revised 3 April 2022
Accepted 9 April 2022
Benchmarking: An International
Journal
Vol. 30 No. 3, 2023
pp. 950-974
© Emerald Publishing Limited
1463-5771
DOI 10.1108/BIJ-11-2021-0702
A multi-stage method to determine
organizational constraint structure
and its application in a steel plant
in India
Saroj Kumar Singh, Alok Raj and J. Ajith Kumar
XLRI Xavier School of Management, Jamshedpur, India, and
Cyril Foropon
Montpellier Business School, Montpellier, France
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to identify potential constraints and determine the constraint structure
in a steel manufacturing plant. “Potential constraint” is defined as a factor that is either a constraint at present
or can become one in the future and “constraint structure” is used to denote the network of influences between
the potential constraints in an organization.
Design/methodology/approach – A three-step methodology was followed. First, potential constraints in a
steel manufacturing plant were identified with a literature review and expert inputs. Then, the fuzzy decision-
making trial and evaluation laboratory (fuzzy DEMATEL) technique was applied to uncover the structure and
finally, an ex-post validation and refinement of the results was done with help from other experts.
Findings – A total of 10 key potential constraints to steel manufacturing were identified. The two outputs of
fuzzy DEMATEL – the influence scatter plot (ISP) and the influence network diagram (IND) – together reveal
the constraint structure. The 10 potential constraints could be classified into three types – influencers,
mediators and influenced – respectively. Of these “Top management commitment (TMC)” and “Clear vision
and long-term planning (CLP)” influence other factors the most, and are themselves influenced the least; while
“Customer Relationship Management (CRM)” is most influenced by other factors, while influencing other
factors the least.
Practical implications – Potential constraints and the constraint structure can help decision makers in a
steel manufacturing plant to identify which organizational factors to address and achieving the plant’s goals.
Originality/value – This is the first study that analyzed organizational level constraints in a steel
manufacturing context.
Keywords Organizational constraints, Constraint structure, Steel making, Fuzzy DEMATEL
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction
The theory of constraints (TOC) describes a constraint as a factor that limits the performance
of an organization and prevents it from reaching its goal. Seeded by the initial efforts of
Eliyahu Goldratt and his co-workers (Goldratt and Cox, 1984), TOC-based approaches have
developed over nearly four decades, to help organizations identify constraints and resolve
them to improve organizational performance. Yet, an overview of the TOC research
(e.g. Ikeziri et al., 2018; Naor et al., 2013; Watson et al., 2007; Boyd and Gupta, 2004) suggests
that the predominant orientation of these approaches has been toward resolving and
identifying factors that are currently constraints, and not on factors that are not currently
constraints, but can become constraints in the future. In the opinion of Goldratt, ignoring non-
constraints, thinking that they are not important is unwise owing to the presence of
dependencies between constraints and non-constraints (Goldratt, 2010).
Motivated by these thoughts, the current paper proposes the term “potential constraint” to
refer to a factor that is either a constraint at present, or is a non-constraint at present but can
likely become a constraint in future. Thus, an organization’s set of potential constraints
includes factors that are currently constraining its performance as well as other factors that Organizational
are currently non-constraining but can constrain performance at some later time. Further, constraint
building upon Goldratt’s (2010, p. 4) mention of “dependencies” – or influences – between
constraints and non-constraints, it is possible to conceive of a network of influences between
structure
potential constraints, in which, generally speaking, each potential constraint influences each
of the others to some extent. Such a network of influences between potential constraints is
referred to as “constraint structure” in this paper. The paper suggests that knowing and
applying the constraint structure can be useful to an organization’s managers in prioritizing 951
between and managing potential constraints, to favor long-term performance. Constraint
structure forms the central theme of this paper, which we try to understand in the context of
the steel industry.
Steel is indispensable to economic development. The per capita consumption of steel is
treated as an important index of the socio-economic development of a country (Wu and Lin,
2022; Kumar and Maiti, 2018). The steel industry is a powerful symbol of industrialization
and urbanization, and leads the development of other industries such as construction,
shipbuilding, machinery, home appliances and automobiles (Xian et al., 2022; Huang et al.,
2021; Tang et al., 2015). In India, steel-making is among the country’s eight core industries,
together known as the core sector. Steel-making’s contribution to the Indian gross domestic
product was nearly 2% in 2015–16 (GoI, 2016). In 2018, India’s crude-steel production was
106.5 million tons, making it the second largest crude-steel producer in the world after China
(World Steel Association, 2019).
Steel-making follows a complex process involving several stages with multiple inputs and
outputs (Kumar and Maiti, 2018). Such manufacturing complexity leads to challenges such as
longer throughput times, delays in meeting schedules and lack of responsiveness (Singh and
Singru, 2018). These undesirable effects of complexity are enhanced by the presence of
constraints in system. A constraint is a factor that limits the performance of an organization
and prevents it from reaching its goal (Goldratt and Cox, 1984). However, the extant
manufacturing literature has hardly analyzed factors that can become constraints in steel
making.
Factors that are potential constraints can exist at the organizational as well as the
operational levels. The recognition of constraint(s) in organizational systems is at the core of
the TOC, which holds that a production system has at least one constraint restricting its
throughput and overall performance at any time (Naor et al., 2013). Generally, a constraint is
anything that limits a system’s ability, or the ability of the individual workers within that
system, to attain higher levels of performance (Bendoly and Hur, 2007). TOC research
recognizes multiple types of constraints, including a physical resource such as a machine
(Goldratt and Cox, 1984), the market (Pass and Ronen, 2007), a policy (Naor et al., 2013),
a dummy, that is, something inexpensive or easy to resolve such as paucity of cotton in a
healthcare clinic (Ronen and Spector, 1992; Naor et al., 2013), a situation or an issue
(Bendoly and Hur, 2007; Tesluk and Mathieu, 1999) and a faulty business model
(Spector, 2011).
From another perspective, constraints in an organization can exist at both organizational
and operational levels. While early TOC, as captured in The Goal, focuses on operational level
constraints (such as production workstations) as bottlenecks, later research recognizes that
there can be several constraints in the larger organizational ecosystem (Ikeziri et al., 2018;
Naor et al., 2013; Watson et al., 2007). However, these works do not explore priorities and inter-
relationships between these organizational constraints.
Unlike previous studies that explored constraints at the operational level, this is the first
study, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, that looks at potential constraints at the
organizational level, or factors such as the organization’s top leadership, knowledge
management initiatives, strategic planning, quality management approaches, supplier and
BIJ customer relationships and so on that encompass and influence not just a small part of the
30,3 organization, but the organization as a whole. The paper’s objective is to propose a systematic
method that can be applied by managers to answer three questions:
(1) What are the potential constraints in our organization at the organizational-level?
(2) How do these potential constraints influence one another?
952 (3) How should one prioritize between potential constraints in one’s efforts to ensure that
they do not remain/become constraints and limit performance?
The proposed method to address these questions has three stages that involve doing (1) a
literature review and taking expert inputs to identify potential constraints, (2) applying the
technique known as fuzzy decision making trial and evaluation laboratory (fuzzy
DEMATEL) to determine the constraint structure and (3) conducting ex-post validation
and refinement of the results through expert interviews. The paper describes the stages and
demonstrates their application in an integrated steel plant in India.
The rest of this paper is as follows. Section 2 presents a background on the TOC and
develops the idea of constraint structure. Sections 3 is devoted to the three stages of the
proposed method. First, potential organizational constraints in the chosen integrated steel
plant are identified in sub-section 3.1 with the help of previous literature and expert opinion.
Sub-section 3.2 describes fuzzy DEMATEL as an eight-step technique and details how the
eight steps were applied in the case organization. Then, sub-section 3.3 describes how the
outputs of fuzzy DEMATEL can be validated by interviews with other experts in the same
organization and refined with the help of insights gained. The outputs of the method and the
generalizability of its findings are discussed in Section 4 and conclusions and potential
directions for future are presented in Section 5.

2. Background literature
This section has three sub-sections. The first sub-section provides a brief overview of the
TOC; the second discusses constraints in organizational systems, while the third describes
the idea of constraint structure.

2.1 The TOC and its approaches

The TOC took roots in the 1970s with the work of Israeli physicist, Eliyahu Moshe Goldratt.
At the request of a neighbor, he developed a method to optimize the scheduling for a plant
producing chicken coops. This led to a tool named optimized production timetables (OPT) in
1979 that was later renamed optimized production technology (Watson et al., 2007).
Subsequently, Goldratt’s efforts crystallized in a bestselling book, The Goal (Goldratt and
Cox, 1984) that offers the foundations for the TOC as a universal theory built on the notion of
constraints, to improve an organization’s performance. The TOC has steadily grown since
then and is today represented by many books, journal papers, training programs and courses
in large universities. Insightful reviews and conceptual treatises by Rahman (1998), Boyd and
Gupta (2004), Kim et al. (2008) and more recently, Izekiri et al. (2018), provide good sketches of
the multiple themes encompassed by the TOC.
Initial development of the TOC following The Goal centered on the five focusing steps that
formed the core for a systematic process of ongoing improvement: identify, exploit,
subordinate everything to, elevate and prevent inertia from becoming the constraint (Ikeziri
et al., 2018). Later, Goldratt (1994) developed a suite of logic-based tools, known as the TOC
thinking processes to help managers address business problems in general. This expanded
the scope of the TOC from its initial narrow production bottleneck focus to a broader
organizational system focus (Mabin and Davies, 2010).
2.2 Constraints in organizational systems Organizational
Several organizational factors can prevent an organization from reaching its goals. However, constraint
Goldratt (2010) suggests that not all of them are active at every point in time. According to
Goldratt (2010), the actual number of elements that dictate the performance of a system – the
structure
number of constraints at any given time – is extremely small: “in organizations 0.1% of the
elements dictate 99.9% of the result” (p. 4). Yet, Goldratt also warns against ignoring
the non-constraints, “. . . there isn’t a more grave mistake than to equate non-constraint with
non-important. On the contrary, due to the dependencies, ignoring a non-constraint can 953
impact the constraint to the extent that the performance of the entire system severely
deteriorates” (Goldratt, 2010, p. 4). This thinking suggests that both constraints, as well as
non-constraints, exist side-by-side, manifesting in factors pertaining to the organization itself,
or to the larger environment in which the organization operates. Further, constraints and
non-constraints are linked to each other through interdependencies and thus, do not act in
isolation in their influence on the organization’s performance. Also, a system’s constraints
may remain constant in the short term but can change in the long term as current constraints
become non-constraints and vice versa (Goldratt and Cox, 1984).

2.3 Potential constraints and constraint structure

Building on these thoughts, this paper proposes the term “potential constraint” to refer to an
organizational level factor that is either currently a constraint or is currently not a constraint
but can become one in future. Thus, the set of potential constraints is a set of current
constraints and non-constraints at the organizational level. That interdependencies exist
between them indicates that an organization’s potential constraints operate as a system of
interrelated entities and not in isolation (Goldratt, 2010). As such, an organization faces the
task of handling a system of potential constraints that influence each other in multiple ways.
This paper refers to such a web of influences between potential constraints as the “constraint
structure” of an organization. Knowing the constraint structure can help concerned decision
makers identify which factors to address first and which later, in their ongoing effort to
ensure that these factors do not become constraints in future and limit the organization from
achieving its desired goal. Thus, the constraint structure can create value in a TOC-based
improvement process. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, no study has investigated TOC
under the context of “potential constraint”. This gap is addressed in the paper.

3. Methodology
This paper’s contributions lie in a) conceptualizing the constraint structure and then b)
describing a three-stage method (Figure 1) to determine it, and demonstrating the method in
an integrated steel plant in India. The method is generic in nature and can be applied in any
organization. In the first stage of the method, a list of potential organization-level constraints
is prepared based on a review of pertinent literature and interviews with experts in the chosen
organization. In the second, an eight-step process based upon fuzzy DEMATEL is applied on
the list of constraints, after taking responses from experts in the organization, as shown in
Figure 1. Finally, the third stage involves validating the outputs of fuzzy DEMATEL through
interviews with the experts and making refinements in them, if necessary. The three stages
are detailed in Sections 3, 4 and 5 respectively, along with descriptions of how they were
applied in the steel plant.

3.1 Stage 1: develop a list of potential constraints in the chosen organization

Factors that constrain performance can vary dynamically between and within organizations,
making the nature of constraints highly context and time-specific. As such, the identification
 BIJ
30,3

954

structure
Figure 1.
The multi-staged
method proposed to
determine constraint
START STEP 1
Construct a fuzzy pairwise matrix of constraints STEP 2.1
Standardise the fuzzy number
STEP 2
Convert the fuzzy numbers into crisp scores STEP 2.2
STAGE 1
Normalize
IdenƟfy potenƟal organizaƟonal level constraints
through a literature review and expert opinion STEP 3
Obtain the average direct relaƟon matrix
STEP 2.3
Compute crisp values
STEP 4
Normalize the iniƟal direct relaƟon matrix
STAGE 2 STEP 2.4
Apply Fuzzy-DEMATEL to generate the IPM and the Compute respondent crisp score
CM STEP 5
Derive the total relaƟonship matrix

STEP 6
STAGE 3 Compute and
Validate and refine the results through expert
interviews STEP 7
Draw the Influence-Prominence Map (IPM)

STEP 8
STOP Draw the CogniƟve Map (CM)
of potential constraints must keep the context in mind. To demonstrate the proposed Organizational
method, an integrated steel plant located in eastern India and referred to as Plant X in constraint
the paper, was chosen. A steel plant is a suitable context for studying organizational
level constraints since integrated steelmaking is a complex endeavor that involves a
structure
plethora of elements related to processes, capital flow, suppliers’ reliability, customers’
stability, SM, a culture of continuous improvement and technology and automation
(Li et al., 2014). At any given time, one or more of these aspects can constrain a steel plant’s
performance. 955
A total of 10 potential organizational constraints were identified through a literature
survey in conjunction with interviews with six experts. All the experts were professionals
employed in Plant X with more than 15 years of experience and were chosen using purposive
sampling. They were from different functions: Human Resources, Finance, Information
Technology, Operations, Vigilance and Total Quality Management, respectively
(see Table 1). They were highly skilled in their respective domains.
The exercise – carried out by two of the paper’s authors – proceeded through multiple
iterations of tasks that included studying and making notes from pertinent literature,
discussing with experts, coding constraint names and discussions between the authors.
Despite extensive research related to steelmaking, it was observed that no study has been
published that analyses organizational constraints in steel manufacturing. A search on the
SCOPUS database using the criteria (TITLE-ABS-KEY (“steel manufacturing”) AND TITLE-
ABS-KEY (“organisational constraints”) returned no study related to constraints in steel
manufacturing. Much of this literature has addressed tactical and operational-level
improvement issues such as batching, scheduling, efficiency and product-mix
optimization. For example, Ogata et al. (2015) have proposed scheduling of a caster, an
important process in steel manufacturing. Some studies rely on mathematical programming
approaches (e.g. Mao et al., 2014), while others rely more on heuristic-based approaches
(e.g. Li et al., 2014; Pan et al., 2016).
Thus we relaxed the criteria and searched on the SCOPUS database using the revised
criteria: (TITLE-ABS-KEY (“steel manufacturing”) AND TITLE-ABS-KEY (“constraints”)
OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (“bottlenecks”) and found 44 related documents. We included the
keyword “bottlenecks” since some studies considered “bottlenecks” and “constraints” as
having similar meanings. Two of the authors of this paper independently reviewed all the
articles to finalize the constraints. In this process, we realized that some of the papers studied
constraints in manufacturing systems in general (see Ikeziri et al., 2018 and Urban and
Rogowska, 2019 for reviews) but none has touched upon steel manufacturing. So, we also
included these two papers in the document list. Seventeen potential organizational level
constraints were commonly identified across these papers. A total of 10 distinct challenges
were categorized by collating and discussion with experts. Several authors used similar
approaches to identify and categorize distinct barriers/critical factors in other fields (Raj et al.,
2020; Rajesh and Ravi, 2015).

Sl. No Experience Department Designation

1 20 Quality Assurance Head Quality Assurance

2 30 Corporate audit and vigilance Manager Vigilance
3 15 Continuous casting Head Process Slab caster Table 1.
4 19 Human Resource Management Head Improvement, HRM Profile of the experts
5 13 Steel melting shop 2 Head Secondary Steel making who did the pairwise
6 34 Through process Quality Assurance Senior Manager Quality Assurance comparisons
BIJ The 10 constraints eventually identified are as follows (also see Table 2):
30,3 (1) Top management commitment (TMC): TMC is a key element for successful
implementation of management initiatives such as just-in-time programs, human
resource development initiatives, energy conservation initiatives and safety and
sustainability programs (Rodgers et al., 1993). Top management support has been
responsible for the success of improvement initiatives in an organization (Rodriguez
956 et al., 2008), as it compels managers to think holistically beyond their functional
boundaries. It has been found that firms with higher TMC implement improvement
initiatives more rigorously than those with lower TMC (Ahire and O’ shaughnessy,
1998). Lack of top management support adversely affects the efforts of
organizations in the implementation of strategic decisions such as lean and
quality management, knowledge and innovation management and safety and
welfare initiatives (Ferdows and Demeyer, 1990). Given all this, TMC is in steel
making to ensure the successful implementation of strategic decisions, while its lack
is a potential constraint to performance.
(2) Clear vision and long term planning (CLP): The vision of an organization helps in
creating a positive environment and provides a clear direction for its employees and
leaders to work toward achieving their common goals and aspirations (Gutierrez
et al., 2009). The positive effect of a shared vision helps in understanding market
needs quickly and responding to them with agility to remain competitive in the
marketplace. To realize the aspirations mentioned in the vision statement, long term
planning can be helpful (Carton et al., 2014). A clear vision and a long-term strategy
can be helpful in any industry (Chaudhuri and Jayaram, 2019) but it is particularly
important in the steelmaking owing to the cyclical nature of the steel business. In
such contexts, a long-term strategy and a clear vision can help face the crests and
troughs of the business cycles and to maintain performance at a reasonable level
even during a downturn. On the other hand, inadequacies in CLP can make it a
constraint to organizational performance.

Sr Short
No Factor name Reference

a Top management TMC Rodriguej et al. (2008); Rodgers et al. (1993); Ferdows and
commitment Demeyer (1990)
b Clear vision and long term CLP Gutierrez et al. (2009); Carton et al. (2014)
planning
c Employee motivation and EM Cappelli and Neumark (2001); Kreisman (2002); Yee et al.
work culture (2010)
d Skilled manpower SM Bello-Pintado and Bianchi (2018); Barney (1991); Hamel
and Prahalad (1996)
e Supplier relationship SRM Choy et al. (2004)
management
f Technology and automation TA Muchiri and Pintelon (2008); Gilbert and Finch (1985)
g Clean and safe working CWE Hasle et al. (2012); Shankar et al. (2017)
environment
h Customer relationship CRM Chen and Popovich (2003); Schniederjans et al. (2012);
Table 2. management Chen and Popovich (2003)
Potential i Lean and quality management LQM Alves and Alves (2015); Hasle et al. (2012); Cherrafi et al.
organizational (2017)
constraints identified j Knowledge management and KM Hung et al. (2010); Bennett and Gabriel (1999)
in the study innovation
(3) Employee motivation and work culture (EM): A motivated workforce is a key resource Organizational
for an organization’s success (Cappelli and Neumark, 2001). Kreisman (2002) argues constraint
that the most valuable asset of any institution is a well-motivated workforce which is
productive as well as competent and dedicated. In addition, attributes such as
structure
motivation and dedication of the employees are helpful in enhancing customer
satisfaction by offering a better service to customers and thereby enhancing their
loyalty and firm performance (Yee et al., 2010). In the steel industry also, it becomes
important to have a motivated and loyal workforce as the absence of motivated 957
employees can drive down performance and constraint the organization’s performance.
(4) Skilled manpower (SM): In the manufacturing industry, SM complements
technology in enhancing firm performance in terms of quality, productivity and
delivery (Bello-Pintado and Bianchi, 2018). Highly tacit and non-transferable skills
of the employees are important weapons to create competitive advantages in a
sustainable manner (Barney, 1991; Hamel and Prahalad, 1996). Steel-making is a
type of manufacturing in which human skills play an important role in throughput
enhancement and the overall performance of the firm. The performance of a steel
plant is largely driven by the knowledge and skill sets of its manpower acquired
over a period of time and are largely tacit in nature. Such knowledge cannot be easily
transferred or implanted overnight. Being semi-automatic and process oriented,
manual interventions are very high in this industry and hence SM directly impacts
work output and industry performance. The scarcity of SM can be a major
constraint in throughput enhancement of a steel plant.
(5) Supplier relationship management (SRM): The business environment is highly
competitive and supplier relationships are a strategic weapon to remain sustainable
in the marketplace. In a highly volatile market scenario, collaborations with
suppliers play a key role in keeping the cost of manufacturing at a reasonable level
and dampening out variabilities in prices. These ultimately help in serving the
customer in a more consistent manner (Chan, 2003) and as the literature reveals,
firms have been taking collaborative approaches with their suppliers to enhance
their overall operational effectiveness. Whether manufacturing or service, a
sustainable and robust supply chain is an important and strategic element. In the
steel-making too, remaining sustainably competitive in the marketplace lies in
ensuring raw material security and having an uninterrupted supply chain for goods
and services. The absence of a robust SRM can significantly constrain the
operations in steelmaking.
(6) Technology and automation (TA): Today, manufacturing organizations are mostly
knowledge-based and technology-driven. In optimizing productivity, cost, quality
and delivery the use of technology TA play important roles (Muchiri and Pintelon,
2008). Use of advanced manufacturing systems, state-of-the-art IT systems and
modern automation helps operators reduce process variabilities by interpreting the
data more accurately and effectively. Advanced TA is also helpful in reducing
unplanned outages of machines due to severe breakdowns (Gilbert and Finch, 1985).
Longer downtime of equipment affects the overall availability and productivity of
the plant. Reducing dependency on manual intervention by use of modern
technology and high level of automation gives competitive advantages in today’s
market scenario (Swanson, 1999). At the same time, the lack of TA in a steel plant
can seriously constrain performance.
BIJ (7) Clean and safe working environment (CWE): The steelmaking process is hazardous
30,3 and polluting by nature due to various fugitive emissions. As per one estimate, 1.83
tons of CO2 were emitted for every ton of steel produced on average in 2017 [1]. A
safe and clean work environment attracts good people and also helps organizations
in retaining their talents, motivating them and keeping their performance high.
Having a clean working environment is vital for employers to reduce their workers’
absenteeism and compensation claims. If employees are subjected to a hazardous
958 environment, there is a risk of an accident (Hasle et al., 2012). Manufacturing
companies generally need to give most attention to safety, health and environment
issues due to the adverse impact of these factors to the triple bottom line people,
planet and profit (Shankar et al., 2017). The triple bottom line concept was launched
by Elkington (1998), in which he argued that the environmental dimension is highly
associated with economic and social performances of the firm. If proper attention is
not paid to it, then CWE can become a serious constraint to an organization’s
performance (Vachon and Klassen, 2008).
(8) Customer relationship management (CRM): CRM helps in enhancing customer
engagement and eventually reflects in terms of increase in shareholder value
(Schniederjans et al., 2012). During market ups and downs, CRM plays a vital role in
dampening out the effects of order fluctuations and keeping the sales volume to a
reasonable level (Chen and Popovich, 2003). In recent years, several initiatives have
been taken to enhance CRM. In the steelmaking context, the Value Analysis and Value
Engineering (VAVE) initiative has been an important tool for enhancing customer
value. VAVE also provides a platform to engage with customers and to help them in
bringing excellence at various stages of their operations ranging from designing and
manufacturing to after-sale services (Gunashekran, 1998). Given today’s competitive
market scenario, the absence of CRM can constrain business performance.
(9) Lean and quality management (LQM): To remain sustainable and competitive in
rapidly business environment, continuous improvement initiatives are taken up by
manufacturing and services industries. LQM is considered an important and
effective initiative to reduce waste, improve productivity, meet customer
requirement in terms of quality, cost and delivery performances (Alves and
Alves, 2015). Steel manufacturing, being a capital and manpower intensive industry,
LQM can play a vital role in reducing waste and improving performance. A strong
correlation has been found between LQM initiatives and sustainable firm
performance (Cherrafi et al., 2017). As such, the absence of a continuous
improvement initiative such as LQM can constrain firm performance.
(10) Knowledge management and innovation (KM): In today’s competitive world,
investments in knowledge and technology management have become the prime
focus of many firms to create an edge over rivals (Hung et al., 2010). KM is a popular
tool to create a competitive edge by enhancing the overall skill level of the people in
an organization and archiving knowledge in a systematic manner for future
reference (Bennett and Gabriel, 1999). Slater and Narver (1995) suggest that the
capacity to react quickly and effectively to a changing business environment
depends upon a well-established KM system which ensures a smooth flow of
information and exchange of learning. In the steelmaking context also, KM is
important because of various changes in technologies over a period of time. In the
changing environment, it is important for people to upgrade their knowledge, skill
and understanding about recent advancements. The absence of KM can become an
important bottleneck to firm performance (Rasula et al., 2012).
Next, Stage 2, involving fuzzy DEMATEL and its application, is described. Organizational
constraint
3.2 Stage 2: apply fuzzy DEMATEL to determine the constraint structure structure
In this study we use fuzzy DEMATEL for analysis. It is a multi-criteria decision-making
(MCDM) technique that helps in deriving and analyzing influences among multiple factors
(Raj and Sah, 2019). There are several MCDM techniques, such as interpretive structural
modeling (ISM), total interpretive structural modeling (TISM), DEMATEL and analytic 959
hierarchy process (AHP) tools. ISM and TISM evaluate a structural relationship between
barriers but fail to quantify the strength of the relationship among the factors (Luthra et al.,
2018). AHP evaluates the relationship between the factors by considering that factors are
independent, which does not truly reflect the real situation (Raj et al., 2020).
DEMATEL provides the interrelationship between the factors by considering the
strength of relationship while considering dependency among the factors (Raj and Sah, 2019).
It was first developed by the Geneva Research Center of the Battelle Memorial Institute to
comprehend the structure of complex relationships between entities (Gabus and Fontella,
1972). Since the technique is based on inputs from experts, a concern might arise that its
results suffer from human subjectivity and ambiguity. To address this concern, fuzzy theory
has been used in the literature (Luthra et al., 2018). Fuzzy set theory was developed by Zadeh
(1965) to help handle subjectivity and ambiguity in decision making. In particular, its use with
DEMATEL allows us to examine the causal interrelationships among variables when the
information available is subjective and has a certain extent of ambiguity. Hence, fuzzy
DEMATEL has been included in this paper’s method. The eight steps of fuzzy DEMATEL,
adapted from Yadav and Barve (2018) and Kabak et al. (2016), are as follows:
Step 1: Construct a fuzzy pairwise matrix of constraints
The technique starts by gathering the inputs of experts. Using the potential constraints
identified in stage 1, a table is made to capture pairwise comparisons by experts. These
comparisons serve as the primary inputs for fuzzy DEMATEL and are obtained using a
linguistic scale with markings: N for “No influence”, VL for “Very low influence”, L for “Low
influence”, M for “Medium influence”, H for “High influence” and VH for “Very high
influence” as shown in Table 3 and uses triangular fuzzy numbers (TFNs). The TFN response
of the kth expert ðk ¼ 1; . . . ; KÞ on the linguistic scale is denoted by e xkij ¼ ðlijk ; mkij ; nkij Þ.
This response, e xkij, represents the influence of constraint i on constraint j as assessed by expert
k as a TFN. If n is the number of constraints, then each expert’s set of comparisons results in
an n x n matrix, also known as an initial direct relation matrix. With K experts, K such initial
direct relation matrices of size n 3 n are obtained. In this study, K ¼ 6 and n ¼ 10, thus 6
initial direct relation matrices of size 10 3 10 were obtained.
Step 2: Convert the fuzzy numbers into crisp scores

Linguistic judgment TFN

Table 3.
No influence (N) (0, 0, 0.25) Fuzzy linguistic
Very low influence (VL) (0, 0.25, 0.50) judgment and
Low influence (L) (0.25, 0.50, 0.75) corresponding
High influence (H) (0.50, 0.75, 1.0) triangular fuzzy
Very high influence (VH) (0.75, 1.0, 1.0) number (TFN)
BIJ As the matrix operations cannot be performed on a fuzzy number directly, defuzzification is
30,3 done first. The method proposed by Opricovic and Tzeng (2003) known as converting fuzzy
data into crisp scores (CFCS), was used for defuzzification as described below:
Step 2.1: Standardize the fuzzy number
 
lijk  min lijk
1≤k≤K
960 xlijk ¼ (1)
Δmax
min
 
mkij  min lijk
1≤k≤K
xmkij ¼ (2)
Δmax
min
 
rijk  min rijk
1≤k≤K
xrijk ¼ (3)
Δmax
min

min ¼ maxrij − minlij

Where. Δmax k k

Step 2.2: Calculate normalized values of the standardized fuzzy number

xmkij
xlskij ¼   (4)
1 þ xmkij  xlijk

xrijk
xrskij ¼   (5)
1 þ xrijk  xmkij

Step 2.3: Compute crisp values after normalization

    2 
xlskij 1  xlskij þ xrskij
xkij ¼   (6)
1 þ xrskij  xlskij

Step 2.4: Calculate the crisp score of the kth respondent

zkij ¼ minlijk þ xkij Δmax
min (7)

Step 3: Obtain the average direct relation matrix

Averaging the crisp scores across the k experts yields
A ¼ ½aij  (8)

Where
X
1 1≤k≤K
aij ¼ zk (9)
K k ij
This step yields a non-negative average direct relation matrix A, in which aij indicates the Organizational
impact of constraint i on constraint j averaged across the experts. The diagonal elements constraint
(when i 5 j), aii ¼ 0.
structure
Step 4: Normalize the initial direct relation matrix
1
D¼ (10)
P n
max aij
1≤1≤n j¼1
961

Using (10), the normalized matrix D 5 [dij] is obtained. After normalizing, all dij will satisfy
0 ≤ dij ≤ 1, and all principal diagonal elements will be zero.
Table 4 shows the D obtained in the current study.
Step 5: Derive the total relationship matrix
−1
T ¼ ðtij Þ ¼ DðI  DÞ (11)

The total relationship matrix T is obtained using (11), where I is an identity matrix. Table 5
shows the T obtained in the current study.
Step 6: Compute ri and cj
In T ¼ ½tij  obtained above, it is noted that tij represents the influence of constraint i on
constraint j. Two scores, ri and cj, are respectively computed using (12) and (13).
X
ri ¼ tij (12)
1≤j≤n
X
cj ¼ tij (13)
1≤i≤n

ri, the sum of row i, denotes the net influential impact of constraint i on all other constraints j.
Similarly, cj, the sum of column j represents the net influence of all other constraints on
constraint j. Thus, ri and cj are respectively the “net outward influence” and the “net inward
influence” of constraint i in the organization’s system of constraints (see Table 6).
Step 7: Draw the influence scatter plot
The influence scatter plot (ISP) is created by plotting ri (net outward influence) of constraint i
along the horizontal axis and ci (net inward influence) along the vertical axis. The ISP
obtained in the current study is shown in Figure 2. In this map, each axis is divided into three

CWE CLP CRM EM KM LQM SM SRM TA TMC

CWE 0.000 0.029 0.054 0.109 0.029 0.099 0.039 0.069 0.094 0.014
CLP 0.099 0.000 0.104 0.114 0.079 0.114 0.109 0.099 0.114 0.039
CRM 0.004 0.019 0.000 0.044 0.059 0.049 0.079 0.059 0.064 0.089
EM 0.109 0.059 0.104 0.000 0.109 0.124 0.109 0.094 0.079 0.059
KM 0.029 0.074 0.079 0.079 0.000 0.094 0.094 0.074 0.094 0.054
LQM 0.124 0.074 0.089 0.094 0.054 0.000 0.074 0.074 0.074 0.054
SM 0.094 0.054 0.109 0.094 0.074 0.109 0.000 0.039 0.079 0.044 Table 4.
SRM 0.059 0.044 0.094 0.059 0.044 0.074 0.029 0.000 0.064 0.044 Normalized initial
TA 0.094 0.054 0.114 0.099 0.094 0.114 0.109 0.069 0.000 0.049 direct relationship
TMC 0.104 0.124 0.109 0.109 0.099 0.124 0.099 0.109 0.124 0.000 matrix
BIJ CWE CLP CRM EM KM LQM SM SRM TA TMC
30,3
CWE 0.13 0.12 0.21 0.24 0.15 0.25 0.17 0.19 0.22 0.10
CLP 0.30 0.15 0.34 0.33 0.26 0.35 0.31 0.28 0.32 0.17
CRM 0.13 0.11 0.14 0.17 0.17 0.19 0.20 0.17 0.19 0.16
EM 0.30 0.20 0.33 0.22 0.27 0.35 0.30 0.27 0.28 0.19
KM 0.20 0.19 0.27 0.25 0.15 0.29 0.26 0.22 0.26 0.16
962 LQM 0.28 0.19 0.28 0.27 0.20 0.21 0.24 0.23 0.25 0.16
SM 0.25 0.17 0.29 0.27 0.22 0.30 0.17 0.20 0.25 0.15
Table 5. SRM 0.18 0.13 0.23 0.19 0.15 0.22 0.16 0.12 0.19 0.13
Total relationship TA 0.27 0.19 0.32 0.30 0.25 0.33 0.29 0.24 0.20 0.17
matrix TMC 0.33 0.29 0.38 0.36 0.30 0.40 0.34 0.32 0.37 0.16

Potential constraint ri (Net outward influence) ci (Net inward influence)

CWE 1.79 2.36

CLP 2.80 1.74
CRM 1.63 2.79
EM 2.71 2.60
KM 2.25 2.12
Table 6. LQM 2.32 2.90
Net inward and SM 2.28 2.43
outward influences of SRM 1.70 2.24
the potential TA 2.57 2.53
constraints TMC 3.24 1.55

parts – low, medium and high – creating nine zones in the plot. Further discussion on the ISP
and its zones is presented in Section 6.
Step 8: Draw the influence network diagram
Next, again using T ¼ ½tij , an influence network diagram (IND) is prepared. The IND is a
pictorial depiction of the influences between the potential constraints. Since nðn − 1Þ=2
distinct pairs of factors can be made with n factors, and since tij ≠ tji in general, there are a
total of nðn − 1Þ distinct influences in T. For example, in the current study, which has 10
factors, there are 90 influences. As n increases, this number quickly grows large and
representing all the influences on a graph can make it too crowded and difficult to
comprehend. Hence, only selected influences are presented in the IND that exceed a threshold
value tc of tij. Here, the DEMATEL literature does not offer a clear consensus on how tc must
be set. For example, in Rahman and Subramanian (2012) it is taken as 0.2, while in Ha and
Yang (2017) it is taken as the average μ of all mij. In some DEMATEL studies, the standard
deviation (σ ) of all tij is used along with μ, as for example tc ¼ μ þ σ (Bai and Sarkis, 2013),
tc ¼ μ þ 1:5σ (Rajesh and Ravi, 2015) and tc ¼ μ þ 2σ (Zhu et al., 2015).
A simple rule-of-thumb is to not set tc so high that it will exclude most of the influences but
set it high enough to ensure that the number of influences selected does not make the IND too
crowded. Keeping this in mind, tc was taken to be tc ¼ μ þ 0:75σ ¼ 0:28 in this study,
resulting in the selection of 31 influences (tij) to be plotted on the IND. The selected tij are
indicated by the entries in Table 5 in italic lettering and shaded background. For example, the
entries in shade and bold lettering in the TMC row in Table 5 indicate its influences on all
other constraints, while the entries in the TMC column indicate that it is not influenced by any
other constraint. The total selected numbers of inward and outward influences for all
potential constraints are shown in Table 7. The IND is shown in Figure 3.
 3.3
Organizational
9 6 3 constraint
structure
HIGH

[CELLRANGE]

[CELLRANGE]
NET INWARD INFLUENCE (ci)

963
2.7
8 5 2
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
MEDIUM

[CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE]

[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]

2.1
7 4 1
LOW

[CELLRANGE]

[CELLRANGE]
1.5 Figure 2.
1.5 LOW 2.1 MEDIUM 2.7 HIGH 3.3 Influence scatter
plot (ISP)
NET OUTWARD INFLUENCE (ri)

Together, the ISP and the IND are taken to be the outputs of fuzzy DEMATEL in the
proposed method.

3.3 Stage 3: interviews with experts to validate the results and gain insights
In the third and final stage, the two outputs of the fuzzy DEMATEL analysis – the ISP and the
IND – are validated with experts who were not involved in stages 1 and 2 of the study. In the
current study, these outputs, reported in Figures 2 and 3 respectively, were shown to 10
professionals in Plant X and a face-to-face semi-structured interview was conducted with each of
them. The interviewees were chosen using purposive sampling and are referred to in this paper
by the codes “R1”, “R2” and so on, up to “R10”. Table 8 summarizes the interviewees’ profiles.
All interviews were recorded on 28th November 2019 with interviewees’ permissions. Two
of the three authors of this paper conducted the interviews. Examples of the types of
questions asked include:
(1) Our findings show that TMC and CLP are the top influencing factors – what do you
feel about this result?
(2) CRM is influenced by most other factors – what is your view?
(3) What do you feel about the ISP and the IND?
Essentially the questions and the discussions that they generated aimed at capturing
respondents’ perceptions on stage 2 results, in the context of Plant X, their organization.
BIJ Number of influences selected for
30,3 the IND
Sr No Factor Acronym Outward Inward Total

1 Top management commitment TMC 9 0 0

2 Clear vision and long term planning CLP 7 1 8
3 Employee motivation and work culture EM 6 3 9
964 4 Skilled manpower SM 2 4 6
5 Supplier relationship management SRM 0 3 3
Table 7. 6 Technology and automation TA 4 3 7
Number of selected 7 Clean and safe working environment CWE 0 4 4
inward and outward 8 Customer relationship management CRM 0 6 6
influences selected for 9 Lean and quality management LQM 2 6 8
the IND 10 Knowledge management and innovation KM 1 1 2
NET INWARD INFLUENCE (ci)

Figure 3.
Influence network
diagram (IND)
NET OUTWARD INFLUENCE (ri)

4. Results and discussion of the study

This section begins with a discussion on how the two outputs of the method – the ISP and the
IND – can be interpreted and used to prioritize between constraints. In this paper, potential
constraints are defined as organizational-level factors that are either currently constraints to
performance or can become constraints in future. The ISP (Figure 2) with its 3 3 3 matrix
having nine zones offers a way to prioritize between potential constraints in the organization’s
efforts to ensure that potential constraints do not become constraints in the future. Drawing on
the ISP, it is proposed that potential constraints be segregated into three categories – the
influencers (those in Zones 1–3), the mediators (Zones 4–6) and the influenced (Zones 7–9).
 Interview
Organizational
Sl. Interview capturing constraint
No duration (min) method Experience Department Designation structure
R1 45 Video 18 TQM & Improvement Chief Business Process
Enhancement
R2 30 Video 19 Human Resource Head Improvement,
Management HRM 965
R3 35 Video 18 Maintenance Head Maintenance
Technology expert expert group
group
R4 25 Video 10 Information Manager IT
Technology
R5 30 Video 10 Equipment Manger
Maintenance
R6 55 Video 19 Cold rolling mill Head Operations
R7 50 Video 10 Cold rolling mill Head Maintenance
Mechanical
R8 40 Video 11 Steel Melting shop 3 Sr. Manager
R9 30 Note book 13 Steel melting shop 2 Head Secondary
Steelmaking
R10 35 Note book 22 Electrical Head Electrical Table 8.
Maintenance maintenance, Profile of validation
Steelmaking shop participants

4.1 Influencers (zones 1–3)

The potential constraints in Zone 1 have a high net outward influence and a low net inward
influence on other potential constraints. These factors influence other potential constraints
significantly but are influenced by them only a little. If these factors become constraints, they
are likely to also weaken other factors that matter to performance, increase the chances of those
factors becoming constraints, and trigger a domino-like effect. As such, it is highly desirable
that the Zone 1 factors never become constraints. Hence, these factors should be at the top on
the priority list. In the case of Plant X, it is seen (Figure 2) that TMC and CLP fall in Zone 1. In the
IND (Figure 3), TMC influences all nine other potential constraints but is itself influenced by
none, while CLP influences seven potential constraints and is influenced only by TMC.
Factors in Zones 2 and 3 must be next in priority, since they also represent factors with
high net outward influence, but medium and high inward influences respectively. In Plant X,
EM falls in Zone 2, while no potential constraint is in Zone 3 (Figure 2). In Figure 3, EM is
involved in nine influences, of which, six are outward (CWE, CRM, LQM, SM, SRM and TA),
while three are inward (CLP, TA and TMC). That is, three potential constraints influence EM,
which in turn influences six other potential constraints.

4.2 Mediators (zones 4–6)

Factors in Zones 4, 5 and 6 exert medium levels of net influence on other potential constraints
and are next in priority to those in Zones 1–3 from the perspective of efforts to prevent
non-constraints from becoming constraints. In the case of Plant X, no factor appears in Zone 4,
while three factors – SM, KM and TA – fall in Zone 5 (Figure 2). Zone 5 represents factors that
exert medium levels of net outward as well as inward influences on other potential constraints.
Figure 3 reveals that TA influences four (EM, SM, LQM and CRM) and is influenced by three
potential constraints (EM, TMC and CLP), SM influences two (LQM, CRM) and is influenced by
four potential constraints (TMC, CLP, EM, TA) while KM influences one (LQM) and is in turn
influenced by one potential constraint (TMC). Zone 6 (Figure 2) has only one potential
BIJ constraint (LQM) and represents medium net outward influence but high net inward influence.
30,3 Consistent with this, Figure 3 shows LQM influencing only two (CRM and CWE) but being
influenced by six potential constraints (TMC, CLP, EM, SM, KM and TA). This suggests that
factors in Zones 4, 5 and 6 play a mediating role and are analogous to “transmitters of influence”
between the influencing factors in Zones 1, 2 and 3 and the influenced factors in Zones 7, 8 and 9.

966 4.3 Influenced (zones 7–9)

Finally present in the priority order are factors in zones 7, 8 and 9. These factors are highly
influenced by, but exert low levels of net influence on, other potential constraints. In Plant X,
no potential constraint falls in Zone 7. Zone 8 contains SRM and CWE. In Figure 3, neither of
these has any outward influence on a potential constraint, but are respectively influenced by
three (TMC, CLP and EM) and four (TMC, CLP, SM and LQM) other potential constraints.
Moreover, in comparison to the potential constraints in Zone 8, the ones in Zone 9 are even
more influenced by other factors, as for example, CRM in Plant X, which is influenced by six
other potential constraints (TMC, CLP, SM, TA, EM and LQM) but does not influence any
other constraint. In short, given their relatively high inward influences, factors in Zones 7–9
are likely to become constraints if factors that influence them become constraints.

4.4 The top-left to bottom-right diagonal

A close examination of the IND in Figure 3 reveals that six of the 10 potential constraints of
Plant X appear in the three zones (1, 5 and 9) that lie along the top-left to bottom-right diagonal
in the matrix. The remaining four potential constraints appear in three other zones (2, 6 and 8)
that adjoin the first three, while the remaining three zones (3, 4 and 7) are empty. These
observations suggest a possible negative relationship between a potential constraint’s net
outward influence and net inward influence. The Pearson correlation coefficient between the
potential constraints’ ri and ci scores (from Table 6), calculated using IBM® SPSS® version
22, was 0.5532 (p < 0.01), lending support to the same. This finding, though somewhat
intuitive, proffers the insight that the influencers, mediators and the influenced tend toward
the three respective zones – 1, 5 and 9 – that fall along the top-left to bottom-right diagonal.
This diagonal, then, can be thought of as representing a current of influence flowing from its
bottom-right to the top-left corners.

5. The validation exercise

The validation exercise helped gain insights into potential constraints and the influences between
them that may not have been possible otherwise. The exercise helped in two ways: (1) to establish
the validity of the results obtained and (2) to enrich and modify the results with additional insight.
Relevant points obtained from the interviews are presented below in bulleted lists.

5.1 Supporting the validity of the results obtained

(1) All the 10 respondents concurred that TMC and CLP are very important for the
success of a steel plant and can easily become constraints if not attended to. In
addition, R1 noted that “TMC and CLP are closely associated, and both should come
at same level,” while R7 added that “TMC and CLP carry similar importance as far as
organizational constraints are concerned since, if there is tension between the two,
then it is very difficult to achieve the goal”. R2 and R3 argued that between the two,
TMC is more primal and needs to be addressed first. In short, in a listing of potential
constraints, those in Zone 1 should be accorded the highest priority in Plant X and it is
appropriate to term them influencers.
 (2) R9, who is the head of secondary steelmaking in Plant X, reflected upon the role of EM Organizational
and explained that Plant X has several factors that depend on the motivation of the constraint
employees. Hence, EM’s role as an Influencer is somewhat expected. Along these
lines, R6, R8 and R5 observed that the influence of EM on SM seen in Figure 3 was
structure
expected, since, the learning rate of employees would slow down in the absence of
adequate motivation. Specifically, in the case of manual work, EM will influence SM
even more, they suggested.
967
(3) Commenting on KM as a mediator, R9 noted that KM is a cultural issue and builds
over periods of time. R1 added that while an organization can buy technology and hire
people, an organization’s knowledge is unique and proprietary to it. Therefore, it is
important for an organization to have good KM practices.
(4) R1 stated that standard operating practices and different types of kaizen have been
kept in a centralized system in Plant X that helps employees learn new practices. This is
one way to ensure that LQM does not become a constraint to the plant’s performance.
(5) R2, R4, R5 and R6 commented on the influence of TA on SM as shown in Figure 3. R4
said that since TA is available from technology providers to Plant X, so it is normally
not a constraint. R5 stated that in 2016, a major accident happened in the plant due to
the unfamiliarity of new technology by operators, thus the relation between TA and
SM was very crucial. R4 also observed that TA is nowadays replacing jobs, as for
instance in the context of a steel plant maintenance operation in the blast furnace,
which is carried out by robots.
(6) R8 stated, “CRM is the outcome of various factors” and said that the finding was in
agreement with his real-life observations.
(7) R8 noted that “SRM provides competitive advantage to the firms in today’s world.”
R10 (the head of maintenance) added that “SRM is essential for running the steel plant
uninterrupted. It helps in improving the technology and automation levels in an
organisation”. Suppliers update the organization about new advancements in
technology and help the industry to adopt modern, economical, and less polluting
approaches. If SRM is poor, then it can constraint the business performance and
adversely affect it, especially in scenarios of scarce or limited resources.
(8) R10 noted that CWE is very essential for all stakeholders as a cleaner work
environment can help inspire the employees better.

5.2 Enriching and modifying the results with additional insight

The validation interviews also identified certain links that were not highlighted earlier in the
IND (Figure 3) but were considered are pertinent by the experts interviewed. For example:
(1) R3 stated that he expected TA to also influence KM because training and skilling of
employees can be done on virtual online platforms, as was happening in the case of
Plant X.
(2) R1 and R6 observed that they would expect KM to influence SM to influence each
other, though this is not observed in the study’s findings in Plant X. They argued that
capturing and harnessing people’s tacit knowledge is at the core of good KM.
(3) Almost all respondents concurred that in real-life practices, several factors influence
CRM, as is already seen in the study’s findings. But they also pointed that business
starts from customer, so they expected CRM to influence other aspects of the
BIJ organization in some ways. More specifically, CRM can be expected to influence LQM
30,3 and TA to some extent because organizations often introduce technology on the basis
of customer demand (R8, R10). Organizations bring new technologies because
customers might need special type of grades (R2, R3). Further discussion on this point
revealed that since Plant X was a big manufacturer, there were long-term business
agreements with its customers and customers had relatively less bargaining power
with the plant. For smaller manufacturers, the customer’s influence on organizational
968 aspects can be more.
Based on these insights, four new links were added to the IND: TA-KM, KM-SM, CRM-LQM
and CRM-TA. The refined IND (RIND) with these additional links in dotted lines is shown in
Figure 4.

6. Implication of the study

6.1 Implications for theory
This study has several implications to theory. This is the first study that applies the TOC at
the organizational level and includes both present constraints as well as non-constrains that
can become a constraint in the near future. In the literature most studies deal with present
constraints only at the operational level. Second, this paper analyses a relationship between
different potential constraints. On the methodological front, this paper proposes a multi-stage
method to determine a given organization’s constraint structure and the same has been
demonstrated with data from Plant X. Can the findings obtained at a given organization be
NET INWARD INFLUENCE (ci)

Figure 4.
Refined Influence
network
diagram (RIND)
NET OUTWARD INFLUENCE (ri)
generalized? In favor of such generalization, it is noted that the findings of the current study Organizational
are to some extent in consonance with more general observations made by earlier researchers. constraint
For example, research has noted that TMC impacts EM (Yee et al., 2010), drives the
adoption of state-of-the-art TA, promotes LQM practices (Kaynak and Pagan, 2013), supports
structure
the development of SM (Rodgers et al., 1993), helps cultivate good relationships with
customers as well as suppliers and is favorable to a clean working environment (Ahire and O’
shaughnessy, 1998). Likewise, clear vision and planning directly impacts EM (Carton et al.,
2014), technological automation (Gutierrez et al., 2009), SM (Cappelli and Neumark, 2001) and 969
so on. With regards to supplier relationships, Chan (2003) describes a sustainable supply
chain as an essential element to remain competitive in the long run. Good supplier relations
help create a robust, uninterrupted and sustainable supply chain of the inputs required to run
the business.
In another stream of research, Chaudhuri and Jayaram (2019) note that it takes time for an
organization to build and inculcate the culture of improvement, technology and innovation.
Owing to their high prominence, when these aspects become constraints, they are likely to
impact business performance in the short as well as the long term. In particular, the literature
highlights the role of EM as an important factor in driving improvement initiatives such as
LQM, KM and innovation and eventually helps in maintaining a better customer relationship
(Cappelli and Neumark, 2001).
Thus, the findings of the current study pertaining to the constraint structure in Plant X are
generalizable to some extent to other organizations as well. Notwithstanding this, it is very
much possible that factors that are potential constraints in one organization may have
different types of influences in another. As a result, the constraint structure of each
organization could have unique aspects, or influences, that other organizations may not
experience. For this research, it is suggested that rather than relying on general conclusions,
the method proposed in this paper is applied to each organization separately, and at
appropriate points in time, over the focal organization’s planning horizon.

6.2 Implications for managerial practice

Identification of potential constraints and making a contingent plan in any organization can
save millions of dollars in a year. This study, by showing how to ascertain an organization’s
constraint structure, gives organizations and their consultants a systematic method to
prioritize between the constraints to improve organizational performance. This study
provides a ready reckoner tool that would help mangers and practitioners to understand the
potential constraints in the steel industry. This analysis helps in understanding the causal
relationship among constraints. It is not possible to resolve all the constraints simultaneously
and hence, prioritizing between them is necessary. For instance, our results suggest that TMC
influences all the remaining nine potential constraints, while CLP influences seven potential
constraints. It indicates that TMC can be a major potential constraint.

7. Conclusions
Any factor in the organization that becomes a constraint can retard performance, implying that
it is desirable for organizations to carefully identify and monitor potential constraints before
they actually become constraints. This however, does not mean that organizations need to
randomly choose between constraints to monitor and devote resources to, in order to prevent
them from becoming constraints. In this regard, the current study makes two distinct
contributions. First, it extends this line of TOC thinking by conceptualizing the notion of
organizational constraint structure, as the network of inter-relationships between potential
constraints in an organization. Second, it describes and demonstrates a simple multi-stage
BIJ method based on fuzzy DEMATEL to determine and analyze the constraint structure and helps
30,3 an organization discriminate between potential constraints to prioritize between managing
them in its efforts to sustain good performance. At the core of the method is the creation of two
graphical outputs, the ISP and the IND, that together represent the organization’s constraint
structure. As this paper brings forth, the potential constraints in an organizational system can
be classified as the “influencers”, the “influenced” and the “mediators”.
Analyzing organizational constraint structure in this manner underscores the thinking
970 that the focus should not be on constraints in isolation; rather, understanding the
relationships among them and seeing them together is very important. It is possible that in
some situations, a few constraints are more influential and prominent than others, as they
drive or get driven by many other constraints in the organization. Likewise, at any given time,
some constraints can have a greater influence on restricting the organization’s performance
than others. A constraining factor that is resolved can become favorable to performance.
In the current study, a single integrated steel plant was taken, resulting in all experts from
whom responses were gathered being employed in the same business context. Though this
has served the purpose of demonstrating a method to determine constraint structure,
comparing constraint structures across contexts can reveal new and different insights. It is
proposed that future studies explore new insights by comparing constraint structures across
multiple industry settings. Another direction that can be explored is by asking whether the
proposed method, which is based on fuzzy DEMATEL, can be complemented using other
structural techniques such as structural equation modeling (SEM). Yet another line of
exploration possible is the inclusion of external factors as potential constraints such as
market, political and legal factors. In the current study, only internal factors were considered.
This paper complements and extends current research on the TOC. From the perspective
of praxis, the study, by showing how to ascertain an organization’s constraint structure,
gives organizations and their consultants a systematic method to prioritize between
constraints to improve organizational performance.

Note
1. https://www.worldsteel.org/publications/position-papers/steel-s-contribution-to-a-low-carbon-
future.html accessed on 31/05/2019.

References
Ahire, S.L. and O’shaughnessy, K.C. (1998), “The role of top management commitment in quality
management: an empirical analysis of the auto parts industry”, International Journal of Quality
Science, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 5-37.
Alves, J.R.X. and Alves, J.M. (2015), “Production management model integrating the principles of lean
manufacturing and sustainability supported by the cultural transformation of a company”,
International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 53 No. 17, pp. 5320-5333.
Bai, C. and Sarkis, J. (2013), “A grey-based DEMATEL model for evaluating business process
management critical success factors”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 146
No. 1, pp. 281-292.
Barney, J. (1991), “Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage”, Journal of Management,
Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 99-120.
Bendoly, E. and Hur, D. (2007), “Bipolarity in reactions to operational ‘constraints’: OM bugs under an
OB lens”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 1-13.
Bennett, R. and Gabriel, H. (1999), “Organizational factors and knowledge management within large
marketing departments: an empirical study”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 3 No. 3,
pp. 212-225.
Boyd, L. and Gupta, M. (2004), “Constraints management: what is the theory?”, International Journal Organizational
of Operations and Production Management, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 350-371.
constraint
Cappelli, P. and Neumark, D. (2001), “Do ‘high-performance’ work practices improve establishment-
level outcomes?”, ILR Review, Vol. 54 No. 4, pp. 737-775.
structure
Carton, A.M., Murphy, C. and Clark, J.R. (2014), “A (blurry) vision of the future: how leader rhetoric
about ultimate goals influences performance”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 57 No. 6,
pp. 1544-1570.
971
Chan, F.S. (2003), “Interactive selection model for supplier selection process: an analytical hierarchy
process approach”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 41 No. 15,
pp. 3549-3579.
Chaudhuri, A. and Jayaram, J. (2019), “A socio-technical view of performance impact of integrated
quality and sustainability strategies”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 57
No. 5, pp. 1478-1496.
Chen, I.J. and Popovich, K. (2003), “Understanding customer relationship management (CRM) People,
process and technology”, Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 9 No. 5, pp. 672-688.
Cherrafi, A., Elfezazi, S., Govindan, K., Garza-Reyes, J.A., Benhida, K. and Mokhlis, A. (2017),
“A framework for the integration of Green and Lean Six Sigma for superior sustainability
performance”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 55 No. 15, pp. 4481-4515.
Choy, K.L., Lee, W.B. and Lo, V. (2004), “An enterprise collaborative management system-a case study
of supplier relationship management”, Journal of Enterprise Information Management, Vol. 17
No. 3, pp. 191-207.
Elkington, J. (1998), “Partnerships from cannibals with forks: the triple bottom line of 21st-century
business”, Environmental Quality Management, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 37-51.
Ferdows, K. and De Meyer, A. (1990), “Lasting improvements in manufacturing performance: in
search of a new theory”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 168-184.
Gabus, A. and Fontela, E. (1972), World Problems, an Invitation to Further Thought within
the Framework of DEMATEL, Battelle Geneva Research Center, Geneva, Switzerland, pp. 1-8.
Bello-Pintado, A. and Bianchi, C. (2018), “Educational diversity, organizational structure and
innovation performance: evidence from Uruguayan industry”, Estudios de Economıa, Vol. 45
No. 2, pp. 203-229.
Gilbert, J.P. and Finch, B.J. (1985), “Maintenance management: keeping up with production’s changing
trends and technologies”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 1-12.
GoI (2016), available at: https://pib.gov.in/newsite/PrintRelease.aspx?relid5153661 (accessed 8
January 2022).
Goldratt, E. (1994), It’s Not Luck, North River Press, Great Barrington, MA.
Goldratt, E.M. (2010), “Introduction to TOC - my perspective”, in Cox, J.F., John, G. and Schleier (Eds),
Theory of Constraints Handbook, McGraw-Hill, pp. 4-9.
Goldratt, E.M. and Cox, J. (1984), The Goal: An Ongoing Improvement Process, Gower, Aldershot.
Gunasekaran, A. (1998), “Agile manufacturing: enablers and an implementation framework”,
International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 36 No. 5, pp. 1223-1247.
 (2009), “Six sigma: from a
Gutierrez Gutierrez, L.J., Llorens-Montes, F.J. and Bustinza Sanchez, O.F.
goal-theoretic perspective to shared-vision development”, International Journal of Operations
and Production Management, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 151-169.
Ha, M.H. and Yang, Z. (2017), “Comparative analysis of port performance indicators: independency
and interdependency”, Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Vol. 103,
pp. 264-278.
Hamel, G. and Prahalad, C.K. (1996), Competing for the Future, Harvard Business Press, available at:
https://hbr.org/1994/07/competing-for-the-future.
BIJ Hasle, P., Bojesen, A., Langaa Jensen, P. and Bramming, P. (2012), “Lean and the working
environment: a review of the literature”, International Journal of Operations and Production
30,3 Management, Vol. 32 No. 7, pp. 829-849.
Huang, J.B., Zou, H. and Song, Y. (2021), “Biased technical change and its influencing factors of iron
and steel industry: evidence from provincial panel data in China”, Journal of Cleaner
Production, Vol. 283, 124558.
Hung, R.Y.Y., Lien, B.Y.H., Fang, S.C. and McLean, G.N. (2010), “Knowledge as a facilitator for
972 enhancing innovation performance through total quality management”, Total Quality
Management, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 425-438.
Ikeziri, L.M., Souza, F.B.D., Gupta, M.C. and de Camargo Fiorini, P. (2018), “Theory of constraints:
review and bibliometric analysis”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 57 Nos 15-
16, pp. 5068-5102.
€ Ulengin,
Kabak, O., € €
F., Çekyay, B., Onsel, €
Ş. and Ozaydın, € (2016), “Critical success factors for the
O.
iron and steel industry in Turkey: a fuzzy DEMATEL approach”, International Journal of Fuzzy
Systems, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 523-536.
Kaynak, H. and Pagan, J.A. (2003), “Just-in-time purchasing and technical efficiency in the US
manufacturing sector”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 41 No. 1, pp. 1-14.
Kim, S., Mabin, V.J. and Davies, J. (2008), “The theory of constraints thinking processes: retrospect and
prospect”, International Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol. 28 No. 2,
pp. 155-184.
Kreisman, B.J. (2002), “Insights into employee motivation, commitment and retention”, Business
Training Experts: Leadership Journal, Ph.D Research/White Paper, University of Texas,
pp. 1-24, available at: https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi510.1.1.582.
5654&rep5rep1&type5pdf.
Kumar, P. and Maiti, J. (2018), “Productivity changes in Indian steel plants: DEA approach”,
International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, Vol. 35 No. 5, pp. 1093-1114.
Li, J.Q., Pan, Q.K., Mao, K. and Suganthan, P.N. (2014), “Solving the steelmaking casting problem using
an effective fruit fly optimisation algorithm”, Knowledge-Based Systems, Vol. 72, pp. 28-36.
Luthra, S., Mangla, S.K., Shankar, R., Prakash Garg, C. and Jakhar, S. (2018), “Modelling critical
success factors for sustainability initiatives in supply chains in Indian context using Grey-
DEMATEL”, Production Planning and Control, Vol. 29 No. 9, pp. 705-728.
Mabin, V.J. and Davies, J. (2010), “The TOC thinking processes: their nature and use-reflections and
consolidation”, Theory of Constraints Handbook, McGraw Hill, New York, NY, pp. 631-669.
Mao, K., Pan, Q.K., Pang, X. and Chai, T. (2014), “A novel lagrangian relaxation approach for a hybrid
flowshop scheduling problem in the steelmaking-continuous casting process”, European
Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 236 No. 1, pp. 51-60.
Muchiri, P. and Pintelon, L. (2008), “Performance measurement using overall equipment effectiveness
(OEE): literature review and practical application discussion”, International Journal of
Production Research, Vol. 46 No. 13, pp. 3517-3535.
Naor, M., Bernardes, E.S. and Coman, A. (2013), “Theory of constraints: is it a theory and a good one?”,
International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 51 No. 2, pp. 542-554.
Ogata, T., Okubo, T., Nagai, H., Yamamoto, M., Sugi, M. and Ota, J. (2015), “A novel algorithm for
continuous steel casting scheduling with focus on quality property constraint and slab width
maximization”, International Journal of Automation Technology, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 235-247.
Opricovic, S. and Tzeng, G.H. (2003), “Defuzzification within a multicriteria decision model”,
International Journal of Uncertainty, Fuzziness and Knowledge-Based Systems, Vol. 11 No. 5,
pp. 635-652.
Pan, H., Zhang, X., Wu, J., Zhang, Y., Lin, L., Yang, G. and Peng, H. (2016), “Sustainability evaluation
of a steel production system in China based on emergy”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 112,
pp. 1498-1509.
Pass, S. and Ronen, B. (2007), “Management by the market constraint in the hi-tech industry”, Organizational
International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 41 No. 4, pp. 713-724.
constraint
Rahman, S.U. (1998), “Theory of constraints: a review of the philosophy and its applications”,
International Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 336-355.
structure
Rahman, S. and Subramanian, N. (2012), “Factors for implementing end-of-life computer recycling
operations in reverse supply chains”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 140
No. 1, pp. 239-248.
973
Raj, A. and Sah, B. (2019), “Analyzing critical success factors for implementation of drones in the
logistics sector using grey-DEMATEL based approach”, Computers and Industrial Engineering,
Vol. 138, 106118.
Raj, A., Kumar, J.A. and Bansal, P. (2020), “A multicriteria decision making approach to study barriers
to the adoption of autonomous vehicles”, Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice,
Vol. 133, pp. 122-137.
Rajesh, R. and Ravi, V. (2015), “Modeling enablers of supply chain risk mitigation in electronic supply
chains: a Grey-DEMATEL approach”, Computers and Industrial Engineering, Vol. 87,
pp. 126-139.
Rasula, J., Vuksic, V.B. and Stemberger, M.I. (2012), “The impact of knowledge management on
organisational performance”, Economic and Business Review for Central and South-Eastern
Europe, Vol. 14 No. 2, p. 147.
Rodgers, R., Hunter, J.E. and Rogers, D.L. (1993), “Influence of top management commitment on
management program success”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 78 No. 1, p. 151.
Rodrıguez, N.G., Perez, M.J.S. and Gutierrez, J.A.T. (2008), “Can a good organizational climate
compensate for a lack of top management commitment to new product development?”, Journal
of Business Research, Vol. 61 No. 2, pp. 118-131.
Ronen, B. and Spector, Y. (1992), “Managing system constraints: a cost/utilization approach”,
The International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 30 No. 9, pp. 2045-2061.
Schniederjans, M.J., Cao, Q. and Ching Gu, V. (2012), “An operations management perspective on
adopting customer-relations management (CRM) software”, International Journal of Production
Research, Vol. 50 No. 14, pp. 3974-3987.
Shankar, K.M., Kannan, D. and Kumar, P.U. (2017), “Analyzing sustainable manufacturing practices-
A case study in Indian context”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 164, pp. 1332-1343.
Singh, V. and Singru, P.M. (2018), “Graph theoretic structural modeling based new measures of
complexity for analysis of lean initiatives”, Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management,
Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 329-349.
Slater, S.F. and Narver, J.C. (1995), “Market orientation and the learning organization”, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 59 No. 3, pp. 63-74.
Spector, Y. (2011), “Theory of constraint methodology where the constraint is the business model”,
International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 49 No. 11, pp. 3387-3394.
Swanson, L. (1999), “The impact of new production technologies on the maintenance function: an
empirical study”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 37 No. 4, pp. 849-869.
Tang, L., Meng, Y., Chen, Z.L. and Liu, J. (2015), “Coil batching to improve productivity and energy
utilization in steel production”, Manufacturing and Service Operations Management, Vol. 18
No. 2, pp. 262-279.
Tesluk, P.E. and Mathieu, J.E. (1999), “Overcoming roadblocks to effectiveness: incorporating
management of performance barriers into models of work group effectiveness”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 84 No. 2, p. 200.
Urban, W. and Rogowska, P. (2019), “Systematic literature review of theory of constraints”,
International Scientific-Technical Conference Manufacturing, Springer, Cham, pp. 129-138.
BIJ Vachon, S. and Klassen, R.D. (2008), “Environmental management and manufacturing performance:
the role of collaboration in the supply chain”, International Journal of Production Economics,
30,3 Vol. 111 No. 2, pp. 299-315.
Watson, K.J., Blackstone, J.H. and Gardiner, S.C. (2007), “The evolution of a management philosophy:
the theory of constraints”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 387-402.
World Steel Association (2019), available at: https://worldsteel.org/media-centre/press-releases/2019/
global-crude-steel-output-increases-by-4-6-in-2018/(accessed 8 January 2022).
974
Wu, R. and Lin, B. (2022), “Environmental regulation and its influence on energy-environmental
performance: evidence on the porter hypothesis from China’s iron and steel industry”,
Resources, Conservation and Recycling, Vol. 176, 105954.
Xian, Y., Yu, D., Wang, K., Yu, J. and Huang, Z. (2022), “Capturing the least costly measure of CO2
emission abatement: evidence from the iron and steel industry in China”, Energy Economics,
105812, doi: 10.1016/j.eneco.2022.105812.
Yadav, D.K. and Barve, A. (2018), “Segmenting critical success factors of humanitarian supply chains
using fuzzy DEMATEL”, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 400-425.
Yee, R.W., Yeung, A.C. and Cheng, T.E. (2010), “An empirical study of employee loyalty, service
quality and firm performance in the service industry”, International Journal of Production
Economics, Vol. 124 No. 1, pp. 109-120.
Zadeh, L.A. (1965), “Fuzzy sets”, Information and Control, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 338-353.
Zhu, Q., Sarkis, J. and Lai, K.H. (2015), “Reprint of ‘Supply chain-based barriers for truck-engine
remanufacturing in China’”, Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation
Review, Vol. 74, pp. 94-108.

Further reading
Bauer, J.M., Vargas, A., Sellitto, M.A., Souza, M.C. and Vaccaro, G.L. (2019), “The thinking process of
the theory of constraints applied to public healthcare”, Business Process Management Journal,
Vol. 25 No. 7, pp. 1543-1563.

Corresponding author
Alok Raj can be contacted at: alokraj@xlri.ac.in

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