Modeling of halal supplier flexibility criteria in the food supply chain using hybrid ISM-MICMAC: A dynamic perspective

Figures & data

Figure 1. Halal supplier criteria.

Table 1. Comparison of proposed studies with relevant studies

Author	Main contribution	Output	Number of supplier criteria	Flexibility criteria	Methods used	Halal factor	Object
Leong, Wong, and Wong (2022)	Supplier selection	Supplier ranking	7 criteria	Yes	Grey Relational Analysis (GRA) -BWM-TOPSIS	No	food manufacturing
Sonar, Gunasekaran, Agrawal S, and Roy (2022)	Identify supplier and supplier selection criteria	supplier ranking	12 criteria	Yes	Interpretive Structural Modeling (ISM)	No	NA
A. U. Khan and Ali (2021)	Supplier selection	Supplier ranking	15 criteria	No	ISM and fuzzy VIKOR	No	frozen food industry
Nasrollahi et al. (2021)	Identify supplier and supplier selection criteria	Supplier criteria and supplier ranking	19 criteria	Yes	Interpretive Structural Modeling (ISM)-Fuzzy DEMATEL	No	NA
Başaran and Çakir (2021)	Supplier selection	Supplier ranking	12 criteria	No	COPRAS-F	Yes	food industry
Tham et al. (2020)	Supplier selection	Supplier ranking	22 criteria	Yes	ISM and fuzzy TOPSIS	No	NA
Y. Chen et al. (2018)	supplier selection	supplier ranking	6 criteria	No	TISM and fuzzy ANP	No	Chinese food industry
Petrudi et al. (2018)	Suppliers evaluation	Supplier criteria and supplier ranking	14 criteria	Yes	Interpretive structural modeling (ISM), Fuzzy Preference Programming (FPP), Analytical Network Process (ANP), Fuzzy TOPSIS	No	food industry
Gavareshki et al. (2017)	Supplier selection	Supplier ranking	13 criteria	No	Interpretive structural modeling, Fuzzy MICMAC analysis, Fuzzy AHP, and Vikor method.	No	NA
R. Ali et al. (2017)	Identify supplier criteria	Supplier criteria	5 criteria	No	qualitative study	Yes	food industry
Iberahim et al. (2016)	Identify supplier criteria	Supplier criteria	4 criteria	No	Analytic Hierarchy Process	Yes	food industry
Beikkhakhian et al. (2015)	Selection criteria and ranking suppliers	Supplier criteria and supplier ranking	10 criteria	No	ISM- fuzzy TOPSIS-AHP	No	NA
This study	Identify supplier criteria	Relationship between criteria and suppliers	11 criteria	Yes	Integration of ISM-MICMAC- system dynamic for causal loop diagram	Yes	food industry

Figure 2. The scope of the ISM method in suppliers.

Figure 3. ISM-MICMAC hybrid method and the dynamic system.

Figure 4. Causal loop diagram.

Source: Roubík et al. (2020)

Table 2. Expert team

Expert	Status	Position	Education	Work experience	Sector
A	Practitioner	Procurement manager	Master	12 years	Meat processing industry
B	Practitioner	Quality assurance manager	Bachelor	14 years	Meat processing industry
C	Practitioner	Supply chain manager	Master	10 years	Meat processing industry
D	Professional	MUI representative	Doctor	7 years	Fatwa council
E	Academics	Lecturer and researcher	Doctor	12 years	Halal supply chain

Table 3. Structural self-interaction matrix (SSIM) of the relationship between halal supplier criteria

Factors (i/j)	Criteria	11	10	9	8	7	6	5	4	3	2
1	Quality	O	X	O	X	O	V	O	X	A	X
2	Cost	A	X	A	A	O	V	A	A	X
3	Traceability	O	V	V	X	O	X	A	A
4	Halal certification	X	V	V	X	V	A	X
5	Service	X	X	A	A	V	X
6	Food safety	A	V	X	V	V
7	Trust	A	V	V	A
8	SAP(supplier audit performance)	O	O	V
9	Responsibility	O	A
10	Delivery	A
11	Flexibility

Table 4. Final reachability matrix criteria for halal suppliers

Factors (i/j)		11	10	9	8	7	6	5	4	3	2	1	Driving Power
1	Quality	0	1	0	1	0	1	0	1	0	1	1	6
2	Cost	0	1	0	0	0	1	0	0	1	1	1	5
3	Traceability	0	1	1	1	0	1	0	1*	1	1	1	8
4	Halal Certification	1	1	1	1	1	0	1	1	1	1	1	10
5	Service	1	1	1*	1*	1	1	1	1	1	1	0	10
6	Food safety	1*	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	0	1*	10
7	Trust	0	1	1	1*	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	4
8	SAP(supplier audit performance)	0	0	1	1	1	0	1	1	1	1	1	8
9	Responsibility	0	0	1	0	0	1	1	0	1*	1	0	5
10	Delivery	0	1	1	0	0	0	1	0	0	1	1	5
11	Flexibility	1	1	1*	1*	1	1	1	1	0	1	0	8
12	Dependence Power	4	9	9	8	6	7	7	7	7	9	7

Table 5. Level partition matrix iteration 1–4

Iteration	Criteria	Reachability Set	Antecedent Set	Intersection set	Level
Iteration I	Quality	1,2,4,6,8,10	1,2,3,4,6,8,10	1,2,4,6,8,10	Level 1
	Cost	1,2,3,6,10	1,2,3,4,5,8,9,10,11	1,2,3,10
	Traceability	1,2,3,4,6,8,9,10	2,3,4, 5,6,8,9	2,3,4,6,8,9
	Halal Certification	1,2,3,4,5,7,8,9,10,11	1,3,4,5,6,8,11	1,3,4,5,8,11
	Service	2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11	4,5,6,8,9,10,11	4,5,6,8,9,10,11
	Food safety	1,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11	1,2,3,5,6,9,11	1,3,5,6,9,11
	Trust	7,8,9,10	4,5,6,7,8,11	7,8
	SAP (supplier audit performance)	1,2,3,4,5,7,8,9	1,3,4,5,6,7,8,11	1,3,4,5,7,8
	Responsibility	2,3,5,6,9	3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11	3,5,6,9
	Delivery	1,2,5, 9,10	1,2,3,4,5,6,7,10,11	1, 2,5,10
	Flexibility	2, 4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11	4,5,6,11	4,5,6,11
Iteration II	Cost	3	3,5,9,11	3	Level II
	Traceability	3,9	3,5,9	3,9	Level II
	Halal Certification	3,5,7,9,11	3,5,11	3,5,11
	Service	3,5,7,9,11	5,9,11	5,9,11
	Food safety	3,5,7,9,11	3,5,9,11	5,9,11
	Trust	7,9	5,7,11	7
	SAP(supplier audit performance)	3,5,7,9	3,5,7,11	3,5,7
	Responsibility	3,5,9	5,7,9,11	5,9
	Delivery	5,9	3,5,7,11	5
	Flexibility	5,7,9,11	5,11	5,11
Iteration III	Halal Certification	5,7,11	5,11	5,11
	Service	5,7,11	5,11	5,11
	Food safety	5,7,11	5,11	5,11
	Trust	7	5,7,11	7	Level III
	SAP(supplier audit performance)	5,7	5,7,11	5,7	Level III
	Responsibility	5	5,7,11	5	Level III
	Delivery	5	5,7,11	5	Level III
	Flexibility	5,7,11	5,11	5,11
Iteration IV	Halal Certification	11	11	11	Level IV
	Service	11	11	11	Level IV
	Food safety	11	11	11	Level IV
	Flexibility	11	11	11	Level IV

Table 6. Level partition criteria for halal suppliers

Criteria	Leve
Quality	Level I
Cost	Level II
Traceability	Level II
Trust	Level III
SAP (supplier audit performance)	Level III
Responsibility	Level III
Delivery	Level III
Halal certification	Level IV
Service	Level IV
Food safety	Level IV
Flexibility	Level IV

Table 7. Driving-power and dependence-power

Criteria	11	10	9	8	7	6	5	4	3	2	1
Driving Power	8	5	5	8	4	10	10	10	8	5	6
Dependence Power	4	9	9	8	6	7	7	7	7	9	7

Figure 5. ISM-based Supplier Criteria Hierarchy Model.

Figure 6. MICMAC analysis.

Figure 7. Causal Loop diagram of the flexibility relationship to halal suppliers.

Leong, W. Y., Wong, K. Y., & Wong, W. P. (2022). A new integrated multi-criteria decision-making model for resilient supplier selection. Applied System Innovation, 5(1), 8. Retrieved from. https://doi.org/10.3390/asi5010008

 Google Scholar

Khan, A. U., & Ali, Y. (2021). Sustainable supplier selection for the cold supply chain (CSC) in the context of a developing country. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 23(9), 13135–13164. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-020-01203-0

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Nasrollahi, M., Fathi, M. R., Sobhani, S. M., Khosravi, A., & Noorbakhsh, A. (2021). Modeling resilient supplier selection criteria in desalination supply chain based on fuzzy DEMATEL and ISM. International Journal of Management Science & Engineering Management, 16(4), 264–278. https://doi.org/10.1080/17509653.2021.1965502

 Google Scholar

Başaran, B., & Çakir, S. (2021). Evaluation of food safety and halal criteria in supplier selection: An application in food sector with fuzzy COPRAS method. International Food Research Journal, 28(3), 576–585. https://doi.org/10.47836/ifrj.28.3.17

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Tham, T. T., Duc, N. T. T., Dung, T. T. M., & Nguyen, H.-P. (2020). An integrated approach of ISM and fuzzy TOPSIS for supplier selection. International Journal of Procurement Management, 13(5), 701–735. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJPM.2020.110079

 Google Scholar

Chen, Y., Wang, S., Yao, J., Li, Y., & Yang, S. (2018). Socially responsible supplier selection and sustainable supply chain development: A combined approach of total interpretive structural modeling and fuzzy analytic network process. Business Strategy and the Environment, 27(8), 1708–1719. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2236

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Petrudi, S., Abdi, M., & Goh, M. (2018). An integrated approach to evaluate suppliers in a sustainable supply chain. Uncertain Supply Chain Management, 6(4), 423–444. https://doi.org/10.5267/j.uscm.2017.12.003

 Google Scholar

Gavareshki, M. H. K., Hosseini, S. J., & Khajezadeh, M. (2017). A case study of green supplier selection method using an integrated ISM-fuzzy MICMAC analysis and multi-criteria decision making. Industrial Engineering & Management Systems, 16(4), 562–573. https://doi.org/10.7232/iems.2017.16.4.562

 Google Scholar

Ali, R., Kader, M. A. R. A., Yunus, N. K. M., Mohezar, S., & Nazri, M. (2017). Factors influencing supplier selection process among muslim food operators: A qualitative study. Advanced Science Letters, 23(4), 3057–3060. https://doi.org/10.1166/asl.2017.7652

 Google Scholar

Iberahim, H., Mustapha, N. A., Kamaruddin, R., Hamid, N. A., & Samah, M. A. A. (2016). Halal compliance decisions by food suppliers based on analytic hierarchy process. Advanced Science Letters, 22(12), 4509–4513. https://doi.org/10.1166/asl.2016.8205

 Google Scholar

Beikkhakhian, Y., Javanmardi, M., Karbasian, M., & Khayambashi, B. (2015). The application of ISM model in evaluating agile suppliers selection criteria and ranking suppliers using fuzzy TOPSIS-AHP methods. Expert Systems with Applications, 42(15), 6224–6236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2015.02.035

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Roubík, H., Mazancová, J., Rydval, J., & Kvasnička, R. (2020). Uncovering the dynamic complexity of the development of small–scale biogas technology through causal loops. Renewable Energy, 149, 235–243. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2019.12.019

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar