Content uploaded by Mehdi Rahimian
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Mehdi Rahimian on May 15, 2023
Content may be subject to copyright.
Content uploaded by Mehdi Rahimian
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Mehdi Rahimian on Sep 11, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
Corresponding Author: mm.rahimian@hotmail.com http://dorl.net/dor/20.1001.1.25385097.1402.8.1.4.6
Licensee. Journal of Decisions and Operations Research. This article is an open access article distributed under the
terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0).
Abstract
Journal of Decisions and Operations Research
www.journal-dmor.ir
J. Decis. Oper. Res. Vol. 8, No. 1 (2023) 72–87.
Paper Type: Original Article
Provide a Model for Assessing Supply Chain Antifragility
(Case Study: Darupakhsh Company)
Mohammad Mehdi Rahimian Asl1,* , Mohammad Hasan Maleki2
1 Department of Industrial Management - Production and Operations, Institute for Management and Planning Studies
(Affiliated to presidency), Tehran, Iran; mm.rahimian@hotmail.com.
2 Department of Industrial Management, Faculty of Management and Economics, University of Qom, Qom, Iran;
mh.maleki@qom.ac.ir.
Citation:
Rahimian Asl, M. M., & Maleki, M. H. (2023). Provide a model for assessing supply chain antifragility
(case study: Darupakhsh Company). Journal of decisions and operations research, 8(1), 72-87.
Accepted: 20/02/2022
Revised: 09/01/2022
Reviewed: 06/11/2021
Received: 06/10/2021
Purpose: The purpose of this paper to evaluate the level of antifragility in the supply chain of a Daroopakhsh company.
To improve the company's competitive position and confrontation to disruptions and breakdowns, the supply chain
must move towards antifragility. Accordingly, the supply chain, in addition to being prepared to deal with and respond
to disruptions, has the ability to recover pre-disruption conditions and create even better conditions. To move in this
direction, it is necessary for decision makers to properly recognize the current position of their supply chain and make
the right decisions to improve its dominance.
Methodology: To achieve this goal, the present study intends to determine the declining performance of this supply
chain system in optimal, current and minimum conditions using Demetel technique, graph theory method and matrix
approach. Finally, using the importance-performance analysis method, the components of supply chain are analyzed and
prioritize the improvement of each factor.
Findings: Based on the results, respectively, supply chain structure, improvement and recovery, learning, flexibility and
innovation are in the first to fifth priority to improve the dominance structure of the company's supply chain.
Originality/Value: This research supports organizations in assessing the level of sufficiency of their supply chain and
facilitates decision making. The following approach can simplify the dynamic nature of the environment for managing
supply chain disruptions and even allow managers to compare different supply chains. Continuous assessment and
monitoring of the level of chain volatility enables the creation of a competitive advantage to achieve greater market share
even during a disruption or ongoing disruptions.
Keywords: Supply chain management, Antifragility, DEMATEL technique, Graph theory and matrix approach,
Performance importance analysis, Fuzzy approach.
mm.rahimian@hotmail.com
http://dorl.net/dor/20.1001.1.25385097.1402.8.1.4.6
[16]
هرود8( هرامش ،1 ،)(1402 ،)87-72
www.journal-dmor.ir
Journal of Decisions and
Operations Research
Jo
ur
na
l
of
D
ec
isi
o
ns
an
d
O
pe
ra
ti
o
na
l
R
es
ea
rc
h
[22]
[16][19]
[12][32]
[9]
[26][31]
[9][18][32]
.[23]
[24]
Agility
Resiliencey
Sustainability
Antifragility
.
.
[27]
[13]
[32]
[14][13]
[2]
[7]
[4]
[5]
[20]
Table 1- Overview of studies conducted in the antifragility.
Snowball sampling
Theorerical saturation
[17]
2021
[24]
2021
[3]
2020
[20]
2020
[5]
2019
[30]
2019
[21]
2019
[4]
2018
[15]
2017
[8]
2017
[7]
2017
DEMATEL
DEMATEL
.[25]
DEMATEL
[11]
DEMATEL
E DEMATEL
V
EV
Wilcoxon test
Binomial test
Decision Making Trial and Evaluation Laboratory
(DEMATEL)
Causal diagram
Graph Theory and Matrix Approach
(GTMA)
Variable Permanent Matrix (VPM)
Importance-performance Analysis
(IPA)
IPA
[6]
DEMATEL
GTMA
IPA
IPA
𝐻0 𝐻1
SPSS
SPSS
Table 2- The final factors of supply chain Antifragility.
Threshold value
1
C
[28]
2
C
[4]
3
C
[1]
4
C
[10]
5
C
[1]
6
C
[29]
Table 2- Continued.
DEMATEL
Table 3- Linguistic words and fuzzy values associated with each.
In×n
HT
7
C
[13]
8
C
[1]
9
C
[13]
10
C
[29]
11
C
[29]
12
C
[10]
13
C
[29]
(0.0,0.1,0.3)
(0.1,0.3,0.5)
(0.3,0.5,0.7)
(0.5,0.7,0.9)
(0.7,0.9,1.0)
.
.
.
.
Table 4- Total relations matrix.
C13
C12
C11
C10
C9
C8
C7
C6
C5
C4
C3
C2
C1
(0.07,0.12,0.23)
(0.08,0.14,0.27)
(0.07,0.12,0.23)
(0.06,0.12,0.24)
(0.01,0.04,0.14)
(0.05,0.11,0.24)
(0.08,0.14,0.26)
(0.06,0.10,0.20)
(0.01,0.04,0.14)
(0.06,0.13,0.28)
(0.08,0.14,0.27)
(0.01,0.04,0.15)
(0.03,0.08,0.20)
C1
(0.01,0.04,0.14)
(0.03,0.08,0.20)
(0.01,0.04,0.14)
(0.02,0.07,0.18)
(0.00,0.03,0.12)
(0.07,0.12,0.22)
(0.08,0.13,0.23)
(0.02,0.06,0.15)
(0.01,0.04,0.12)
(0.08,0.14,0.25)
(0.07,0.12,0.23)
(0.00,0.02,0.09)
(0.02,0.06,0.18)
C2
(0.01,0.05,0.15)
(0.06,0.11,0.23)
(0.01,0.05,0.16)
(0.06,0.11,0.22)
(0.01,0.04,0.14)
(0.08,0.14,0.25)
(0.08,0.13,0.24)
(0.01,0.05,0.14)
(0.00,0.03,0.12)
(0.09,0.15,0.27)
(0.02,0.06,0.17)
(0.03,0.07,0.16)
(0.07,0.12,0.25)
C3
(0.03,0.08,0.18)
(0.06,0.11,0.23)
(0.07,0.11,0.21)
(0.08,0.13,0.24)
(0.02,0.06,0.15)
(0.08,0.14,0.25)
(0.08,0.13,0.24)
(0.01,0.05,0.15)
(0.00,0.03,0.12)
(0.02,0.07,0.19)
(0.03,0.08,0.20)
(0.01,0.04,0.14)
(0.06,0.12,0.24)
C4
(0.01,0.06,0.18)
(0.06,0.12,0.25)
(0.03,0.08,0.19)
(0.08,0.13,0.25)
(0.07,0.11,0.20)
(0.08,0.14,0.26)
(0.07,0.13,0.25)
(0.01,0.05,0.16)
(0.01,0.03,0.11)
(0.09,0.16,0.30)
(0.08,0.14,0.27)
(0.04,0.08,0.19)
(0.02,0.08,0.22)
C5
(0.06,0.12,0.25)
(0.07,0.14,0.28)
(0.03,0.08,0.21)
(0.09,0.16,0.29)
(0.07,0.12,0.22)
(0.10,0.17,0.30)
(0.07,0.14,0.28)
(0.01,0.05,0.15)
(0.07,0.12,0.21)
(0.11,0.19,0.34)
(0.09,0.16,0.31)
(0.07,0.12,0.23)
(0.08,0.16,0.30)
C6
(0.02,0.06,0.16)
(0.08,0.13,0.24)
(0.02,0.05,0.15)
(0.03,0.07,0.19)
(0.01,0.05,0.14)
(0.08,0.13,0.24)
(0.02,0.05,0.15)
(0.01,0.04,0.13)
(0.00,0.03,0.12)
(0.08,0.14,0.26)
(0.08,0.13,0.24)
(0.01,0.04,0.13)
(0.08,0.14,0.25)
C7
(0.05,0.09,0.20)
(0.02,0.08,0.20)
(0.03,0.07,0.17)
(0.08,0.13,0.24)
(0.00,0.03,0.13)
(0.02,0.06,0.16)
(0.04,0.09,0.21)
(0.02,0.06,0.15)
(0.01,0.05,0.14)
(0.09,0.15,0.27)
(0.08,0.13,0.25)
(0.01,0.04,0.14)
(0.06,0.11,0.24)
C8
(0.01,0.04,0.13)
(0.01,0.05,0.16)
(0.01,0.04,0.13)
(0.02,0.05,0.16)
(0.01,0.03,0.09)
(0.02,0.07,0.17)
(0.02,0.06,0.17)
(0.04,0.07,0.16)
(0.06,0.09,0.16)
(0.07,0.12,0.24)
(0.07,0.11,0.22)
(0.01,0.03,0.12)
(0.01,0.05,0.16)
C9
(0.03,0.07,0.18)
(0.07,0.12,0.24)
(0.01,0.05,0.15)
(0.02,0.06,0.15)
(0.01,0.04,0.13)
(0.08,0.13,0.24)
(0.02,0.07,0.19)
(0.02,0.06,0.16)
(0.00,0.03,0.12)
(0.08,0.14,0.26)
(0.07,0.12,0.24)
(0.00,0.03,0.13)
(0.06,0.11,0.23)
C10
(0.07,0.11,0.18)
(0.06,0.11,0.20)
(0.01,0.03,0.10)
(0.01,0.05,0.15)
(0.00,0.02,0.10)
(0.01,0.04,0.15)
(0.01,0.04,0.14)
(0.00,0.03,0.11)
(0.00,0.02,0.10)
(0.02,0.07,0.18)
(0.01,0.05,0.16)
(0.01,0.03,0.11)
(0.08,0.12,0.22)
C11
(0.01,0.04,0.12)
(0.01,0.04,0.12)
(0.05,0.09,0.17)
(0.05,0.09,0.19)
(0.00,0.02,0.10)
(0.01,0.04,0.15)
(0.01,0.05,0.15)
(0.00,0.03,0.11)
(0.00,0.02,0.10)
(0.01,0.06,0.17)
(0.02,0.06,0.17)
(0.01,0.03,0.11)
(0.06,0.10,0.20)
C12
(0.01,0.03,0.10)
(0.02,0.06,0.16)
(0.07,0.11,0.19)
(0.01,0.04,0.14)
(0.00,0.02,0.10)
(0.01,0.04,0.15)
(0.03,0.07,0.17)
(0.00,0.03,0.11)
(0.00,0.02,0.10)
(0.04,0.09,0.21)
(0.01,0.04,0.15)
(0.01,0.03,0.11)
(0.07,0.11,0.21)
C13
Table 5- Importance and effectiveness of factors (defuzzy numbers).
DEMATELT
TE[33]
TT
Figure 1- Graph of relationships on the factors of supply chain antifragility.
i
V
i
0.095
0.04
3.10
1
C
0.060
0.32
1.97
2
C
0.089
0.26
2.89
3
C
0.098
-0.48
3.18
4
C
0.069
-0.80
2.25
5
C
0.086
1.07
2.79
6
C
0.083
-0.17
2.71
7
C
0.087
-0.25
2.83
8
C
0.056
0.20
1.82
9
C
0.082
-0.17
2.67
10
C
0.062
-0.19
2.03
11
C
0.072
-0.63
2.35
12
C
0.061
-0.20
1.98
13
C
ijij
ij
eji
ji
ji
e
E
E
DEMATELT
TDEMATELE
E E
E
Table 6- Square matrix E.
V
V
V
Table 7- Diagonal matrix V.
13
C
12
C
11
C
10
C
9
C
8
C
7
C
6
C
5
C
4
C
3
C
2
C
1
C
0
0
0.1575
0.15
0
0.115
0.155
0.1275
0
0.135
0.135
0.1575
0
1
C
0
0
0.135
0.1525
0
0
0.1425
0.1325
0
0
0
0
0
2
C
0.14
0
0
0.165
0
0
0.145
0.145
0
0.125
0
0.1275
0
3
C
0.135
0
0
0
0
0
0.145
0.1525
0
0
0.125
0.1275
0
4
C
0
0
0.1575
0.1775
0
0
0.145
0.155
0
0.1475
0
0.1375
0
5
C
0.175
0.135
0.18
0.2075
0.13
0
0.1575
0
0.1325
0.175
0
0.1575
0.1375
6
C
0.1525
0
0.145
0.155
0
0
0
0.145
0
0
0
0.145
0
7
C
0.13
0
0.1475
0.165
0
0
0.1075
0
0
0.145
0
0
0.1075
8
C
0
0
0.1275
0.1375
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
9
C
0.1275
0
0.1375
0
0
0
0
0.145
0
0
0
0.1375
0
10
C
0.135
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.12
0.1175
11
C
0.115
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.105
0
0
0
12
C
0
0
0
0.1075
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.12
0
0
13
C
.
13
C
12
C
11
C
10
C
9
C
8
C
7
C
6
C
5
C
4
C
3
C
2
C
1
C
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.473
1
C
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.470
0
2
C
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.665
0
0
3
C
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.145
0
0
0
4
C
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.1225
0
0
0
0
5
C
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.285
0
0
0
0
0
6
C
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.525
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
C
0
0
0
0
0
0.665
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
C
0
0
0
0
0.449
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
9
C
0
0
0
0.355
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
C
0
0
0.551
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
11
C
0
0.350
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
12
C
0.225
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
13
C
EV
VPM
Table 8- Variable permanent matrix (VPM).
VPM
VPM
M+1
M
M-2
M-3
M-4M-4
V
VPM
.
13
C
12
C
11
C
10
C
9
C
8
C
7
C
6
C
5
C
4
C
3
C
2
C
1
C
0
0
0.1575
0.15
0
0.115
0.155
0.1275
0
0.135
0.135
0.1575
0.473
1
C
0
0
0.135
0.1525
0
0
0.1425
0.1325
0
0
0
0.470
0
2
C
0.14
0
0
0.165
0
0
0.145
0.145
0
0.125
0.665
0.1275
0
3
C
0.135
0
0
0
0
0
0.145
0.1525
0
0.145
0.125
0.1275
0
4
C
0
0
0.1575
0.1775
0
0
0.145
0.155
0.1225
0.1475
0
0.1375
0
5
C
0.175
0.135
0.18
0.2075
0.13
0
0.1575
0.285
0.1325
0.175
0
0.1575
0.1375
6
C
0.1525
0
0.145
0.155
0
0
0.525
0.145
0
0
0
0.145
0
7
C
0.13
0
0.1475
0.165
0
0.665
0.1075
0
0
0.145
0
0
0.1075
8
C
0
0
0.1275
0.1375
0.449
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
9
C
0.1275
0
0.1375
0.355
0
0
0
0.145
0
0
0
0.1375
0
10
C
0.135
0
0.551
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.12
0.1175
11
C
0.115
0.350
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.105
0
0
0
12
C
0.225
0
0
0.1075
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.12
0
0
13
C
.
Table 9- The level of supply chain antifragility performance of Darupakhsh Company.
DEMATEL
VIPA
IPAIPA
IPA
Figure 2- IPA matrix of supply chain antifragility factors in Darupakhsh Company.
j
b
j
c
j
SW.[6]
IPA
0.8253
0.4749
0
100%
57.5%
0%
.
Table 10- Priority of improving each factors in order to improve the supply chain antifragility in Darupakhsh
Company based on IPA analysis.
DEMATELFuzzy
GTMADEMATELGTMAIPA
DEMATEL
IPA
12
0.017
0.090
0.095
1
C
7
0.058
0.089
0.060
2
C
3
0.109
0.126
0.089
3
C
1
0.230
0.027
0.098
4
C
4
0.105
0.023
0.069
5
C
5
0.091
0.054
0.086
6
C
9
0.045
0.099
0.083
7
C
2
0.112
0.126
0.087
8
C
8
0.054
0.085
0.056
9
C
10
0.040
0.067
0.082
10
C
6
0.087
0.104
0.062
11
C
13
0.014
0.066
0.072
12
C
11
0.037
0.043
0.061
13
C
DEMATEL
IPA
[1] Ali, A., Mahfouz, A., & Arisha, A. (2017). Analysing supply chain resilience: integrating the constructs in a concept
mapping framework via a systematic literature review. Supply chain management: an international journal, 22(1), 16-
39.
[2] Bendell, T. (2016). Building anti-fragile organisations: risk, opportunity and governance in a turbulent world. Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315570426
[3] Botjes, E. A., Mulder, H., & Nouwens, H. (2020). Defining antifragility and the application on organisation design
(Master Thesis, Antwerp Management School). DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.3719389
[4] Copeman, T., & Ivanova, K. (2018). On antifragility in technology ventures. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3208447
[5] dos Passos, D. S., Coelho, H., & Sarti, F. M. (2019). Measuring banks’ antifragility via fuzzy logic. International journal
of computer and systems engineering, 13(7), 389-396.
Exploratory factor analysis
Confirmatory factor analysis
Cognitive map
SODA
Analytical Network Process (ANP)
Best worst method
[6] Esmailpour, J., Aghabayk, K., Vajari, M. A., & De Gruyter, C. (2020). Importance–performance analysis (IPA) of bus
service attributes: a case study in a developing country. Transportation research part a: policy and practice, 142, 129-150.
[7] Ghasemi, A., & Alizadeh, M. (2017). Evaluating organizational antifragility via fuzzy logic, the case of an Iranian
company producing banknotes and security paper. Operations research and decisions, 27(2), 21-43.
[8] Ghasemi, A., Khoshsepehr, Z., & Fakhrpour, S. (2016). Provide a framework for measuring and evaluating the military
invincibility of systems. International conference on management and accounting, Tehran, Iran. Civilica. (In Persian).
https://civilica.com/doc/554109/
[9] Größler, A. (2020). A managerial operationalization of antifragility and its consequences in supply chains. Systems
research and behavioral science, 37(6), 896-905 .
[10] Ivanov, D. (2021). Introduction to supply chain resilience: management, modelling, technology. Springer Nature.
https://books.google.com
[11] Jain, V., & Raj, T. (2015). Evaluating the intensity of variables affecting flexibility in FMS by graph theory and matrix
approach. International journal of industrial and systems engineering, 19(2), 137-154.
[12] Jamali, G., Karimi Asl, E., Hashemkhani Zolfani, S., & Šaparauskas, J. (2017). Analysing larg supply chain
management comoptitive strategies in Iranian cement industries. Economics and management, 20(3), 70-83.
https://dspace5.zcu.cz/handle/11025/26303
[13] Johnson, J. & Gheorghe, A. V. (2013). Antifragility analysis and measurement framework for systems of systems.
International journal of disaster risk science, 4(4), 159-168.
[14] Kennon, D., Schutte, C. S., & Lutters, E. (2015). An alternative view to assessing antifragility in an organisation: a case
study in a manufacturing SME. CIRP annals, 64(1), 177-180.
[15] Khoshsepehr, Z., Fakhrpour, S. H., & Maleki, M. H. (2017). Promoting supply chain productivity with the use of the
invincibility theory. The journal of productivity management, 11(2), 31-56.
[16] Lemke, F., & Petersen, H. L. (2018). Supply chain risk management: advanced tools, models, and developments. In
Managing reputational risks in supply chains (pp. 65-84). Springer.
https://repository.vlerick.com/handle/20.500.12127/5853
[17] Munoz, A., Todres, M., & Rook, L. (2021). Empowering organisations to gain from uncertainty: a conceptualisation of
antifragility through leveraging organisational routines in uncertain environments. Australasian accounting, business
and finance journal, 15(3), 23-42.
[18] Platje, J. J. (2015). Sustainability and antifragility. Economic and environmental studies, 15(4), 469-477.
[19] Pournader, M., Kach, A., & Talluri, S. (2020). A review of the existing and emerging topics in the supply chain risk
management literature. Decision sciences, 51(4), 867-919.
[20] Ramezani, J., & Camarinha-Matos, L. M. (2020). Approaches for resilience and antifragility in collaborative business
ecosystems. Technological forecasting and social change, 151, 119846. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2019.119846
[21] Ranjbar, R., Najafi, A., Mohammadi, A., Hamidi, N. (2019). Increasing the level of invincibility and reducing the cost
of supply chain based on radio frequency identification technology. Industrial management, 13(46), 105-120. (In
Persian). https://journals.iau.ir/article_663782.html
[22] Rezapour, S., Farahani, R. Z., & Pourakbar, M. (2017). Resilient supply chain network design under competition: a case
study. European journal of operational research, 259(3), 1017-1035.
[23] Ruiz-Martin, C., López-Paredes, A., & Wainer, G. (2018). What we know and do not know about organizational
resilience. International journal of production management and engineering, 6(1), 11-28.
[24] Saad, Y. (2021). How to design antifragile public procurement systems?
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/348558928
[25] Sumrit, D., & Anuntavoranich, P. (2013). Using DEMATEL method to analyze the causal relations on technological
innovation capability evaluation factors in Thai technology-based firms. International transaction journal of
engineering, management, & applied sciences & technologies, 4(2), 81-103.
[26] Taleb, N. N. (2012). Anti-fragile: how to live in a world we don't understand (Vol. 3). London, UK: Allen Lane.
https://www.amazon.com/-/es/Nassim-Nicholas-Taleb/dp/1846141567
[27] Taleb, N. N. (2014). Antifragile: Things that gain from disorder (Vol. 3). Random House Trade Paperbacks.
https://cmc.marmot.org/Record/.b42507212
[28] Tordecilla, R. D., Juan, A. A., Montoya-Torres, J. R., Quintero-Araujo, C. L., & Panadero, J. (2021). Simulation-
optimization methods for designing and assessing resilient supply chain networks under uncertainty scenarios: a review.
Simulation modelling practice and theory, 106, 102166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.simpat.2020.102166
[29] Tukamuhabwa, B. R., Stevenson, M., Busby, J., & Zorzini, M. (2015). Supply chain resilience: definition, review and
theoretical foundations for further study. International journal of production research, 53(18), 5592-5623.
[30] Uzunov, A. V., Nepal, S., & Chhetri, M. B. (2019). Proactive antifragility: a new paradigm for next-generation cyber
defence at the edge. 2019 IEEE 5th international conference on collaboration and internet computing (CIC) (pp. 246-
255). IEEE. DOI: 10.1109/CIC48465.2019.00039
[31] Verhulsta, E. (2014). Applying systems and safety engineering principles for antifragility. Procedia computer science,
32, 842-849.
[32] Zitzmann, I. (2014). How to cope with uncertainty in supply chains?-conceptual framework for agility, robustness,
resilience, continuity and anti-fragility in supply chains. Proceedings of the Hamburg international conference of
logistics (HICL) (pp. 361-377). Berlin: epubli GmbH. https://www.econstor.eu/handle/10419/209215
[33] Zeng, F., Hou, C., Wu, S., Liu, X., Tong, Z., & Yu, S. (2007). Silver nanoparticles directly formed on natural
macroporous matrix and their anti-microbial activities. Nanotechnology, 18(5), 055605. DOI: 10.1088/0957-
4484/18/5/055605
