| Literature DB >> 33848286 |
Anshuman Sharma1, Haidar Abbas2, Muhammad Qutubuddin Siddiqui1.
Abstract
The Cold Supply Chain (CSC) is an integral part of the supply chain of perishable products. The aim of this research is to examine the inhibitors that have a major impact on the performance of CSC operations in the United Arab Emirates (UAE). This study provides a synthesis and suggests a hierarchical model among CSC inhibitors and their respective relevance. The hierarchical synthesis of twelve (12) primary CSC inhibitors is achieved through a comprehensive literature review and consultation with academics and CSC professionals. This study used semi-structured interviews, a fuzzy interpretive structural modeling (FISM) and a Fuzzy-MICMAC (FMICMAC) analysis to explore and establish the relationship between and among identified inhibitors. FISM is used to examine the interaction between inhibitors, while FMICMAC analysis is used to examine the nature of inhibitors on the basis of their dependence and driving power. The results of the FISM and FMICMAC analysis show the inter-relationships and relative dominance of identified inhibitors. The results show that some inhibitors are of high strategic importance due to their high driving power and low dependence. These inhibitors seek more management attention in order to improve their effectiveness. The result of a hierarchical model helps to understand the influence of a particular inhibitor on others. 'Higher capital and operating costs' occupy the highest level in the FISM model. The 'fragmented cold supply chains', 'lack of skilled labor', 'inadequate information system infrastructure' and 'lack of commitment by top level management' had strong driving power but weak dependence, which characterizes them as independent inhibitors. Management should be extra careful when dealing with these inhibitors as they influence the effects of other variables at the top of the FISM hierarchy in the overall management of the cold supply chain. The study also suggests a number of recommendations for addressing these inhibitors in cold supply chains operating in the UAE. With due attention and care for these inhibitors, the operation of the cold supply chains is likely to be even more successful.Entities:
Year: 2021 PMID: 33848286 PMCID: PMC8043388 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0249046
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1Flow diagram illustrating the FISM procedure (adopted from Joshi et al., [65]).
Selected inhibitors for the current study.
| Sr. | Inhibitors | Brief description | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Fragmented cold supply chains (I1) | It involves many business partners (intermediaries, agents, etc.) from source (farm to fork) to destinations. | [ |
| 2 | Lack of commitment by top-level management (I2) | This refers to the degree of reluctance vis a vis a strategically viable and operationally sustainable, which is exhibited in the attitude of top-level management. | [ |
| 3 | Poor cold supply chain network (I3) | It refers to those poorly designed networks, which fail to optimize the potentials of the network partners by integrating forward from suppliers to the consumers. | [ |
| 4 | Poor collaboration (I4) | It refers to the inability of management to properly coordinate, cooperate, and collaborate throughout the network to share forecasts, manage inventories, schedule labor, or optimize deliveries, etc. | [ |
| 5 | Negligible local production of selected CSC items (I5) | Being deprived of arable land, the local production of the selected cold supply chain items are minimal. | Due to the lack of arable land and the harsh environmental conditions, the local production of the selected items is negligible. |
| 6 | Higher capital & operating costs (I6) | Fixed costs (like importing, installing, and operationalizing the equipment) and operational costs (running and maintenance costs) are high. | [ |
| 7 | Inadequate information system infrastructure (I7) | Inadequate IS infrastructure here mostly concerns with the one at the suppliers’ end at source and during transit before these are delivered at their ultimate destination. | [ |
| 8 | Inadequate cold storage infrastructure (I8) | Inadequate infrastructure here mainly refers to the uneven infrastructure dealing with such supplies at source and during the transition before these are delivered at their ultimate destination. | [ |
| 9 | Improper tracking (I9) | Due to the fragmented nature of cold supply chains and inadequate IS infrastructure, tracing the product throughout the movement is challenging. | [ |
| 10 | Lack of skilled labor (I10) | Skilled and trained staff is inadequate in terms of their familiarity with modern equipment, IT systems, industry-specific stocking and handling practices, etc. | [ |
| 11 | Reliability issues with third-party logistics (I11) | In the absence of vertical integration, third-party logistics providers always face a degree of suspicion on account of trust and reliability regarding the maintenance of the prescribed conditions throughout the movement and storage, the unexpected delays, breakdowns, cross-contamination, etc. | [ |
| 12 | Customers’ limited awareness about the quality dimensions (I12) | It generally refers to the customers’ inability to scrutinize anything other than the expiry date before they buy any such product. | [ |
Structural self-interaction matrix (SSIM).
| Inhibitors | 12 | 11 | 10 | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fragmented cold supply chains (I1) | O | O | A | V | X | A | O | A | O | V | O | - | |
| Lack of skilled labor (I2) | V | V | A | V | V | X | V | A | O | V | - | ||
| Poor cold supply chain network (I3) | O | V | O | V | A | O | V | O | V | - | |||
| Poor collaboration (I4) | O | A | A | X | A | A | V | O | - | ||||
| Negligible local production of selected CSC items (I5) | O | O | X | O | O | O | V | - | |||||
| Higher capital and operating costs (I6) | O | A | A | A | A | A | - | ||||||
| Inadequate information system infrastructure (I7) | V | O | A | V | O | - | |||||||
| Inadequate cold storage infrastructure (I8) | A | V | A | V | - | ||||||||
| Improper tracking (I9) | O | X | A | - | |||||||||
| Lack of commitment by top level management (I10) | V | V | - | ||||||||||
| Reliability issues with third-party logistics (I11) Customers’ | O | - | |||||||||||
| limited awareness about the quality dimensions (I12) | - |
Initial reachability matrix developed from the SSIM.
| Inhibitors | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fragmented cold supply chains (I1) | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Lack of skilled labor (I2) | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | |
| Poor cold supply chain network (I3) | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | |
| Poor collaboration (I4) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Negligible local production of selected CSC items (I5) | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | |
| Higher capital and operating costs (I6) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Inadequate information system infrastructure (I7) | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | |
| Inadequate cold storage infrastructure (I8) | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | |
| Improper tracking (I9) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | |
| Lack of commitment by top level management (I10) | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |
| Reliability issues with third-party logistics (I11) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | |
| Customers’ limited awareness about the quality dimensions (I12) | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
Final reachability matrix.
| Inhibitors | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fragmented cold supply chains (I1) | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1* | 0 | 1* | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1* | 0 | |
| Lack of skilled labor (I2) | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1* | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | |
| Poor cold supply chain network (I3) | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | |
| Poor collaboration (I4) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1* | 0 | |
| Negligible local production of selected CSC items (I5) | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | |
| Higher capital and operating costs (I6) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Inadequate information system infrastructure (I7) | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1* | 1 | |
| Inadequate cold storage infrastructure (I8) | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | |
| Improper tracking (I9) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | |
| Lack of commitment by top level management (I10) | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |
| Reliability issues with third-party logistics (I11) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | |
| Customers’ limited awareness about the quality dimensions (I12) | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
Scheme for the degree of perceived dominance factor (adopted from [65]).
| Dominance of interaction | No | Very low | Low | Medium | High | Very high | Full |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| N | NL | L | M | H | VH | F | |
| 0 | 0.1 | 0.3 | 0.5 | 0.7 | 0.9 | 1 |
Fuzzy direct reachability matrix (FDRM).
| Inhibitors | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | Driving Power | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| I1 | 1 | 0 | 0.9 | 0.7 | 0 | 0.5 | 0 | 0.9 | 0.9 | 0 | 0.7 | 0 | ||
| I2 | 0 | 1 | 0.5 | 0.9 | 0 | 0.7 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.7 | 0 | 0.5 | 0.5 | ||
| I3 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0.9 | 0 | 0.7 | 0 | 0 | 0.9 | 0 | 0.9 | 0 | ||
| I4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0.9 | 0 | 0 | 0.9 | 0 | 0.7 | 0 | ||
| I5 | 0.9 | 0.7 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0.3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.3 | 0 | 0 | ||
| I6 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| I7 | 0.7 | 0.7 | 0 | 0.9 | 0 | 0.7 | 1 | 0 | 0.9 | 0 | 0.9 | 1 | ||
| I8 | 0.7 | 0 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0 | 0.5 | 0 | 1 | 0.3 | 0 | 0.3 | 0 | ||
| I9 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.9 | 0 | 0.7 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0.9 | 0 | ||
| I10 | 0.7 | 0.9 | 0 | 0.9 | 0.1 | 0.5 | 0.9 | 0.9 | 0.5 | 1 | 0.5 | 0.5 | ||
| I11 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.9 | 0 | 0.5 | 0 | 0 | 0.1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | ||
| I12 | 0.5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | ||
Level partitioning iteration -1.
| Inhibitors | Reachability Set | Antecedent Set | Intersection Set | Level | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 11 | 1, 5, 7, 8, 10,12 | 1, 8 | |||
| 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11,12 | 2, 7, 10 | 2, 7 | |||
| 3, 4, 6, 9, 11 | 1, 2, 3, 8 | 3 | |||
| 4, 6, 9, 11 | 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 | 4, 9, 11 | |||
| 1,2, 5, 6, 10 | 5, 10 | 5, 10 | |||
| 6 | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 | 6 | I | ||
| 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12 | 2, 7, 10 | 2, 7 | |||
| 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 11 | 1, 2, 8, 10, 12 | 1, 8 | |||
| 4, 6, 9, 11 | 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10,11 | 4, 9, 11 | |||
| 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7,8, 9, 10, 11, 12 | 5, 10 | 5, 10 | |||
| 4, 6, 9, 11 | 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 | 4, 9, 11 | |||
| 1, 8, 12 | 7, 10, 12 | 12 |
Level partitioning iteration-7.
| Inhibitors | Reachability Set | Antecedent Set | Intersection Set | Level | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5, 10 | 5, 10 | 5, 10 | VII | ||
| 5, 10 | 5, 10 | 5, 10 | VII |
Fig 2The FISM based model illustrating the structural relations with their respective dominance of interaction.
Fig 3Notations.
Fig 4Driving power and dependence diagram (FMICMAC).
Level partitioning iteration -2.
| Inhibitors | Reachability Set | Antecedent Set | Intersection Set | Level | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1, 3, 4, 8, 9, 11 | 1, 5, 7, 8, 10,12 | 1, 8 | |||
| 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 11,12 | 2, 7, 10 | 2, 7 | |||
| 3, 4, 9, 11 | 1, 2, 3, 8 | 3 | |||
| 4, 9, 11 | 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 | 4, 9, 11 | II | ||
| 1,2, 5, 10 | 5, 10 | 5, 10 | |||
| 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12 | 2, 7, 10 | 2, 7 | |||
| 1, 3, 4, 8, 9, 11 | 1, 2, 8, 10, 12 | 1, 8 | |||
| 4, 9, 11 | 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10,11 | 4, 9, 11 | II | ||
| 1, 2, 4, 5, 7,8, 9, 10, 11, 12 | 5, 10 | 5, 10 | |||
| 4, 9, 11 | 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 | 4, 9, 11 | II | ||
| 1, 8, 12 | 7, 10, 12 | 12 |
Level partitioning iteration-3.
| Inhibitors | Reachability Set | Antecedent Set | Intersection Set | Level | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1, 3, 8 | 1, 5, 7, 8, 10,12 | 1, 8 | |||
| 2, 3, 7, 8,12 | 2, 7, 10 | 2, 7 | |||
| 3 | 1, 2, 3, 8 | 3 | III | ||
| 1,2, 5, 10 | 5, 10 | 5, 10 | |||
| 1, 2, 7, 8, 12 | 2, 7, 10 | 2, 7 | |||
| 1, 3, 8 | 1, 2, 8, 10, 12 | 1, 8 | |||
| 1, 2, 5, 7,8,10, 12 | 5, 10 | 5, 10 | |||
| 1, 8, 12 | 7, 10, 12 | 12 |
Level partitioning iteration-4.
| Inhibitors | Reachability Set | Antecedent Set | Intersection Set | Level | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1, 8 | 1, 5, 7, 8, 10,12 | 1, 8 | IV | ||
| 2, 7, 8, 12 | 2, 7, 10 | 2, 7 | |||
| 1,2, 5, 10 | 5, 10 | 5, 10 | |||
| 1, 2, 7, 8, 12 | 2, 7, 10 | 2, 7 | |||
| 1, 8 | 1, 2, 8, 10, 12 | 1, 8 | IV | ||
| 1, 2, 5, 7,8,10, 12 | 5, 10 | 5, 10 | |||
| 1, 8, 12 | 7, 10, 12 | 12 |
Level partitioning iteration-5.
| Inhibitors | Reachability Set | Antecedent Set | Intersection Set | Level | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2, 7, 12 | 2, 7, 10 | 2, 7 | |||
| 2, 5, 10 | 5, 10 | 5, 10 | |||
| 2, 7, 12 | 2, 7, 10 | 2, 7 | |||
| 2, 5, 7, 10, 12 | 5, 10 | 5, 10 | |||
| 12 | 7, 10, 12 | 12 | V |
Level partitioning iteration-6.
| 2, 7 | 2, 7, 10 | 2, 7 | VI | ||
| 2, 5, 10 | 5, 10 | 5, 10 | |||
| 2, 7 | 2, 7 | 2, 7 | VI | ||
| 2, 5, 10, | 5, 10 | 1, 2, 5, 10 |