Journal of Manufacturing Systems 32 (2013) 620–631

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Manufacturing Systems

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

Technical paper

Design of agile supply chain assessment model and its case study in an Indian
automotive components manufacturing organization
S. Vinodh a,∗ , S.R. Devadasan b , K.E.K. Vimal a , Deepak Kumar a
a
Department of Production Engineering, National Institute of Technology, Tiruchirappalli, Tamilnadu, India
b
Department of Production Engineering, PSG College of Technology, Coimbatore, Tamilnadu, India

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Agile Manufacturing (AM) paradigm is fast instilled in modern organizations. AM enables an organi-
Received 21 March 2010 zation to evolve products and services quickly and economically in response to the customers’ dynamic
Received in revised form 23 March 2013 demands. The effectiveness of AM is largely determined by the performance of Agile Supply Chains (ASC).
Accepted 1 April 2013
In order to assess their performance, an ASC assessment model was reported in this research paper. This
Available online 3 May 2013
model is encompassed with agile supply chain attributes whose performance levels need to be deter-
mined for assessing the overall ASC performance of the organization. The computation was performed
Keywords:
using fuzzy logic approach. The working of this model was examined by conducting a case study in
Agile manufacturing
Supply chain management
an Indian automotive components manufacturing organization. The experience gained by conducting
Fuzzy logic this case study favored the use of a computerized system which will ensure accuracy of computations
Manufacturing systems involving fuzzy logic.
© 2013 The Society of Manufacturing Engineers. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction to possess agile characteristics. On realizing this situation a rela-

Over the past two decades, the global market witnesses the
entry of several players to offer products and services to the
customers. This situation has been facilitating the customers to
demand varieties of products and services [1]. In order to thrive
amidst this situation, modern companies have been spontaneously
creating a paradigm by which new varieties of products and ser-
vices are offered to the customers quickly in response to the
dynamic demands of customers’. The issues connected with this
paradigm are today addressed by the researchers under the termi-
nology Agile Manufacturing [2]. In the meantime, it is to be noted
that modern companies are forced to create broader market niche
by selling their products and services to the customers who are
geographically dispersed. In order to meet this situation, organiza-
tions have been creating supply chains to distribute their products
and services to their customers. As supply chains become larger
and thickly networked, managing them poses several challenges.
Researchers and practitioners have been deliberating the solutions
to face these challenges under the field ‘Supply Chain Management’
(SCM). A product or service developed by an organization quickly to
face the customers’ dynamic demand will fail to serve the purpose
of the supply chains if they do not facilitate their distribution to
the right customers. In other words, supply chains too are required
∗ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: vinodh sekar82@yahoo.com (S. Vinodh).
tively new discipline ‘ASC’ is fast emerging during the recent times
[3]. An ASC is a dynamic alliance of member companies, the forma-
tion of which is likely to need to change frequently in response
to fast-changing markets [4]. Lou et al. [3] have defined ASC as
a network with the topological structure which is composed of
autonomous or semi-autonomous enterprises. All enterprises work
together for procurement, production and delivery. An important
factor to achieve agility in manufacturing enterprises is flexibil-
ity among firms so that they can react to changes effectively,
driven by customer designed products and production capacity to
rapid new product launch. Eshlaghy et al. [5] have proposed sup-
ply chain agility model and discussed its constructs. They have
defined ‘supply chain agility’ as a measure of the ability to effi-
ciently adapt to a rapidly changing global competitive environment
to provide products and services. They have hypothesized that
supply chain agility is determined by four flexibility components
namely product development flexibility, sourcing flexibility, man-
ufacturing flexibility, and logistics flexibility. Each flexibility is
composed of two dimensions namely range and adaptability. They
have also found out that an organization’s Information Technol-
ogy (IT) flexibility and global competitive environment influence
its level of supply chain agility. To study the effects of supply
chain agility on performance, two additional constructs called sup-
ply chain performance and competitive performance have been
included in this model. As mentioned earlier, some researchers
have contributed their focus toward identification of character-
istics of ASC. For example, Van Hoek et al. [6] have stated that

0278-6125/$ – see front matter © 2013 The Society of Manufacturing Engineers. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmsy.2013.04.001
 S. Vinodh et al. / Journal of Manufacturing Systems 32 (2013) 620–631
Nomenclature
Rj average fuzzy ratings
Rji fuzzy performance ratings
Wji performance weights
Wj average performance weights
FPIIj FPII for jth attribute
Wj complement of jth attribute’s importance weight
D(FASCI, ALi ) Euclidean distance between FASCI and ALi
AL agility level
ALi corresponding Fuzzy number for natural-language
expression
FPIIijk FPII for ijkth attribute
fFASCI (x) triangular fuzzy number of FASCI
fALi (x) triangular fuzzy number of ALi
marketing/customer sensitivity, cooperative relationships, pro-
cess integration, and information integration are the attributes of
ASC. Iskanius [7] enumerated virtual enterprise/organization, out-
sourcing, collaborative relationships, production planning, product
design and service, customer focus, customer and market sensitiv-
ity as the characteristics of ASC. In this study, the case network
was undergoing a shift toward paper-oriented business, where
quick response was the priority and agility was recognized as
the facilitating factor. Using a constructive approach, an ASC for
a steel product network was developed. In this study, qualitative
methods such as interviews, observations, questionnaires and doc-
uments were used as data collection methods. Chopra et al. [8]
explained aspects related to inventory management, supplier rela-
tionship management, enterprise wide relationship management,
supply chain partner selection and internal SCM as the characteris-
tics of ASC. Paneerselvam [9] mentioned that time management
and nature of management are the characteristics of ASC. Few
researchers working on ASC have been deliberating useful hints [5].
Yet the success of these researches will be ensured only if a model
is offered to researching and practicing communities to measure
the agility level of supply chains. However this task has to be tact-
fully handled as assessment of agility in supply chains is largely
dependent on the experts’ estimation of ASC activities [10]. This
estimation is largely available in the form of linguistic expressions
like ‘very good’ and ‘satisfactory’. These linguistic expressions are
so vague that converting them into numerical values may prove
to be difficult. Not only that, ensuring consistency and reliabil-
ity of these numerical values also impose a challenge. The field of
Artificial Intelligence offers a solution to face these challenges by
offering ‘fuzzy logic’ methodology. Hence, it is a prudent propo-
sition to incorporate fuzzy logic methodology into the model for
assessing agility level of supply chains. On realizing the need of
such a model, the research reported in this paper was carried out.
This research was begun by studying the literature on assessment
of ASC. This study resulted in the identification of ASC enablers and
their supporting criteria and attributes. This study also revealed
that few researchers have contributed ASC assessment models.
Subsequently an ASC assessment model incorporated with five
agile enablers, 20 criteria and 86 attributes were discussed. These
drivers of ASC were derived from the earlier researches reported
in the literature. The framework of this model facilitates the sur-
mounting of deploying fuzzy logic methodology. This methodology
facilitates the assessment of agility in the supply chain network of
the organization. After designing this model, a case study was car-
ried out in an automotive manufacturing company situated in India.
Since the management of the company does not prefer to reveal
its identity, this company is designated in the remaining part of
621
the paper as ‘XYZ’. The steps involved in using the fuzzy logic sup-
ported ASC assessment model developed during this research are
elaborately presented while describing this case study.
2. Literature review
An overview of literature indicated that a considerable number
of researchers have deliberated about the meaning and character-
istics of ASC management.
2.1. Assessment models in AM, fuzzy logic applications in AM and
SCM arenas
Few researchers have developed models for measuring agility
index. They have deliberated the methods for measuring agility
index by computing and combining the intensity levels of agility
enabled-attributes. Other decision making methods were devel-
oped by Ren et al. [11] based on the logical concept of Analytic
Hierarchical Process (AHP). Yang and Li [12] have proposed a
procedure to assess agility using fuzzy logic approach for mass cus-
tomized product manufacturing. They have identified the ranges
in a scale of 2–10 to indicate whether the company is agile or
not. Yu et al. [13] used fuzzy multi-objective vendor selection pro-
gram for lean procurement based on cost minimization, delivery
schedule violation minimization, and maximizing the quality level
of the purchased quantity. They developed a solution algorithm
using fuzzy AHP. But performance measurement and identification
of drag factors and improvement proposals may be difficult with
the method. Using the numerical problem, they proved fuzzy logic
approach is suitable for vendor selection problem. Lin et al. [10]
have developed a fuzzy logic based assessment methodology for
agility evaluation. The evaluation procedure includes identifying
agility capabilities, selecting linguistic variables sets and interpre-
ting the values of the fuzzy rating and fuzzy weights integration,
fuzzy index labeling, and defuzzification. The authors have men-
tioned the need for computerization of assessment. In order to
overcome the vagueness of the agility assessment and to include
the human knowledge, Tsourveloudis and Valavanis [14] proposed
IF – THEN rules for measuring enterprise agility based on fuzzy
logic. The disadvantage of this approach is its inflexibility since
IF– THEN rules must be redesigned to fit the new situation as it
involves several levels of linguistic terms or different member-
ship functions usage. IF – THEN method based assessment requires
a prior mathematical knowledge to convert IF-THEN rules into
mathematical model. The industrial experts find difficult while
solving the complex mathematical equations. Jain et al. [15] devel-
oped a new approach based on Fuzzy Association Rules Mining to
support the decision makers by enhancing flexibility in making
decisions for evaluating agility with both tangible and intangible
attributes/criteria such as flexibility, profitability, quality, innova-
tiveness, proactivity, speed of response, cost and robustness. The
model could still take into account other advanced features of agile
system characteristics. Ganguly et al. [16] proposed three tech-
niques and associated metrics for determining enterprise agility.
They presented a case study involving Apple’s digital media to
demonstrate the utility of methodology and associated metrics.
Lin et al. [10] utilized fuzzy logic approach for assessing sup-
ply chain agility of manufacturing organization. They mentioned
that a supply chain must possess a number of distinguishing
attributes such as distribution networks, manufacturing capabil-
ities, interchange-ability of personnel and learning organization
[17]. Due to qualitative and ambiguous attributes linked to agility
assessment, most measures are described subjectively using lin-
guistic terms, and cannot be handled effectively using conventional
assessment approaches. Fuzzy logic provides an effective means
622 S. Vinodh et al. / Journal of Manufacturing Systems 32 (2013) 620–631

Table 1
Comparison of different assessment techniques.

Approach Author Performance measures Results Advantage Disadvantage

Multi grade fuzzy Vinodh and Chintha Assessment of leanness Leanness Application of scientific • Comprehensiveness of
approach [33] index = 8:07725 approach to assess the model needs to be
leanness improved
• Management • Advanced methods of
responsibility fuzzy logic were not
attempted
• Manufacturing
management leanness
• Work force leanness
• Technology leanness
• Manufacturing strategy
leanness

Multi grade fuzzy Vinodh and Prasanna Assessment of agility index Agility index in the Comprehensive model • Fuzziness associated with
approach [18] in the supply chain supply chain = 6.198 to assess agility level of the agility assessment was
supply chain not considered.
• Virtual Enterprise • Advanced methods of
organization fuzzy logic were not
attempted
• Collaborative relationship
• Strategic management
• Knowledge and
information technology
management
• Customer and market
sensitivity

If then approach Tsourveloudis and Assessment of agility level Overall agility Advanced model of Model is not
Valavanis [14] level = {(0.15, 0) (0.25, fuzzy logic was used to comprehensive enough for
0.5) (0.35, 0.5) assess agility dynamic market scenario.
• Production (0.45,0)} = almost low Difficulty in understanding
by industrial users.
• People Advanced methods of
• Information fuzzy logic need to be
• Market tested.

Fuzzy logic Lin et al. [29] Assessment of agility Agility level = very agile Advanced method of Comprehensiveness of
• MC enterprise fuzzy logic has been the model needs
management organization attempted improvement
agility
• MC enterprise
management Product
design agility
• MC enterprise
management Processing
manufacture agility

of dealing with problems involving impreciseness and vagueness
phenomena. Assessment in ASC is frequently measured linguisti-
cally rather than numerically. Many methods can be adopted to
aggregate assessments of multiple decision-makers, such as arith-
metic mean, median, and mode. Since the average operation is the
most widespread aggregation method, it is preferable to use arith-
metic mean to pool the opinions of experts. Vinodh and Prasanna
[18] have developed a conceptual model for evaluation of agility in
supply chain. They used multi-grade fuzzy approach for evaluating
agility of supply chain. They identified weaker areas and imple-
mented improvement proposals. But partial subjectivity exists with
assessment. Devo et al. [21] proposed a supply chain performance
model based on fuzzy logic to predict performance based on causal
relationships between metrics of the Supply Chain Operations Ref-
erence (SCOR) model. Fuzzy logic is a technique suitable for dealing
with uncertainty and subjectivity, which becomes an interesting
auxiliary approach to manage the performance of supply chains.
Elmuti et al. [22] posited the longitudinal approach for assessment
of supply chain agility. The purpose of this article is to investigate
the impact of integrated SCM on productivity, efficiency, and per-
formance of participants in the system, in an industrial field. Actual
organizational data from the survey firm was used. Follow-up inter-
views were conducted with key managers in the manufacturing
facility. The results showed positive and substantial improvements
in overall performance as a result of integration and coordination of
the internal functions within the firm and effectively linking them
with their external suppliers. The results also support the claims
that an integrated supply chain involves aligning outsourcing activ-
ities to achieve organizational goal of responding positively to the
needs of consumers. The comparison of the assessment models is
presented in Table 1. The literature review shows the advantages
and disadvantages associated with various assessment techniques.
But compared to other techniques, Fuzzy logic approach was highly
preferred because of its capability to handle vague and uncertainty
situations.
2.2. Drivers of agility and supply chain performance
Gunasekaran [23] proposed Virtual enterprise formation
tools, physically distributed teams, rapid partnership forma-
tion tools/metrics, concurrent engineering, integrated prod-
uct/production/business information system, rapid prototyping
tools and electronic commerce as enablers of AM. Sherehiy et al.
[24] identified following global characteristics of agility which can
be applied to all aspects of enterprise: flexibility, responsiveness,
speed, culture of change, integration and low complexity, high
quality and customized products, and mobilization of core com-
petencies. Tseng and Lin [25] developed a new agility development
 S. Vinodh et al. / Journal of Manufacturing Systems 32 (2013) 620–631
method for dealing with the interface and alignment issues among
the agility drivers, capabilities and providers using the Quality
Functional Deployment relationship matrix and fuzzy logic. A fuzzy
agility index (FAI) for an enterprise composed of agile capability
ratings and a total relation-weight with agility drivers was devel-
oped to measure the agility level of an enterprise. With a study, they
revealed that the proposed framework and procedures can enhance
agility of an enterprise as well as ensure a competitive edge. Viharos
et al. [26] discussed about the integration of production, quality
and process monitoring for enabling AM. In this article, a paramet-
ric manufacturing knowledge representation model was proposed
to address the issue of product configuration variation and man-
ufacturing agility to facilitate AM. Variation Product Configuration
(VPC) model was proposed for modeling the manufacturing facility
and process, respectively. The concepts of manufacturing capability
for facility and process as well as the mechanism for matching them,
were also introduced in the proposed model. With these models,
the knowledge of manufacturing facility and process for products
with wide variations can be concisely represented in AM. Bottani
[27] proposed the application of fuzzy QFD approach for achieving
agility. They exploited fuzzy logic to translate linguistics judgments
required for relationships and correlation matrices into numerical
values. Elmuti et al. [22] identified several factors as key contribu-
tors to supply chain program success in this firm. These included
sharing information through new technologies, established part-
nerships with key suppliers, and constant communication with
employees. This exploratory empirical study provided insight into
the effectiveness of implementing an integrated SCM approach
for increasing the probability of success in the SCM approach and
identified areas that need further investigation. Yusuf et al. [1] pre-
sented a survey of 600 companies as a part of large study of AM.
Their study was driven by a conceptual model, which relates sup-
ply chain practices to competitive objectives and involves the use
of factor analysis to reduce research variables to a few principal
components. They proved that supply chain integration is a vital
tool for achieving competitive advantage.
2.3. Review of ASC and Need of ASC assessment model
Sukati et al. [28] investigated the relationship between organi-
zational practices and supply chain agility. Using Data collection
instrument, questionnaire was administered to 150 executive offi-
cers, directors, presidents, vice presidents, managers, and senior
staff among 40 manufacturing firms in Malaysia. The finding
showed that supply organizational practices have a significant rela-
tionship with supply chain agility. Baker [29] explored the precise
role of distribution centers within ASC using nine case studies.
The author examined how individual business units design and
operate distribution centers to provide a rapid response to their
markets. The solutions used by these companies are categorized
to form a framework for addressing this subject and as a basis for
further research into the practical application of agility at the dis-
tribution center level. Luo et al. [30] developed a model that helps
to overcome the information-processing difficulties in screening
a large number of potential suppliers during the early stages of
the selection process in ASC. With an example, the potential of
radial basis function artificial neural network was illustrated to
assess suppliers against multiple criteria using both quantitative
and qualitative measures. Wu and Barnes [4] reviewed the litera-
ture on supply partner decision-making published between 2001
and 2011, a period that has seen a significant increase in work pub-
lished in this field. Particular attention was given to those methods
that are especially relevant for use in ASC. Using a classification
framework, the authors compared and tracked work published on
similar purpose. The findings highlight an on-going need to develop
623
methods that are able to meet the combination of qualitative and
quantitative objectives in ASC.
The highlights of the reviews reported in the previous three sub-
sections would indicate that few researchers have deliberated the
characteristics of ASC. However, few researchers have contributed
models for measuring agility and supply chain agility. More closely,
Lin et al. [10] contributed supply chain agility model which makes
use of fuzzy logic approach and Vinodh and Prasanna [18] con-
tributed a model for the assessment of ASC using Multi Grade
Fuzzy approach. An overall review of these papers indicated that
the drivers of ASC management have to be encapsulated as a mod-
ule. Furthermore, a segment of researchers favored the use of fuzzy
approach for measuring agility and supply chain performance. In
this context, during this research, it was inferred that a model
incorporated with ASC characteristics and fuzzy approach to mea-
sure their collective performance was the need of the hour. In the
present study, the comprehensiveness of agile supply chain assess-
ment model was better when compared to Lin et al. [10] model. In
the present study, fuzzy logic approach was used in order to over-
come vagueness and preciseness. The application of fuzzy logic for
ASC assessment in a comprehensive manner is the problem being
addressed in this study.
3. Conceptual features of ASC assessment model
The conceptual features of ASC assessment model are depicted
in Fig. 1.
As shown, this model consists of three modules: In the first mod-
ule ASC attributes are encompassed. These attributes are derived
from ASC enablers and criteria. The logic behind this research is
described by selecting sample criteria presented in Table 2. The
logic behind the classification scheme of various ASC attributes,
criteria and enablers is that: enablers represent the pillars of ASC;
criteria represent the factors and attributes represent the sub fac-
tors of ASC.
As the sample, first three attributes pertaining to ASC crite-
rion ‘Organizational structure’ is explained as follows: Number of
levels in the hierarchy has been reduced to form a Flattened Orga-
nizational structure. A cross functional team has been formed at
organization and department levels to discuss various issues and
facilitate team oriented decision making. The employees of the
organization are trained in various departments to enable inter-
changeability of personnel. Both the culture of team formation and
organizational management has been followed. These above men-
tioned activities have been followed to enable learning culture of
the organization.
These drivers of ASC management are to be derived by refer-
ring to research findings. During the research, as many as 86 ASC
attributes were derived by referring to the appropriate literature.
In the second module of ASC assessment model, the steps adopted
in fuzzy approach which are presented in literature [31,32] have
been encompassed. In the third module of ASC assessment model,
the results were computed and inferences were derived. This mod-
ule consists of two stages. In the first stage, the performance of
ASC prevailing in the organization is assessed using linguistic terms
such as ‘extremely agile’ and ‘very agile’. In the second stage of
this module, importance indices of ASC attributes are to be calcu-
lated. Then the experts have to indicate the maximum importance
index up to which they can consider the performance improve-
ment of ASC of the organization. This importance index is fixed by
the experts of the organization known as management threshold
value. The application of ASC assessment model has to end by sug-
gesting the measures to improve the performance of ASC attributes
whose importance indices are less than the threshold value as fixed
by the experts of the organization. The detailed information about
624 S. Vinodh et al. / Journal of Manufacturing Systems 32 (2013) 620–631

Table 2
Supply chain agility evaluation model.

ASC attributes Sources

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

Incorporation of IT utilities in SCM x x

Supplier involvement in product development x x
SCM concepts for enhancing outsourcing efficiency x
Distribution networks x x
Transportation models x x
Warehousing and Procurement function x x
Order processing x x
Material planning x x
IT/IS on reverse logistics x x
Strategic logistic network x x
Virtual logistics x x
Demand supply planning x x
Order fulfillment x x
Manufacturing capabilities x x
Continuous structure x x
Process and technological capabilities x x
Long term relationship potential x x
Flattened organizational structure x x
Team oriented decision making x x
Interchange-ability of personnel x x
Team formation and management x x
Learning organization x x
Concurrent relationship of supply chain activities x
Focus on core competencies x
Team based on goal setting x x
Active data sharing with partners x x
Interlinking of departments x x
Formation of strategic alliances x x
Trust and competency of the suppliers x x
Design and supply collaboration modalities/system x x
Negotiation x
Networking of partners x x
Top management commitment x x
Defined management goal x
Transparent information sharing x x
Frequent management employees meeting x x
Participative management style x x
Corporate and business strategies x x
Zero inventory system x x
Pull production system x
Synchronized material movement x X
Effective training x x
Coordination and cooperation x x
Well defined procedures and forms x x
Parallel operations x x
Excellent communication x x x
Proper scheduling of activities x x
Effective utilization of time x x
IT driven communication x x
Adoption of time compression technologies x x
Product development methods x
Ability to produce new product x x
Flexible software for agility x
Streamlining of processes x
Rapid decision making x
Innovation integrated infrastructure x
Proactive updating of manufacturing process in supply x
chain network
Boundary less collaboration x
Short range planning x x
Strategic SCM network x x
Time schedule based procurement policy x
Data management framework x
Product/process/service design for quality x
Customer delight x
Quality ensured at every stage x
Product design at least price x
Suitable design for supply chain paradigm x
Modular product design x
Easy maintainability and serviceability x
Response time to customer x
Efficient funds transfer x
Enterprise resource planning x
 S. Vinodh et al. / Journal of Manufacturing Systems 32 (2013) 620–631 625

Table 2 (Continued )

ASC attributes Sources

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

World Wide Web x

Elimination of paper work by IT
Utilization of multimedia technology
Virtual interfaces
Supply chain wide information access
Incorporation of RFID technology
Intelligent decision making
Customer driven products, processes and service
Accurate customer voice translation
Scope for increasing customer value
Analysis of market trends
Effective forecasting method
Quick introduction of new products
x x
x x
x x
x x
x x
x x
x
x x
x
x x
x x
x x

1. Lin et al. [10]; 2. Zarandi et al. [34]; 3. Iskanius [7]; 4. Yusuf [17]; 5. Chopra et al. [8]; 6. Paneerselvam [9]; 7. Mahajan, [35]; 8. Denis and Wadhwa, [36]; 9. Gunasekaran, [23];
10. Eshlaghy et al. [5]; 11. Chen et al. [37]; 12. Nagesh and Kerry, [38]; 13. Christopher and Towill, [39]; 14. David et al. [40]; 15. Chwen and Barutcu, [41]; 16. Gunasekaran
et al. [2]; 17. Avoine, [42].

study on applying ASC assessment was conducted, it is referred here

Five agile supply chain enablers as XYZ. XYZ is located in Tamil Nadu, India. The current turnover of
XYZ is 800 million INR (INdian Rupee). The number of employees
20 agile supply chain criteria currently working at XYZ is 400. XYZ has implemented strate-
gies such as Total Quality Management (TQM), Total Productive
Maintenance (TPM) and lean production system. Due to increas-
86 agile supply chain attributes ing dynamic requirements of the customers, the case organization
outsources certain activities to the suppliers. This situation forced
Module 2: Fuzzy Logic approach the organization to improve the agility across supply chain activ-
ities. In order to improve the effectiveness of ASC activities, the
current study was carried out.
Linguistic terms for assessing performance ratings and importance
The supply chain details of the organization are as follows:
weights of agile supply chain attributes

Number of the customers = 6.

Number of suppliers = 20.
Measurement using linguistic terms Number of ware houses = 3.
Distribution pattern is transportation by trucks.
Aggregation of fuzzy rating and weights of agile supply chain
4.1. Initiation

Module 3: Results
Computation of fuzzy agile supply chain index
Determination of Euclidean distance
Assessment of agile supply chain performance
During the initial phase, the manufacturing processes and
the products manufactured by XYZ were studied. Then a cross-
functional team with seven experts was formed at XYZ. Those
experts are the heads of various departments possessing rich
knowledge about the working culture of XYZ. These experts were
shown as 86 ASC attributes along with their enablers and criteria
for the purpose of gathering ratings and weights from them.

Determination of importance indices of agile supply chain attributes

Fixation of management threshold value
Drawing proposals for improving the performance of weaker agile supply chain
attributes
Fig. 1. Conceptual features of ASC assessment model.
the working of ASC assessment model are presented in the next sec-
tion in which a case study involving its application in an automobile
company is presented.
4. Case study
As mentioned earlier, in order to conceal the identity of the auto-
motive components manufacturing organization in which the case
4.2. Choosing approximate linguistic terms for assessing
performance ratings and importance weights of ASC attributes
In order to assist the experts while assigning the performance
rating of ASC attributes, the linguistic terms namely (Excellent (E),
Very Good (VG), Good (G), Fair (F), Poor (P), Very Poor (VP) and
Worst (W)) were chosen. In order to assess the importance weights
of agile attributes, the linguistic terms namely (Very High (VH),
High (H), Fairly High (FH), Medium (M), Fairly Low (FL), Low (L),
and Very Low (VL)) were chosen. The linguistic variables and fuzzy
numbers used during the case study are shown in Table 3.
The rationale behind using linguistic terms for assessing ASC
attributes is briefly described here. Linguistic terms were converted
to numerical values due to imprecise and ambiguous criteria in
assessing ASC performance. Improvised usage of linguistic terms
and corresponding membership functions is the characteristic of
fuzzy logic [5]. Hence during the conduct of this case study, the
linguistic terms were used to assess the performance ratings and
importance weights of ASC attributes. The linguistic terms and the
626 S. Vinodh et al. / Journal of Manufacturing Systems 32 (2013) 620–631

Table 3 study, the average fuzzy ratings and average performance weights
Linguistic terms and fuzzy numbers used.
were denoted respectively by Rj and Wj.
Linguistic variable Fuzzy number Linguistic variable Fuzzy number The computation of Rj and Wj were carried using Eqs. (1) and (2)
Worst (W) (0,0.5, 1.5) Very low(VL) (0,0.05, 0.15) which are given below.
Very poor (VP) (1,2,3) Low (L) (0.1,0.2, 0.3) (Rj1 (+)Rj2 (+) . . . . . . Rjm )
Poor (P) (2,3.5, 5) Fairly low (FL) (0.2,0.35, 0.5) Rj = (aj , bj , cj ) = (1)
Fair (F) (3,5,7) Medium (M) (0.3,0.5, 0.7) m
Good (G) (5,6.5, 8) Fairly high (FH) (0.5,0.65, 0.8)
Very good (VG) (7,8,9) High (H) (0.7,0.8, 0.9) (wj1 (+)wj2 (+) . . . . . . wjm )
Excellent (E) (8.5,9.5, 10) Very high (VH) (0.85, 0.95, 1.0) Wj (xj , yj , zj ) = (2)
m
Consolidated fuzzy ratings and fuzzy weights were used to
determine the fuzzy ASC index. Eq. (3) used for this purpose is
corresponding fuzzy numbers were adopted from previous studies shown below;
on performance measurement studies related to agility and lean- Fuzzy ASC Index (FASCI)
ness assessment which were later approved by the experts for their n
usage. [19,20,31]. j=1
(Wj × Rj )
FASCI = n (3)
j=1
Wj
4.3. Measurement of performance ratings and importance
As a sample, the computation of ‘average fuzzy rating’ and
weights of agile supply chain attributes using linguistic terms
‘average fuzzy weight’ of agile supply chain attribute titled “Incor-
poration of IT utilities in SCM” are shown as follows. Average fuzzy
In order to assess the performance ratings and importance
rating of ASC attribute ‘Incorporation of IT utilities in SCM’ is shown
weights of ASC attributes, the experts were approached with data
below.
sheets. An excerpt of the ASC assessment data sheet used during
this exercise at XYZ is shown in Table 4. As a sample, the linguis- Average fuzzy rating
tic terms for assessing the performance ratings and importance = [G + F + VG + F + G + G + E]/7 from Eq. (1)
weights of ASC attribute titled ‘Virtual Enterprise/Organization’ are [(5, 6.5, 8) + (3, 5, 7) + (7, 8, 9) + (3, 5, 7) + (5, 6.5, 8) + (5, 6.5, 8)
shown in Tables 5 and 6. +(8.5, 9.5, 10)]/7
Similarly, the linguistic variables for assessing the performance = (5.21, 6.71, 8.14)
ratings, importance weights of other ASC enablers also have been
Average fuzzy weight of ASC attribute ‘Incorporation of IT utili-
gathered.
ties in SCM’ is shown below:
Average fuzzy weight
4.4. Aggregation of fuzzy ratings and weights of ASC
= [H + M + H + VH + H + M + FH]/7 from Eq. (2)
= (0.58, 0.714, 0.843)
Arithmetic mean, median, and mode are some methods that are
being adopted to aggregate the assessments of multiple decision- The ‘average fuzzy ratings’ and ‘average fuzzy weights’ of ASC
makers inputs. The average operation is the most widespread attributes grouped under agile supply chain enabler ‘Virtual enter-
aggregation method. During this case study, arithmetic mean was prise/organization’ are presented in Table 6. These values were used
used to pool the opinions of experts. Because of its widespread to aggregate fuzzy ratings and average fuzzy weights of criteria. As
usage, ‘average’ operation was adopted during this case study to a sample, the method of calculating aggregated fuzzy rating of ASC
aggregate fuzzy rating and weights of ASC [10]. During this case criterion ‘Outsourcing’ is shown in Table 7.

Table 4
Excerpt of ASC assessment data sheet.

Name:
Designation:
Company:
Date:
S.no Enablers Criteria Attributes Performance Rating Importance

1 Virtual enterprise/ Outsourcing Incorporation of IT utilities in SCM

organization Supplier involvement in product development
SCM concepts for enhancing outsourcing efficiency
Integrated logistics Distribution networks
management Transportation models
Warehousing and Procurement function
Order Processing
Material planning
IT/IS on reverse logistics
Strategic logistic network
Virtual logistics
Internal supply chain Demand Supply planning
management Order fulfillment
Supply chain partner Continuous structure
selection Process and technological capabilities
Long term relationship potential
Organization structure Flattened Organizational structure
Team oriented decision making
Interchange-ability of personnel
Team formation and management
Learning organization
 S. Vinodh et al. / Journal of Manufacturing Systems 32 (2013) 620–631 627

Table 5
Performance rating furnished by experts using linguistic terms pertaining to agile supply chain enabler ‘Virtual Enterprise/Organization’.

S.no. Enablers Criteria Attributes Experts’ assessment

E1 E2 E3 E4 E5 E6 E7

1 Virtual enterprise/ Outsourcing Incorporation of IT utilities in SCM G F VG F G G E

organization Supplier involvement in product development F G F G F F G
SCM concepts for enhancing outsourcing efficiency F G P G G G E
Integrated logistics Distribution networks F G F G G G VG
management Transportation models G G G F VG F VG
Warehousing and procurement function F G G G G F G
Order processing F G G G G VG VG
Material planning G G G G G F VG
IT/IS on reverse logistics VP P F - P - VG
Strategic logistic network P G G F G P VG
Virtual logistics P VP F G G P G
Internal supply chain Demand supply planning F G F G G G VG
management Order fulfillment G G G VG G G VG
Supply chain partner Continuous structure G G G G G G E
selection Process and technological capabilities P G G VG G G
Long term relationship potential G G G VG G G G
Organizational Flattened organizational structure G G VG VG VG VG VG
structure Team oriented decision making VG F VG VG VG G VG
Interchange-ability of personnel G F VG G G F VG
Team formation and management VG F E G G G VG
Learning organization E F VG VG VG VG E

E1, E2, E3, E4, E5, E6 and E7 are the identification numbers assigned to the experts.

The aggregated fuzzy rating for ASC criterion ‘outsourcing’ is

calculated as shown below.

= [(5.21, 6.71, 8.14)(∗)(0.58, 0.714, 0.843) + (4.42, 6.07, 7.71)(∗)(0.56, 0.693, 0.829) + (4.79, 6.29,
7.71)(∗)(0.54, 0.671, 0.800)]/[(0.58, 0.714, 0.843) + (0.56, 0.693, 0.829) + (0.54, 0.671, 0.800)] =
(4.81, 6.36, 7.86) from Eq. (3)
(FASCI). FASCI has to be calculated by aggregating the ratings of
The same method was followed to compute the aggregated ASC criteria. Equation 3 is used to calculate FASCI by utilizing the
fuzzy ratings of other ASC criteria. aggregated fuzzy ratings as shown below.
⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤
(3.44, 5.15, 7.11) × (0.67, 0.77, 0.88)+ (0.67, 0.77, 0.88)+
(3.6, 5.39, 7.34) × (0.68, 0.8, 0.9)+
4.5. Computation of fuzzy ASC index ⎢
FASCI = ⎣ (3.55, 5.3, 7.26) × (0.68, 0.8, 0.9)+
⎥ ⎢ (0.68, 0.8, 0.9)+
⎥
⎦ / ⎣ (0.68, 0.8, 0.9)+ ⎦
(3.24, 5.04, 7.07) × (0.65, 0.77, 0.88)+ (0.65, 0.77, 0.88)+
As shown in Fig. 1, the beginning of module three of ASC assess- (4.05, 5.86, 7.74) × (0.75, 0.86, 0.95) (0.75, 0.86, 0.95)
ment model is marked by the computation of fuzzy ASC index FASCI = (5.2, 6.66, 8.09)

Table 6
Importance weights furnished by experts using linguistic terms pertaining to agile supply chain enabler ‘Virtual Enterprise/Organization’.

S.no. Enablers Criteria Attributes Experts’ assessment

E1 E2 E3 E4 E5 E6 E7

1 Virtual enterprise/ Outsourcing Incorporation of IT utilities in SCM H M H VH H M FH

organization Supplier involvement in product development H FH M FH H H FH
SCM concepts for enhancing out sourcing efficiency FH FH FL FH H H H
Integrated logistics Distribution networks H FH M M FH H H
management Transportation models FH FH FH H V FH H
Warehousing and procurement function M FH H H H H H
Order processing H FH H FH H M V
Material planning V FH H H V H H
IT/IS on reverse logistics L FL FL - L VL V
Strategic logistic network H FH FH FH H FH H
Virtual logistics H L M H H L H
Internal supply chain Demand supply planning H FH M FH V FH V
management Order fulfillment H FH FH H H H VH
Supply chain partner Continuous structure H FH FH FH H H H
selection Process and technological capabilities H FH H H VH H H
Long term relationship potential V FH H H V H V
Organizational Flattened organizational FH FH H H H VH H
structure Team oriented decision making H M H H V VH H
Interchange-ability of personnel H M H FH H H FH
Team formation and V M H FH V VH FH
Learning organization V M V H V VH V

E1, E2, E3, E4, E5, E6 and E7arethe identification numbers assigned to the experts.
628 S. Vinodh et al. / Journal of Manufacturing Systems 32 (2013) 620–631

Table 7
‘Average fuzzy rating’ and ‘average fuzzy weights’ pertaining to agile supply chain enabler ‘Virtual Enterprise/Organization’.

Attributes Fuzzy average ratings Fuzzy average weights

Incorporation of IT utilities in SCM (5.21,6.71,8.14) (0.57,0.71,0.842)

Supplier involvement in product development (4.42,6.07,7.71) (0.55,0.69,0.82)
SCM concepts for enhancing outsourcing efficiency (4.78,6.285,7.71) (0.54,0.67,0.8)
Distribution networks (4.71,6.285,7.85) (0.528,0.671,0.81)
Transportation models (4.71,6.28,7.85) (0.60,0.73,0.85)
Warehousing and procurement function (4.42,6.071,7.714) (0.61,0.73,0.85
Order processing (5.28,6.71,8.142) (0.60,0.73,0.85)
Material planning (4.57,6.07,7.57) (0.71,0.821,0.91)
IT/IS on reverse logistics (4,5.42,6.85) (0.23,0.35,0.45)
Strategic logistic network (4.14,5.64,7.14) (0.58,0.71,0.84)
Virtual logistics (4.28,5.85,7.42) (0.55,0.671,0.78)
Demand supply planning (4.71,6.28,7.85) (0.6,0.73,0.85)
Order fulfillment (5.57,6.92,8.28) (0.66,0.77,0.88)
Continuous structure (5.14,6.5,7.85) (0.6,0.8,0.9)
Process and technological capabilities (5.28,6.71,8.14) (0.7,0.8,0.9)
Long term relationship potential (6.142,7.35,8.57) (0.6,0.7,0.8)
Flattened organizational structure (6.14,7.35,8.57) (0.6,0.8,0.9)
Team oriented decision making (5.57,6.92,8.28) (0.5,0.71,0.8)
Interchange-ability of personnel (5.78,7.14,8.42) (0.65,0.77,0.88)
Team formation and management (5.21,6.71,8.14) (0.57,0.71,0.842)
Learning organization (4.42,6.07,7.71) (0.55,0.69,0.82)

4.6. Determination of Euclidean distance to match FAI with
approximate ASC level
Once FAI was obtained, it can be matched with linguistic terms.
During this study, Euclidean distance method was adopted for this
purpose since it is the most intuitive method for humans to use
in perceiving proximity [31]. In this study, the linguistic terms as
(Extremely Agile (EA), Very Agile (VA), Agile (A), Fairly (F), and
Slowly (S)) [19,20,31] were chosen for labeling to determine the
ASC level (ASCL). The linguistic terms and fuzzy numbers used are
shown below.
• Extremely Agile [EA] = (7, 8.5, 10).
• Very Agile [VA] = (5.5,7,8.5).
• Satisfactorily AGILE [A] = (3.5,5,6.5).
• Fairly Agile [F] = (1.5,3,4.5).
• Slowly Becoming Agile [S] = (0,1.5,3).
After this exercise the Euclidean distance between FASCI and
ASCL was calculated. The steps followed to perform this calculation
are presented below:
The Euclidean distance was calculated using Eq. (4).
1/2
2
D(FASCI, ALi ) = (fFASCI (x) − fALi (x))
x∈p
As a sample, the Euclidean distance calculation pertaining to the
linguistic term ‘Extremely Agile’ is shown below.
2 2
D(FASCI, EA) = {(5.2 − 7) + (6.66 − 8.5) + (8.09 − 10) }
D(FASCI, EA) = 3.19
The Euclidean distance between FASCI and all linguistic terms
used during this case study are shown below.
D(FASCI, EA) = 3.19
D(FASCI, VA) = 0.6
D(FASCI, F) = 2.6
D(FASCI, S) = 6.36
D(FASCI, A) = 8.936
By matching linguistic label with minimum D, the ASC perfor-
mance level of XYZ was assessed as ‘Very Agile’. This assessment
marked the completion of first stage of module three of ASC assess-
ment model.
4.7. Identification of importance indices of ASC attributes
The second stage of module three of ASC assessment facilitates
the calculation of Fuzzy Performance Improvement index (FPII) of
ASC attributes. Then these indices are to be ranked. As mentioned
earlier, the experts will decide a minimum rank which is regarded
as threshold value. The ASC attributes whose ranks less than man-
agement threshold value is examined for its potential performance
improvement.
The mathematical equations and procedure adopted from fuzzy
logic literature for calculating
FPII and ranking them are presented here. FPII is calculated is
calculated using the equation given below.
FPIIi = Wi ⊗ Ri
FPIIj = FPII for jth attribute
Wj = complement ofjth attribute s importance weightwhere

Wj = [(1, 1, 1) − Wj ], Wj is the fuzzy importance weight of the ASC
capability j. Then, using Eq. (5), the FPIIs of each ASC capability are
calculated.
A sample calculation of FPII of ASC Attribute ‘Incorporation of IT
utilities in SCM’ using Eq. (6) is shown below.
(4)
FPII = (5.21, 6.71, 8.14) ⊗ (0.15, 0.28, 0.4)
FPII = (1.2, 1.91, 2.19)
Similarly, the FPII of all 86 ASC attributes have been computed.
FPII of ASC attributes must be ranked. Here, the ranking of the fuzzy
2 1/2
number is based on centroid method for membership function (a,
b, c) as given in Eq. (6) [19], where a, b and c are the lower, middle
and upper values of triangular fuzzy number.
a + 4b + c
Ranking score = (6)
6
The centroid method has been used because the decision mak-
ers felt that this method is simple and easily understandable by
practitioners. Also, centroid method was used in performance mea-
surement researches [19,20].
1.2 + 4 × 1.91 + 2.19
Ranking score =
6
Ranking score = 1.85
 S. Vinodh et al. / Journal of Manufacturing Systems 32 (2013) 620–631 629

Table 8
Current characteristics of ASC attributes prevailing at XYZ pertaining to ASC enabler “Virtual enterprise/Organization”.

S.no ASC attributes Current characteristics of ASC prevailing at XYZ

1. Incorporation of IT utilities in SCM Intranet facility has been used to generate the production
plan from the marketing plan which indicates the
in-house capacity as well as quantity to be outsourced
2. Supplier involvement in product development Suppliers of critical components are called for discussion
during design stage so as to incorporate the required
features. Drawings of non0critical components are sent
to suppliers so as to finalize the changes in product
design
3. SCM concepts for enhancing the outsourcing Efficiency of outsourcing has been enhanced by
efficiency providing technical support to the suppliers so as to
reduce their bottleneck operations
4. Distribution networks Distribution network has been recently designed in such
a way that logistics system has been used effectively in a
regular schedule for transporting the goods. Distribution
centers are also located in nearby cities
5. Transportation models The current transportation model and their logic are
reviewed to improve its effectiveness using advanced
model
6. Warehousing and procurement function Warehouses are being located in nearby cities by the
suppliers to improve the delivery speed
7. Order processing An executive has been employed exclusively for
monitoring the transactions on regular basis
8. Material planning Planning for materials has been done in line with the
production planning and discussed during daily
production meeting
9. IT/IS on reverse logistics The concepts of reverse logistics are not applicable to
XYZ
10. Strategic logistic network The performance of logistic providers were reviewed
periodically to maintain strategic relationship
11. Virtual logistics The logistic function has been executed manually at XYZ
12. Demand supply planning Synchronization and micro-level planning have been
done to balance demand and supply
13. Order fulfillment Order fulfillment is reviewed every day in the daily
production meeting about the order fulfillment so as to
fill the gaps
14. Continuous structure The suppliers performance are periodically audited so as
to facilitate continuous improvement in supply chain
structure
15. Process and technological capabilities It has been included as one of the criteria in supplier
evaluation
16. Long-term relationship potential Dependency matrix has been constructed to identify the
dedicated suppliers on the basis of business values so as
to ensure long term relationship
17. Flattened organizational structure Number of levels in the hierarchy has been reduced to
form a flattened structure
18. Team oriented decision making A cross functional team has been formed at organization
and department levels to discuss various issues and
facilitate better decision making
19. Interchangeability of personnel Interchangeability of personnel between departments
exists
20. Team formation and management Both team formation and organizational management
exist
21. Learning organization Different forms of training are conducted at various
levels to ensure the learning culture

The ranking score of ASC attribute ‘Incorporation of IT utilities in
SCM’ is found as 1.85. The same procedure was followed to calculate
the ranking scores of all 86 ASC attributes (see Table 7).
4.7.1. Results and discussion
The computation of FAI and Euclidean Distance indicated that
the performance of ASC prevailing at XYZ as ‘Very Agile’. This result
generated by the ASC assessment model very much coincided with
the practical culture prevailing in the organization. This is indi-
cated by the results of a preliminary study conducted to view the
overall performance of ASC at XYZ. The results of this study indi-
cated that some of the ASC attributes are already prevailing at XYZ.
These results are presented in Table 8. These results lead to an
impression that the performance of ASC at XYZ is ‘Very agile’. This
impression coincides with the results generated by the ASC assess-
ment model. The preliminary study on evaluating ASC index was
done using scoring approach. The sores were distributed among
ASC criteria and attributes. Due to the drawbacks associated with
scoring approach, fuzzy logic approach was used in the present
study.
After determining the ranking scores of ASC attributes, the
experts were requested to fix the management threshold value. The
management threshold will be fixed by management representa-
tive in consultation with the executives. It acts as a minimum value;
attributes have ranking score less than management threshold
will be weaker; otherwise stronger. The concept of management
threshold was followed in line with performance assessment stud-
ies [19]. The management threshold value thus fixed was 1.3.
Subsequently, seven experts were further consulted to suggest
proposals for improving the performance of ASC attributes whose
ranking scores were found to be less than the management thresh-
old value 1.3. The weaker areas after fixing the management
630 S. Vinodh et al. / Journal of Manufacturing Systems 32 (2013) 620–631

Table 9
Proposals for agile supply chain performance improvement.

S.no ASC attributes Ranking score Proposals for improving the performance of ASC at XYZ

1. Material planning 1.05 Suitable planning methods and advanced planning techniques like SAP will be
used for resource management
2. Long term relationship 1.03 Optimal dependence of suppliers on OEMs and financial stability could be
potential included as criteria in supply chain partner selection
3. Learning organization 1.13 Advanced principles and concepts of supply chain management are to be
employed. Develop a supply chain-wide technology strategy that supports
multiple levels of decision making Customize the logistics network to the
service Segment customers based on the service needs of distinct groups
4. Elimination of paper work by IT 1.24 Paper work should be eliminated in a structured manner with IT utilities
5. Defined management goal 1.10 Meeting will be conducted to define the goal to be achieved
6. Transparent information 1.26 Hierarchy will modified such that to enable transparency in decision making
sharing
7. Corporate and business 1.00 Supply chain management issues could be added as an agenda in management
strategies meetings
8. Coordination and Cooperation 1.22 Training would be provided for the work force on team management
principles to facilitate coordination and cooperation
9. Adoption of time compression 1.22 Advanced technologies such as CAD, Cam CAE and ERP are being implemented
technologies for enabling time compression technologies
10. Product development methods 1.03 Advanced computer aided engineering analysis and simulation technologies
could be implemented for enabling robustness in product development
11. Flexible software for agility 1.00 Networking software currently used in the organization could be provided
with various structured mechanisms including MRP, advanced data sharing
and IT utilities
12. Data management framework 1.10 Advanced data analytic technique could be deployed
13. Product/process/service design 1.15 Pilot studies on advanced TPM concepts for quality in product and process
for quality design needs to be conducted
14. Customer delight 1.03 Proactive interactions with customers at plant level to collect customer
feedback and improve their abilities
15. Easy maintainability and 0.83 Soon pilot TPM studies will be carried out in the production line. Based on the
serviceability result in the near future, TPM will be implemented in full-fledged
16. Response time to customer 1.09 IT utilizes can be strengthened for facilitating electronic transaction there by
reducing the response time to customer
17. Enterprise resource Planning 1.20 Enterprise Resource Planning software will be purchased to enable decision
making in the resource management
18. Intelligent decision making 1.18 Decision support system will be used to utilize the past knowledge in decision
making
19. Customer driven products, 1.10 Suitable techniques will be adopted to convert voice of the customer into
processes and service products
20. Streamlining of process 1.25 Value stream mapping technique could be employed to streamline the
manufacturing processes
21. Scope for increasing customer 1.15 Feed backs will be collected from the customers to increase the customer value
value
22. Effective forecasting method 0.97 Training could be provided on advances in forecasting by means of case study
presentation by experts

threshold have been identified and the proposals are shown in
Table 9. This marked the end of applying ASC assessment model
at XYZ.
5. Conclusions
The manufacturing organizations are facing the pressure to
transform their manufacturing paradigm. Agile manufacturing is
a 21st century modern manufacturing paradigm which enables the
organizations to survive in the competitive dynamic environment
[3]. An organization incorporated with AM paradigm is capable
of evolving quickly the products and services in accordance with
the dynamic demands of the customers in an economical manner.
However, such models and services will fail to reach the customers’
unless the AM paradigm of the organization is supported by ASC.
Hence assessing the performance of ASC gains importance in the
AM research [17]. In this context, this paper has contributed a fuzzy
logic approach supported ASC assessment model. After design-
ing, a case study was conducted in an automotive manufacturing
company. The smooth application of this model in the company
and the theoretical coincidence of ASC performance assessment
with that observed indicated its practical compatibility and valid-
ity. An unique feature of this ASC assessment model is that it is
incorporated with fuzzy logic approach which enables the use of
linguistic terms to assess the performance of ASC attributes. The
ASC assessment model enables the computation of ranking score of
ASC attributes. This ranking score enables an organization to realize
the priorities to be considered in improving the ASC attributes.
5.1. Limitations and future scope
Due to the time constraint, supply chain agility assessment was
carried out in a single manufacturing organization. However the
results of this research can reasonably represent the situation pre-
vailing in companies implementing world class strategies. This is
due to the reason that, the automotive manufacturing company
in which the case study on ASC assessment model was conducted,
implements world class manufacturing strategies such as TQM, ISO
9001:2008 and TPM. Also, this organization was awarded Deming
prize in the year 2005 for excellence in manufacturing quality. Yet,
in future, numerous case studies could be carried out in different
organizations across varied sectors to further enhance and refine
the developed supply chain agility assessment model. During these
future endeavors, the researchers and practitioners may develop
and use a computerized system to carry out the computations
required for applying ASC assessment model. The construction of
ASC assessment model in three modules facilitates easy computer-
ization.
 S. Vinodh et al. / Journal of Manufacturing Systems 32 (2013) 620–631
References
[1] Yusuf YY, Gunasekaran A, Adeleye C, Sivayoganathan K. Agile supply chain
capabilities: determinants of competitive objectives. European Journal of Oper-
ational Research 2004;159:379–92.
[2] Gunasekaran A, Lai KH, Cheng TCE. Responsive supply chain a competitive
strategy in a networked economy. Omega 2008;36(4):549–64.
[3] Lou Zude PL, Chenyu Y, Wu A. Study on multi-agent-based agile supply chain
management. International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology
2004;23:197–203.
[4] Wu C, Barnes D. A literature review of decision-making models and approaches
for partner selection in agile supply chains. Journal of Purchasing & Supply
Management 2011;17:256–74.
[5] Eshlaghy T, Rajabzadeh A, Nikoomaram GH, Zandhessami H. Process based agile
supply chain model. Contemporary Engineering Sciences 2009;3:117–38.
[6] Van Hoek RI, Harrison A, Christopher M. Measuring agile capabilities in the
supply chain. International Journal of Operations & Production Management
2001;21(1-2):126–47.
[7] Iskanius P. An agile supply chain for a project-oriented steel product network.
Academic Dissertation, University of Oulu; 2006.
[8] Chopra S, Meindl P, Kalra DV. Supply chain management strategy, planning and
operation. 3rd ed. New Delhi: Dorling Kindersley India Pvt. Ltd.; 2007.
[9] Paneerselvam R. Operations management. 1st ed. New Delhi: Prentice Hall of
India Private Limited; 2002.
[10] Lin CT, Chiu H, Tseng YH. Agility index in the supply chain. International Journal
of Production Economics 2006;100:285–99.
[11] Ren J, Yusuf YY, Burns D. A prototype of measurement system for agile enter-
prise. Quality Management & Technology 2000;5(4):304–16.
[12] Yang SL, Li TF. Agility evaluation of mass customisation product manufacturing.
Journal of Materials Processing Technology 2002;129:640–4.
[13] Yu MC, Goh M, Lin HC. Fuzzy multi-objective vendor selection under lean pro-
curement. European Journal of Operational Research 2012;219:305–11.
[14] Tsourveloudis NC, Valavanis KP. On the measurement of enterprise agility.
International Journal of Intelligent and Robotic systems 2002;33(3):329–42.
[15] Jain V, Benyoucef L, Deshmukh SG. A new approach for evaluating agility in
supply chains using Fuzzy Association Rules Mining. Engineering Applications
of Artificial Intelligence 2008;21:367–85.
[16] Ganguly A, Nilchiani R, Farr JV. Evaluating agility in corporate enterprises. Inter-
national Journal of Production Economics 2009;118:410–23.
[17] Yusuf YY. Agile supply chain capabilities: determinants of competitive objec-
tives. European Journal of Operational Research 2003;159:379–92.
[18] Vinodh S, Prasanna M. Evaluation of agility in supply chains using
multi-grade fuzzy approach. International Journal of Production Research
2011;49(17):5263–76.
[19] Vinodh S, Vimal KEK. Thirty criteria based leanness assessment using fuzzy
logic approach. International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology
2012;60:1185–95.
[20] Vimal KEK, Vinodh S. Leanness evaluation using IF–THEN rules. International
Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 2012, 10.1007/s00170-012-
3919-4.
[21] Devo MG, Ganga S, Carpinetti LCR. A fuzzy logic approach to supply chain
performance management. International Journal of Production Economics
2011;134:177–87.
[22] Elmuti D, Minnis W, Abebe M. Longitudinal assessment of an integrated indus-
trial supply chain. An International Journal of Supply Chain Management
2008;13(2):151–9.
631
[23] Gunasekaran A. Agile manufacturing: enablers and an implementa-
tion network. International Journal of Production Research 1998;36(5):
1223–47.
[24] Sherehiy B, Karwowski W, Layer JK. A review of enterprise agility: concepts,
frameworks and attributes. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics
2007;37:445–60.
[25] Tseng YH, Lin CT. Enhancing enterprise agility by deploying agile
drivers, capabilities and providers. Information Sciences 2011;181(17):
3693–708.
[26] Viharos ZJB, Kadar L, Monostori Z, Kemeny B, Csaji A, Karnok D. Integration of
production, Quality and process monitoring for agile manufacturing. In: XVIII
Imeko World Congress metrology for a sustainable development. 2006.
[27] Bottani E. A fuzzy QFD approach to achieve agility. International Journal of
Production Economics 2009;119:380–91.
[28] Sukati I, Hamid AB, Rohaizat Baharun R, Yusoff RM, Anuar MA. The effect of
organizational practices on supply chain agility: an empirical investigation on
Malaysia manufacturing industry. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences
2012;40:274–81.
[29] Baker P. The design and operation of distribution centres within agile
supply chains. International Journal of Production Economics 2008;111:
27–41.
[30] Luo X, Wu C, Rosenberg D, Barnes D. Supplier selection in agile supply chains:
information—processing model and an illustration. Journal of Purchasing &
Supply Management 2009;15:249–62.
[31] Lin CT, Chiu H, Tseng YH. Agility evaluation using fuzzy logic. International
Journal of Production Economics 2006;101(2):353–68.
[32] LeeKwang H, Lee JH. A method for ranking fuzzy numbers and its appli-
cation to decision-making. IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems 1999;7(6):
677–85.
[33] Vinodh S, Chintha SK. Leanness assessment using multi grade fuzzy approach.
International Journal of Production Research 2009:1–15.
[34] Zarandi MHF, Sen IBT, Soumen, Saghiri S. Supply chain: crisp and fuzzy
aspects. International Journal Applied Mathematics Computational Science
2002;12(3):423–35.
[35] Mahajan M. Statistical quality control. 3rd revised ed. Nai Sarak, Delhi: Dhanpat
Rai and Co., Pvt. Ltd. Education and Technical Publishers; 2005.
[36] Denis Wadhwa S. A network approach for modeling and design of agile supply
chains using a flexibility construct. International Journal of Flexible Manufac-
turing System 2007;19:410–42.
[37] Rao Chen Y. A parametric manufacturing knowledge representation model
for agile manufacturing execution control. Journal of the Chinese Institute of
Industrial Engineers 2005;22(1):82–92.
[38] Nagesh Kerry J. Agile manufacturing and its fitness for innovation. Advances in
Integrated Design and Manufacturing in Mechanical Engineering 2005:243–54.
[39] Christopher M, Towill D. An integrated model for the design of agile supply
chains. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management
2001;31(4):235–46.
[40] David Kovach J, Stringfellow P, Turner J, Cho BR. The house of competitiveness:
the marriage of agile manufacturing, design for six sigma, and lean manu-
facturing with quality considerations. Journal of Industrial Technology 2005:
21.
[41] Barutcu S, Chwen. Customised products: the integrating relationship mar-
keting, agile manufacturing and supply chain management for mass
customization. Ege Akademic Bakis/Ege Academic Reviem 2007;7(2):573–93.
[42] Avoine G. Privacy issues in RFID banknote protection schemes. Smart Card
Research and Advanced Applications 2004:33–48.