Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Materials Today: Proceedings 4 (2017) 1744–1751 www.materialstoday.com/proceedings

5th International Conference of Materials Processing and Characterization (ICMPC 2016)

Addressing the Agile Manufacturing Impediments using Interpretive

Structural Modeling
Pavan Kumar Potdara, Srikanta Routroya *, Astajyoti Beheraa
a
Mechanical Engineering Department, Birla Institute of Technology and Science,Pilani, Pilani Campus (Rajasthan)-333031, India

Abstract

Agile manufacturing (AM) has achieved tremendous remembrance by the organizations to beat the uncertainties resulting from
rapidly change market, shortening product life cycle, varying customer demand and obsolete technologies. AM is adopted as a
new concept to improve the competitiveness of different organizations ranging from manufacturing sector to service sector.
However, in reality, many organizations have been facing lots of problems during the implementation of AM due to some
environment specific impediments. The AM implementation process is getting delayed without the efforts of addressing the root
cause of Agile Manufacturing Impediments (AMIs). These AMIs have its deep roots along various tangible and intangible issues
of the organizations. Therefore, an organization needs to target the appropriate AMIs as putting efforts on all AMIs is not
feasible. In this paper, a methodology is proposed using Interpretive Structural Modeling (ISM) integrated with Fuzzy Matriced
Impacts Croises Multiplication Appliqueeaun Classement (FMICMAC) algorithm for systematic analysis of impediments of AM.
To demonstrate its practicality, a case study was conducted in an Indian automobile manufacturing company.
©2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of Conference Committee Members of 5th International Conference of Materials
Processing and Characterization (ICMPC 2016).

Keywords: Agile Manufacturing, Agile Manufacturing Impediments, Interpretive Structural Modeling, Fuzzy MICMAC, Automobile
Manufacturing company.

1. Introduction:

In today's competitive environment, Agile manufacturing (AM) has evolved as a revolutionary way of
manufacturing the products based on uncertainties due to varying customer demands and obsolete technologies. It
was defined as a production model that has resulted from changes in external environment [1, 2]. Only those
organizations which are responsive to changes and are able to dynamically modify their processes and products to
satisfy demands can excel in the business and make profits. The prominences on quick response to change, ability to

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +91-1596-515304; fax: +91-1596-244183.

E-mail address:[email protected]

2214-7853©2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Selection and peer-review under responsibility of Conference Committee Members of 5th International Conference of Materials Processing and
Characterization (ICMPC 2016).
 Pavan Kumar Potdar, Srikanta Routroy, Astajyoti Behera / Materials Today: Proceedings 4 (2017) 1744–1751 1745

succeed in anticipated changing environments and anchoring the changes to gain strategic advantage have been
widely advocated to achieve AM [3,4]. Unable to leverage the competencies can impact the agility of organization
and erodes competiveness [3]. There exists a need to comprehensively model the agile system by amending the key
impediments as well as find out the interdependency between the agile impedimenta in an uncertain environment
[5]. Therefore, it is essential that the appropriate AMIs should be identified to enhance the agile development in the
organizations. But many a times organizations fail to identify these appropriate AMIs due to improper analysis.
Thus, considering all the aforementioned issues, this study proposed an approach to identify the appropriate
impediments for monitoring the smooth implementation AM in specific environment.

The paper is organized as follows: section 2 presents the literature review on AM and agile manufacturing
impediments; section 3 presents the proposed methodology to find out the appropriate impediments; section 4 deals
with application of the proposed methodology in an Indian automobile manufacturing company; section 5 interprets
the results and presents the recommendations specific to the case company and Section 6 discusses the conclusions.

2. Literature review

Agile manufacturing and the concept of agility represent the ability of a manufacturer of goods and services to
thrive in the race of continuous and unanticipated change [5]. AM is defined by researchers in many ways
depending upon the nature of manufacturing. It is a paradigm that enables an organization to supply products
according to the choice and specifications of the customer [6]. AM is a business concept that integrates
organizations, people and technology into a meaningful unit by deploying advanced information technologies and
flexible organization structures to support highly skilled, knowledgeable and motivated people [7]. Many authors
had laid emphasis on customization, optimal designs, reduction in manufacturing lead time, reduction in
manufacturing cost, predicting and responding to the market trends, increased product varieties, and satisfaction of
customer requirements [8,9,10] as indicators of good manufacturing performance, on the contrary many authors had
also identified various AMIs. For example lack of top management support and commitment, fear and resistance to
organizational change, inappropriate measurement approaches for qualitative benefits and agility, lack of
methodologies to enhance agility, lacking in customer feedback systems integration, insufficient training, education
and rewards system are termed as impediments for the implementation of AM [5].

Untrained and unskilled manpower cannot respond to dynamic changes in manufacturing and hence impact
agility. Right person with right skills is required at right place for proper (working) functioning of organization.
Employees must be motivated to contribute their best and have faith in their work. Demotivated employees are a
hurdle in agile manufacturing. Periodic training in advance technology and practices must be imparted to have
highly skilled work force. Inability to maintain proper training schedules results in a barrier to agility. Investing in
inflexible SPMs (Special Purpose Machines) and special technologies restricts the range of operations and makes
manufacturing processes rigid and inflexible. Manufacturing control systems that do not support quick reorientation
and dynamic changes in processes cannot help in producing new varieties of products. Improper assessment of
uncertainty can create a false sense of stability in the organization [11]. Recently, considerable research along
various dimensions of AM have been carried out. Although many researchers have pointed out much regarding
various AMIs and their assessment tools, there are no many studies available related to categorically identification
of root cause impediments specific to the automobile manufacturing sectors. On the basis of literature review and
experts opinions from an Indian automobile manufacturing company, eleven AMIs were identified. The details
regarding the identified AMIs are mentioned in Table 1.
1746 Pavan Kumar Potdar, Srikanta Routroy, Astajyoti Behera/ Materials Today: Proceedings 4 (2017) 1744–1751

Table 1. Agile Manufacturing Impediments

Agile Manufacturing Impediments Explanation References

Improper Competency Manufacturing organization that is not able to leverage or augment its [3,12,13,14]
Management (ICM) competency will face a difficult task while faced with an uncertain customer
demand.
Improper Forecast (FOR) Improper assessment of uncertainty, market conditions and the degree of [11,15]
agility required will impact the operations and result in inefficient response to
customer.
Improper Human Resource Good human resource can contribute towards agility if they are trained (to [16]
Management (IHR) become multi-skilled), motivated and placed in the right place and numbers.
Inefficient Information Transparence in information sharing in terms of time, accuracy, nature/type, [17]
Management (IIM) visibility etc. is the antecedent for AM.
Lack of Management Involvement A management without proper strategy, commitment and plans will be failed [13,17,18]
(LMI) to implement the AM and leverage its benefits.
Lack of Manufacturing Flexibility Flexible equipment and reconfigurability are the key areas that promote agility. [3,11,16,18,19]
(LMF)
Ineffective Production Planning Operations planning keeping in view of the changing market conditions and [11,12,19,20]
(IPP) customer preferences are the need AM.
Stakeholders Attitude (EBE) Need for agility is suppressed if all the stakeholders are not supporting the [2]
implementation of AM.
Government policies and support Lack of support from government in Taxes, Duty charges etc. hinders the [16]
(GPS) implementation of AM.
Ineffective Customer Better customer relations are necessary to understand their requirements, [11,15]
Relationship(ICR) feedbacks and to address their grievances on time
Ineffective Supply chain (ISC) Collaboration among strategic supply chain partners is the key to be agile. [12,19,20]

3. Methodology

The proposed methodology is developed using Interpretive Structural modelling (ISM) and Fuzzy Matriced
Impacts Croises Multiplication Appliqueeaun Classement (FMICMAC) analysis. The step by step procedure of ISM
and FMICMAC algorithm is presented in section 3.1. Inputs from multiple experts’ were taken in binary and fuzzy
scale for identified AMIs. In the first stage, the Structural Self-interaction matrix (SSIM) was developed from the
judgments of the team of multiple experts’. The SSIM is then fed into the ISM algorithm coded in MATLAB. The
Initial Reachability Matrix (IRM) is developed by converting the SSIM into a binary matrix as per the steps
provided in section 3.1.1. The ISM algorithm gives output to draw a conclusion of the hierarchical structure of all
the AMIs by level partitioning. The results obtained from the ISM algorithm will help in understanding the
relationship between AMIs. However to improve the analysis, ISM is integrated with FMICMAC analysis giving
the experts more degree of freedom to express their views. The same of teams of experts was consulted again to take
the inputs for developing the Fuzzy Direct Relationship Matrix (FDRM) of AMIs. The FDRM data is then again fed
to the FMICMAC algorithm coded in MATLAB as per steps discussed in section 3.1.2. The FMICMAC algorithm
gives the driving and dependence power of each AMIs by summing up the rows and columns of the converged
matrix. The detail steps of the proposed algorithm are described in the following sections.

3.1. ISM-Fuzzy MICMAC methodology for analyzing AMIs

In this study, flexible multi objective decision making approach, ISM is used to study the inter-relationships
among recognized AMIs. In addition to it is more important for the organization to interpret how, and in what way
each impediment influences other impediments in a specific environment. The necessary details of ISM integrated
with FMICMAC are given in the subsequent subsections and it will also justify its adoption.

3.1.1. ISM Algorithm

ISM methodology has the ability to draw the order and direction of relationships among
impediments/barriers/obstacles of a complex system [21]. ISM presents a hierarchical structure that depicts the
direct and indirect linkages between the various factors in a system based on priority, precedence and causality over
and among each other [22,23,24]. Recently many researchers have used ISM as a quantitative tool in various
 Pavan Kumar Potdar, Srikanta Routroy, Astajyoti Behera / Materials Today: Proceedings 4 (2017) 1744–1751 1747

environments The ISM methodology used in the study is discussed below:

Step 1: Identify the AMIs through literature review, brainstorming sessions and expert opinions.
Step 2: Form a group of experts (favourably seven to ten) drawn from company and academics with experience
and knowledge in the said field.
Step 3: Carry out the thematic content analysis to define the domain of each AMI on the basis of experts remarks
obtained from step 1. Consider the irredundant, properly accounted, relevant and significant AMIs to develop
Structural Self-Interaction Matrix (SSIM).
Step 4: Develop SSIM by drawing contextual relationships among the AMIs on the basis of experts’ opinion. Use
four symbols (A: AMI ‘j’ leads to AMI ‘i’; V: AMI ‘i’ leads to AMI ‘j’; X: AMI ‘i’ leads to AMI ‘j’ and AMI ‘j’
leads to AMI ‘i’ and O: No relationship between AMI ‘i’ and AMI ‘j’) for the type of the relation that exists
between the AMIs (‘i’ and ‘j’).
Step 5: Develop the Initial Reachability Matrix (IRM) by converting the SSIM into a binary matrix, substituting
V, A, X and O by 1 and 0. The substitution by 1’s and 0’s are as per the following rules: If the (i, j) entry in the
SSIM is V, then the (i, j) entry in the IRM 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 IRM becomes 0 and the (j, i) entry becomes 1. If the (i, j) entry in the SSIM is X, then
the (i, j) entry in the IRM becomes 1 and the (j, i) entry also becomes 1. If the (i, j) entry in the SSIM is O, then the
(i, j) entry in the IRM becomes 0 and the (j, i) entry also becomes 0.
Step 6: Develop the Final Reachability Matrix (FRM) from IRM considering transitivity among the contextual
relations of AMIs. Determine the transitivity in the relationship as follows: if AMI “i” is related to AMI ‘j’ and AMI
‘j’ is related to AMI ‘k’, then AMI ‘i’ is related to AMI ‘k’. Then the (i, k) entry in the FRM becomes 1*. Determine
the driving and dependence power of each AMI by taking summation of the elements along the rows and columns of
FRM respectively. Rank The AMIs on the basis of driving and dependence powers.
Step 7: Carry out the level partitioning of AMIs by developing the reachability and antecedent sets for each AMI
on the basis of FRM. The reachability set of an AMI contains the AMI itself and other AMIs which it may reach.
Whereas, the antecedent set of an AMI contains the AMI itself and other AMIs which may reach it. The AMIs for
which the reachability and intersection sets are same will occupy the top-level in the ISM hierarchy. Separate out the
top-level AMIs from the initial set of AMIs and then repeat the process until all the AMIs is assigned to a level.
Step 8: From the obtained level partitions, develop a lower triangular matrix or canonical matrix. It is just another
form of FRM in which AMIs are positioned and clustered according to the level of partition. This canonical matrix
forms the basis for developing a directed graph called as digraph. If a relationship (directly or indirectly) exists
between AMI ‘i’ and AMI ‘j’, this is shown by an arrow (i.e. link) which points from AMI ‘i’ to AMI ‘j’.
Step 9: Develop the final structural model of AMIs by eliminating the transitivity links in the diagraph (obtained
in the step-8) and considering the level partitions (in step-7) and FRM (in step-6).
Step 10: Review the structural model of AMIs developed in Step-9 for conceptual accuracy. If it is not
conceptually accurate, then go to Step-3.
Step 11: Based on the driving and dependence powers obtained in the step-6, carry out the Fuzzy MICMAC
analysis (see section 3.1.2).

3.1.2. Fuzzy MICMAC Analysis Algorithm

Although MICMAC analysis can classify AMIs, there is a limitation in this process. Since the relationships
between AMIs are recorded in terms of binary values (either 0 or 1), there is no enough degree of freedom for
experts in expressing the strength of relationship between the AMIs. To resolve the above issue, FMICMAC
analysis should be carried out. The objective of the FMICMAC analysis is to divide the AMIs into four quadrants
namely autonomous, dependent, linkage and driver. The steps mentioned below are to be followed to conduct
FMICMAC analysis:
Step 1: In the FRM (see step-6 of the ISM algorithm in the section 3.1.1), replace all the diagonal elements along
with the transitive relationships with 0’s to obtain a Binary Direct Relationship Matrix (BDRM).
Step 2: Using the same experts’ judgments (see step-4 of the ISM algorithm in the section 3.1.1); recollect the
relationships between the AMIs in the BDRM to obtain fuzzy Direct Relationship Matrix (FDRM).
Step 3: Raise the FDRM’s power by fuzzy matrix multiplication (rule: C = max k {min (aik, bkj)} where A = [aik],
B = [bkj]) till it is converged. Determine the convergence point where the driving and dependence powers of AMIs
are stabilized or cyclic in their variation with certain periodicity.
1748 Pavan Kumar Potdar, Srikanta Routroy, Astajyoti Behera/ Materials Today: Proceedings 4 (2017) 1744–1751

Step 4: Based on the new driving and dependence powers obtained from the final converged matrix, plot the
driver dependence diagram (with dependence power along the X-axis and driving power along the Y-axis) and
classify the AMIs in to four groups (i.e. autonomous having lower dependence and driver power, dependent having
higher dependence and lower driver power, linkage having higher dependence and driver power and independent
having lower dependence and higher driving power). Flowchart of the proposed methodology for analysing AMIs is
shown in fig.1
Identification of AMIs through literature survey, brainstorming, and discussions with experts

Test for Redundancy, irrelevancy and gross level insignificant AMIs

Irredundant, relevant, complete and unidirectional AMIs

Development of SSIM on the basis of multiple experts’ judgments

Input SSIM to MATLAB code implementing ISM

Obtain FRM, driving and dependence powers of each AMI and develop structural model

Develop BDRM from FRM

Develop FDRM and input to MATLAB code implementing FMICMAC analysis

Develop stabilized matrix to obtain different clusters of AMIs

Analysis of clusters of AMIs and interpretation of results

Figure 1.Flowchart of the proposed methodology for analysing AMIs

4. Implementing of proposed methodology in an Indian Automotive Manufacturing Company

The proposed methodology was applied to an Indian automobile manufacturing company for analysing the AMIs.
As per the company’s policy, to protect its confidentiality, to maintain good relationship with the company and to
conduct further research, name of the company is not disclosed and it is named as ‘case company’. The case
company is a large scale manufacturer of two-wheeler vehicles. The company has pioneered in operations with over
20 years of manufacturing expertise in developing the flexibility to cater to any volume demand from the customer.
No matter what the intricacy levels of product manufacturing, the company has always found innovative ways and
technologies to make or source the product. With a monthly demand of half a million plus vehicles, it became
imperative for the company to have robust processes to support AM. After holding detailed discussions with the top
management and the people responsible for implementing AM, some gross to delicate problems were uncovered
which are seriously affecting the implementation of AM in the case company. A team of multiple experts (i.e. ten)
from the cross functional departments having more than 7-10 years of experience in the case company were formed.
A detailed discussion was held with them regarding the related issues with AMIs of the case company. There are
different aggressive opinions among the experts, when discussed regarding the AMIs. The above proposed
methodology and its objectives were explained to the experts and were asked to give their opinions at two stages.
The company experts were motivated with the proposed methodology and agreed to cooperate. The eleven AMIs as
 Pavan Kumar Potdar, Srikanta Routroy, Astajyoti Behera / Materials Today: Proceedings 4 (2017) 1744–1751 1749

mentioned in previous section were discussed with the team experts to check for relevancy, significance and
accountancy. Finally, it was concluded that the eleven AMIs were significant for the case company to implement
AM. The relationship among 11 AMIs were explored with the help of a structured questionnaire administered to the
expert. The questionnaire consists of various questions to collect the qualitative opinions about the relationship
between the AMIs. For collecting the qualitative opinions, ten experts were asked to choose one among the
following four types of relationship (i.e. V, A, X and O) between the AMIs (see step-4 in section 3.1.1) and further
analysis was carried out as mentioned in Section 3.
5. Results and discussions
The results obtained after implementation of the proposed methodology as mentioned in section 4 are interpreted
under three sections (i.e. level partitioning, development of ISM Model and AMIs classification). Each section is
discussed in detail below.

5.1. Level partitioning

Level partitioning is the basis for constructing ISM model. In the current study, AMIs were levelled across five
levels in five iterations. LMI is positioned in the level-V and it is having high driving power while IHR and EBE at
III level. The bottom most level’s AMIs represent the impediments that can be alleviate easily as well as used to
lessen the other AMIs located in the higher levels. The AMIs: IIM, LMF, IPP, ICR, ISC are positioned in the level-I
and have high dependence power (i.e. closer to 11) with different driving powers. The AMIs positioned in this level
represent the long standing delicate impediments due to which current AM implementation process is clogged up.
These AMIs should be treated strategically in order to achieve the excellence in AM implementation. The AMIs
positioned in the other levels can be treated as those which are to be tactically addressed in the AM implementation
process.
5.2. Development of ISM Model
The diagraph was obtained considering the direct and transitive relationship between AMIs. After removing all
the transitivity links present from the diagraph, the ISM model was developed. The developed ISM model was
shown and discussed with experts for its acceptability. The experts have agreed on the developed ISM model. In the
structural model AMIs were arranged in the hierarchy as per the levels partitioned (see section 5.1 to know the
significance of levels). Thus, the ISM model developed presents a directional framework for the case company in
successfully implementing AM and gives clear mental picture of what experts think about the relationship between
AMIs and their significance in improving AM implementation process. ISM Model of Agile Manufacturing
Impediments is shown below in fig.2

IIM LMF IPP ICR ISC

FOR GPS

ICM

IHR EBE

LMI
Figure 2. ISM Model of Agile Manufacturing Impediments
1750 Pavan Kumar Potdar, Srikanta Routroy, Astajyoti Behera/ Materials Today: Proceedings 4 (2017) 1744–1751

Figure 3. FMICMAC Driver Dependence Diagram of AMIs

5.3. AMIs classification

The classification of AMIs for the case company was carried out through FMICMAC analysis. It is carried on the
basis of driving and dependence powers and all 11 AMIs were classified into four clusters (i.e. autonomous, driver,
dependent and linkage quadrant) which are discussed below: FMICMAC Driver Dependence Diagram of AMIsis
shoewn in figure .3.
Autonomous quadrant (Low driving power, Low dependence power): Those AMIs which fall in this quadrant are
relatively disconnected from the AM implementation process. But in our study, not a single AMI lies in this
quadrant. This signifies that, all the identified AMIs are relevant to the case company and need to be monitored.
Driver quadrant (High driving power, Low dependence power): The AMIs i.e. EBE, ICM, IHR and LMI were in
driver/independent cluster which means that these four AMIs have high influence on rest eight other AMIs and these
were also placed on bottom side of the developed ISM. These AMIs have high driving capacity which means by
addressing these AMIs other AMIs can be attenuated. These are AMIs which has to be addressed first. The case
company was addressed to focus on these four AMIs and level up its strategy to mitigate these identified four AMIs
as much as possible and feasible.
Dependent quadrant (Low driving power, High dependence power): The AMIs i.e. ICR, LMF, GPS, ISC, IIM
and IPP were clustered in the dependent quadrant. This signifies that these AMIs were mainly dependent on the
other AMIs having the capacity to drive the implementation of AM. The AMIs falling in this cluster represent that
these are the impediments which cannot be addressed directly but through other AMIs.
Linkage quadrant (High driving power, High dependence power: Out of 11 AMIs chosen, only one AMI i.e.
FOR fall in this quadrant. This AMI is having high driving and high dependence power. Typically these can be
attributed as unstable because they have feedback effect i.e. they get affected by their own action and difficult to
manage. However, this AMI cannot be ignored and have to be closely monitored regarding their status in making
decisions.
 Pavan Kumar Potdar, Srikanta Routroy, Astajyoti Behera / Materials Today: Proceedings 4 (2017) 1744–1751 1751

6. Conclusions

The proposed methodology is generic in nature and has the capacity to capture multiple experts’ judgment for the
analysis of AMIs in a specific manufacturing environment. For validating the effectiveness, the proposed
methodology is applied to an Indian automobile manufacturing company and certain important conclusions were
drawn. The LMI was drawn as the most influencing AMI from the ISM model whereas from FMICMAC analysis,
EBE, ICM and IHR along with LMI were found in driver quadrant (i.e. high driving and low dependence power).
By taking both the ISM and FMICMAC model simultaneously LMI, IHR, EBE and ICM were found to be the
strongest root cause for other AMIs. IIM, LMF, IPP, ICR and ISC are the prerequisite for the implementation of AM
and can be handled by the improvement of the AMIs in the lower level of ISM model or the AMIs which lies on the
driver quadrant of the FMICMAC model. The case company was delighted with the results obtained from this study.
Moreover, the current study may be used as a basis to investigate more details regarding agile manufacturing in
general and agile manufacturing impediments in specific.

References

[1] H. S. Ismail, S. P. Snowden, J. Poolton, R. Reid, & I. C. Arokiam, Agile manufacturing framework and practice, Int. J. of agile systems and
management, 1 (2006) 11-28.
[2] Y. Y. Yusuf & E. O. Adeleye, A comparative study of lean and agile manufacturing with a related survey of current practices in the UK, Int. J.
of Production Research, 40 (2002) 4545-4562.
[3] A. Gunasekaran, Agile manufacturing: enablers and an implementation framework, Int. J. of Production Research, 36 (1998) 1223-1247.
[4] A. Gunasekaran, K. H. Lai & T. E. Cheng, Responsive supply chain: a competitive strategy in a networked economy, Omega, 36 (2008) 549-
564.
[5] M. A. Hasan, R. Shankar & J. Sarkis, A study of barriers to agile manufacturing, Int. J. of Agile Systems and Management, 2 (2007) 1-22.
[6] V. M. M. Thilak, S. R. Devadasan & N. M. Sivaram, A Literature Review on the Progression of Agile Manufacturing Paradigm and Its Scope
of Application in Pump Industry, The Scientific World Journal, 1 (2015) 1-9.
[7] U. G. Gupta & R. O. Mittal, Quality, time, and innovation based performance measurement system for agile manufacturing. In Proceedings-
Annual Meeting of the Decision Sciences Institute, 3 (1996) 1511-1513.
[8] L. K. Gaafar* & S. A. Masoud, Genetic algorithms and simulated annealing for scheduling in agile manufacturing, Int. J. of production
research, 43 (2005) 3069-3085.
[9] S. Vinodh, G. Sundararaj & S. R. Devadasan, Total agile design system model via literature exploration, Industrial Management & Data
Systems, 109 (2009) 570-588.
[10] G. Ramesh & S. R. Devadasan, Literature review on the agile manufacturing criteria, J. of Manufacturing Technology Management, 18
(2007) 182-201.
[11] J. K. Cochran & A. M. Uribe, A set covering formulation for agile capacity planning within supply chains. Int.J. of Production
Economics, 95 (2005) 139-149.
[12] S. Brown & J. Bessant, The manufacturing strategy-capabilities links in mass customisation and agile manufacturing-an exploratory study,
Int. J. of Operations & Production Management, 23 (2003) 707-730.
[13] A. Gunasekaran & Y. Y. Yusuf, Agile manufacturing: a taxonomy of strategic and technological imperatives, Int. J. of Production
Research, 40 (2002) 1357-1385.
[14] A. Guisinger & B. Ghorashi, Agile manufacturing practices in the specialty chemical industry: An overview of the trends and results of a
specific case study, Int. J. of Operations & Production Management, 24 (2004) 625-635.
[15] C. T. Lin, H. Chiu &Y. H. Tseng, Agility evaluation using fuzzy logic, Int. J. of Production Economics, 101 (2006) 353-368.
[16] A. S. Sohal, Developing agile manufacturing in Australia, Int. J. of Agile Management Systems, 1 (1999) 60-63.
[17] A. White, E. M. Daniel & M. Mohdzain, The role of emergent information technologies and systems in enabling supply chain agility, Int. J.
of Information Management, 25 (2005) 396–410.
[18] L. Jin-Hai, A. R. Anderson & R. T. Harrison, The evolution of agile manufacturing, Business Process Management J. , 9 (2003) 170-189.
[19] A. Gunasekaran, Agile manufacturing: a framework for research and development, Int. J. of production economics, 62 (1999) 87-105.
[20] S. L. Koh & A. Gunasekaran, A knowledge management approach for managing uncertainty in manufacturing. Ind. Management & Data
Systems, 106 (2006) 439-459.
[21] A. P. Sage, Interpretive structural modeling: methodology for large-scale systems, (1977) 91–164.
[22] S. Mishra, S. Sankar Mahapatra & S. Datta, Agility evaluation in fuzzy context: influence of decision-makers’ risk bearing attitude,
Benchmarking: An Int. J., 21 (2014) 1084-1119.
[23] C. S. Kumar and S. Routroy, Addressing the Root Cause Impediments for Supplier Development in Manufacturing Environment, Procedia
Engineering, 97 (2014) 2136-2146.
[24] S. Routroy, & C. S. Kumar, Strategy for supplier development program implementation: a case study, Int. J. of Services and Operations
Management, 21 (2015) 238-264.