J Intell Manuf

DOI 10.1007/s10845-014-0957-9

Analysis of enablers for the implementation of leagile supply chain

management using an integrated fuzzy QFD approach
A. Noorul Haq Varma Boddu

Received: 9 April 2014 / Accepted: 6 August 2014

Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Abstract Global competition and market uncertainty has

forced organizations to become more responsive and efficient
which thereby drives interest in the concept of supply chain
leanness and agility. The leagile supply chain management
paradigm includes lean and agile principles and has attained
greater importance in the current scenario. The objective of
this work is to identify the most appropriate leagile enablers
for implementation by companies based on the characteristics of the related market by linking competitive bases, leagile
attributes and leagile enablers. In this paper, a quality function deployment (QFD) approach integrated with analytical
hierarchy process and technique for order preference by similarity to ideal solution is proposed to enhance the leagility
of the supply chain. Fuzzy logic is used to deal with linguistic judgments expressing relationships and the correlations required by QFD. The presentation of a case study from
the Indian food processing industry illustrates the proposed
methodology. This approach will help the management to
exploit the most influential enablers in achieving the desired
degree of leagility.
Keywords Supply chain management Leagile supply
chain Quality function deployment Fuzzy logic TOPSIS
AHP Decision support
Introduction
Supply Chain is a network involving activities associated
with the flow and transformation of goods from the raw
A. N. Haq V. Boddu (B)
Department of Production Engineering, National Institute
of Technology, Tiruchirappalli 620015, India
e-mail: varma0609@gmail.com
A. N. Haq
e-mail: anhaq@nitt.edu

material stage to the end customer as well as associated

information flows. Supply Chain Management is an integrating philosophy to manage the total flow of materials,
products and information from suppliers to the end customers. Supply chain management increases the competitiveness of a firm and its supply chain, when the appropriate supply chain strategy is chosen. Due to customers
changing needs, increasing global competition and demand
uncertainty, organizations strive to become more responsive
and more efficient to sustain in stiff competition thereby
driving the interest in concepts of supply chain leanness
and agility. Leanness and agility are different paradigms,
but when combined within one model, enable the supply
chains success (Mason-Jones et al. 2000). The lean supply chain is a strategy based on cost reduction and flexibility, focused on processes improvement, through reduction or
elimination of all non-value adding operations. Agile Supply Chain focuses on promoting adaptability and flexibility and has the ability to respond quickly and effectively to
changing markets. In general, Lean supply chain is recommended where demand is relatively stable and predictable
and cost is the priority. Whereas, agile supply chain is suggested where demand is volatile and speed is the priority.
(Mason-Jones et al. 2000; Agarwal et al. 2006). Neither paradigm is better nor worse than the other, indeed they are complementary within the correct supply chain strategy (Naylor
et al. 1999). According to Naylor et al. (1999), these two
strategies can be combined together to ensure the advantages of both. Combining agility and leanness in one supply chain through the strategic use of a de-coupling point
has been termed leagility (Naylor et al. 1999). Leagility
is defined as the combination of lean and agile paradigms
that when applied to the strategy of supply chain, responds
satisfactorily to the volatile market demands. The lean and
agile paradigms, though distinctly different, can be combined

123

J Intell Manuf

within successfully designed and operated total supply chains

(Mason-Jones et al. 2000).
The food industry is a highly segmented market in which
manufacturers and retails need to be able to respond quickly
to the changing nature of consumer preferences and tastes.
The food industry has to implement lean practices to reduce
the supply chain cost by eliminating all the waste. But, at the
same time, the food supply chain should be agile enough to
respond to consumer demand. Agility in production seems to
be a very important factor in the food supply chain because
market sensitivity is absolutely essential in the food industry (Bourlakis and Weightman 2004). To sustain in global
completion, it is essential to be cost effective as well as market sensitive. It is necessary for the food industry to implement leagile strategies in their supply chain incorporating the
advantages of the both lean and agile principles.
Based on conceptual models of lean and agile organizations from literature, it is observed that organizations exploit
suitable enablers to achieve leanness or agility in their organizations. Similarly, organizations can exploit Leagile Enablers
(LAEs) to enhance leagility. LAEs are enabling technologies
and methodologies which achieve leagility. In this work, an
integrated multi criteria decision making framework, based
on Fuzzy quality function deployment (QFD) is proposed to
enhance supply chain leagility. An attempt is made to identify
the most appropriate enablers to be implemented by companies, based on characteristics of the related market by linking Competitive Bases (CBs), Leagile Attributes (LAAs) and
LAEs. An integrated approach, based on Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP), Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) and QFD is developed to
prioritize LAEs by considering their relationship with LAAs.
Fuzzy logic is used to deal with linguistic judgments expressing relationships and correlations required in QFD. The proposed methodology is illustrated through a case study from
the food processing industry. The remainder of the paper
is organized as follows. Literature review on leagile supply
chain management and fuzzy QFD is presented in the next
section. The proposed methodology is explained in Sect. 3.
In Sect. 4, a case study from the food processing industry
illustrates the application of the proposed approach. Results
and discussion are presented in Sect. 5. Concluding remarks
and the future scope of research are provided in Sect. 6.

ply chain by combining both lean and agile concepts with

a decoupling point. They illustrated this with case studies
from the Hewlett Packard Company and a personal computer
manufacturer. Soni and Kodali (2012) addressed the issue of
lack of standard constructs within the frameworks of lean,
agile and leagile supply chain. Their objective is achieved
by evaluating reliability and the validity of lean, agile and
leagile supply chain constructs in the Indian manufacturing
industry. Principle component analysis is performed on these
constructs to identify the pillars of each type of supply chain
followed by evaluating the reliability and validity of these pillars. Agarwal et al. (2006) presented an Analytical Network
Process based framework for selection of suitable strategy
among lean, agile and leagile supply chains. The framework
encapsulates market sensitiveness, process integration, information driver and flexibility measures of supply chain performance. This paper explored the relationship among leadtime, cost, quality, service level and the enablers of leanness
and agility of a case supply chain in a fast moving consumer
goods business.
Rahimnia et al. (2009) investigated the applicability of
leagility in Iranian Fast food restaurant chains. This paper
has proposed the possibility of applying the leagility concept
in a case study organization to show that mass services can
benefit from the advantages of both lean and agile paradigms.
Kisperska-Moron and De Haan (2011) presented the case
study of a Fast moving consumer goods distributor in Poland
which improved the supply chain performance through the
application of leagile concepts. The firm managed its volatile
period using agile principles and ensured reliable supplies by
adopting lean principles. Vinodh and Aravindraj (2013) presented the conceptual model of leagility embedded with lean
and agile principles. A fuzzy logic approach was used to
evaluate leagility in supply chains. The authors presented a
case study from an Indian Transformer manufacturing industry. Azevedo et al. (2012) proposed an index to assess the
agility and leanness of individual companies and the corresponding supply chain. The index is named Agilean index
and is obtained from a set of Agile and Lean supply chain
practices integrated in an assessment model. They illustrated the approach with a case study from the Automobile
industry.
Literature review based on fuzzy QFD

Literature review
Literature review based on leagile supply chain
management
Naylor et al. (1999) compared the lean and agile manufacturing paradigms, highlighting similarities and differences. The
authors introduced the leagility concept within the total sup-

123

Carnevalli and Paulo Miguel (2008) presented a review and

analysis of the literature on QFD. Xu et al. (2010) presented
a more balanced review of QFD that exhibits enough depth
to be useful to researchers as well as enough breadth to cater
to amateur readers based on publications between 2005 and
2009. Costa et al. (2000) presented a detailed literature review
on the application of QFD in the food industry. Their review
was extended with a thorough description of methodologies

J Intell Manuf

involved in the practice of QFD in food companies and further

exemplified with a case study on ketchup quality improvement.
Bottani and Rizzi (2006) proposed a fuzzy-QFD approach
and addressed the issue of deploying House of Quality (HOQ) to efficiently and effectively improve logistic
processes. Liang et al. (2012) applied a fuzzy QFD approach
to prioritize knowledge management solutions for an international port in Taiwan. Vinodh and Kumar (2011) applied
fuzzy QFD to enable leanness and validated the approach
with a case study from an Indian electronics switches manufacturing organization. The approach was very effective in
identifying lean competitive bases, lean decision domains,
lean attributes and lean enablers for the organization. Bottani (2009) proposed an original approach based on QFD
methodology and fuzzy logic to identify the most appropriate enablers for implementation by companies starting
from competitive characteristics of related markets by linking competitive bases, agile attributes and agile enablers. An
illustrative example based on data available in literature, is
presented to show application of the tool developed. Ayag et
al. (2013) analyzed the dairy industry and identified important dairy logistics requirements and Supply chain management strategies using Fuzzy QFD for maximizing customer
satisfaction.
Some of the researchers integrated the QFD with fuzzy
logic and other multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) tools
which they claimed as an efficient and useful decision making tool. Kwong and Bai (2002) proposed a fuzzy AHP
approach to the determination of importance weights of customer requirements in QFD as it is a crucial and important
step. The design of a bicycle splashguard is used to illustrate
the proposed methodology. Ho et al. (2012) proposed an integrated approach, combining QFD and fuzzy AHP approach
to evaluate and select optimal third-party logistics service
providers. The integrated QFD and fuzzy AHP approach
comprises of three HOQs, including HOQ1linking company stakeholders with their requirements, HOQ2relating
stakeholder requirements to evaluating criteria and HOQ3
benchmarking alternative 3PLs with respect to various criteria. Fuzzy AHP is used to find importance ratings of stake
holders requirements in first HOQ and relationship weightings in all three HOQs. But, this methodology involves lot of
pair wise comparisons and calculations. Zarei et al. (2011)
proposed an integrated approach based on fuzzy QFD and
AHP to enhance leanness by analyzing lean enablers linked
to lean attributes. Priority weights of lean attributes based
on selected criteria are calculated using AHP. The authors
illustrated the approach with a case study from the canning
industry. From their work, it can be inferred that QFD integrated with fuzzy logic and other MCDM methods will be
a successful tool in decision making. In our work, TOPSIS
is integrated with fuzzy QFD as it is a simple and effective

MCDM tool. Moreover, AHP is proposed to allocate priority

weights in TOPSIS.
From the literature, it is observed that very few works
were reported on leagile supply chain management and no
work has been reported on the application of fuzzy QFD
for leagility enhancement in supply chain management. This
work aims at enhancing leagility of supply chains using
a fuzzy QFD approach integrated with AHP and TOPSIS.
Also, the food industry received limited attention in the context of lean and agile strategies in literature. This paper illustrates the proposed methodology with a case study from a
food processing industry.
Proposed methodology
It is understood from literature that leagile enterprises are
characterised by proper attributes allowing companies to sustain in a business environment. Generally, companies compete along with many CBs, like costs, quality, responsiveness
etc; whose relative importance in achieving a competitive
advantage depends on specific market characteristics. Consequently, LAAs to be enhanced vary depending on the CBs
the companies are interested to excel in. Also, companies can
exploit many LAEs to achieve LAAs. According to market
field characteristics, companies should first define CBs they
are interested to excel in, to achieve a competitive advantage. Then, LAAs enhancing selected CBs should be identified. Finally, LAEs to be exploited to achieve the required
LAAs should be identified and implemented by companies
(Bottani 2009). An integrated approach based on AHP, TOPSIS and fuzzy QFD is proposed to enhance supply chain
leagility in an organization by prioritizing LAEs, by linking CBs, LAAS and LAEs. The structure of the proposed
methodology is shown in the Fig. 1.
The framework to improve leagility in supply chain by
Fuzzy-QFD includes the following steps.
1. Identification of CBs, LAAs and LAEs based on literature
review
2. Selection of CBs, LAAs and LAEs to suit needs of the
company being studied
3. Finding priority weights for CBs using AHP (for using
in TOPSIS)
4. Finding priority weights for LAAs based on CBs using
TOPSIS (for using in QFD)
5. Prioritization of LAEs by considering relation with LAAs
and correlation amongst themselves using Fuzzy QFD
Identification of CBs, LAAs and LAEs based on literature
review
A leagile supply chain has many distinguishing attributes and
enablers. The characteristics of a leagile supply chain are

123

J Intell Manuf

Identification of Competitive bases, Attributes and

Enablers for leagile supply chain based on
Literature Review

Finalization of Competitive bases, Attributes and

Enablers for leagile supply chain with case
company experts opinion

Data collection

Assigning priority weights to Competitive bases

using AHP

Finding priority weights for CBs using AHP

The priority weights for CBs are to be allocated with the
objective of enhancing the leagility of the supply chain. These
priority weights are used in TOPSIS. The reason for selecting
AHP for this purpose is as it can be possible only with AHP
using pair wise comparison for prioritizing CBs. The AHP
is a multi-criteria decision-making approach introduced by
Saaty (2008), having three main operations; hierarchy construction, priority analysis and consistency verification. The
pair-wise comparison is established using a nine-point scale
shown in Table 1. Vaidya and Kumar (2006) presented a
literature review on the applications of AHP. Also, Subramanian and Ramanathan (2012) reviewed literature on the
applications of AHP in operations management. Borade et
al. (2013) adopted AHP based framework to prioritize Vendor Managed Inventory practices. Govindan et al. (2014)
analysed the barriers to green supply chain management
using AHP. Mathiyazhagan et al. (2014) proposed an AHP
based approach to prioritize pressures to adopt green supply
chain management in Indian industries.

Assigning priority weights to Attributes using

TOPSIS

Prioritizing Enablers using

Fuzzy QFD

Validation and Conclusions

Fig. 1 Flow chart for the proposed methodology

considered LAAs which are elements constituting the underlying structure of a leagile organization. They were originally conceived as core concepts of the leagile manufacturing and supply chain. Accordingly, LAEs are enabling tools,
technologies and methods critical to successfully accomplish
leagile supply chain management. Based on related literature,
CBs, LAAs and LAEs were identified.
Selection of CBs, LAAs and LAEs to suit needs of the
company being studied
Based on literature review and with the help of experts from
the case company, CBs, LAAs and LAEs are chosen according to the case companys special characteristics. Based on
data collected through questionnaires and interviews, most
appropriate CBs, LAAs and LAEs relevant to the case company are to be identified.

123

Finding the priority weights of LAAs based on CBs using

TOPSIS
TOPSIS, developed by Hwang and Yoon (1981), is a simple
ranking method using for various decision making applications. Among various MCDM methods available to solve
real-world decision problems, TOPSIS continues to work
satisfactorily in diverse application areas. On the other hand,
TOPSIS is a well known MCDM technique because it has
a simple and successful computation procedure. TOPSIS
requires less number judgments compared to AHP as it alleviates the requirement of pair wise comparisons (Behzadian
et al. 2012). The TOPSIS method chooses alternatives that
simultaneously have shortest distance from positive ideal
solution and farthest distance from a negative-ideal solution. The positive ideal solution maximizes benefit criteria
and minimizes cost criteria, whereas the negative ideal solution maximizes cost criteria and minimizes benefit criteria.
(Behzadian et al. 2012; Yoon and Hwang 1995).
The first step in TOPSIS is the formation of an initial decision matrix. Then the procedure starts by normalizing it, followed by building a weighted normalized decision matrix.
Then positive and negative ideal solutions are determined.
Calculating a separation measure for each alternative is the
next step. The procedure ends by calculating the relative
closeness coefficient. The alternatives are ranked according
to the descending order of the closeness coefficient (Behzadian et al. 2012).
TOPSIS is used to prioritize LAAs by finding priority
weights. The priority weights for LAAs are determined based
on their importance regarding CBs. Priority weights obtained

J Intell Manuf
Table 1 Nine -point scale (Saaty 2008)
Scale

Definition

Explanation

Equal importance

Two activities contribute equally

Moderate importance

Experience and judgment slightly favour one activity over another

Strong importance

Experience and judgement strongly favour one activity over another

Very strong importance

An activity is favoured very strongly over another

Extreme importance

Evidence favouring one activity over another is of the highest possible order of affirmation

2, 4, 6, 8

For compromise values

For compromise values, sometimes one needs to interpolate a compromise between the above
judgment numerically because there is no good word to describe it

Reciprocals of above

If activity A has one of the above numbers assigned to it when compared with activity B, then B
has the reciprocal value when compared with A; for example, if the pair wise comparison of A to
B is 3.0, then the pair wise comparison of B to A is 1/3

Table 2 Degree of relationships and corresponding fuzzy numbers

Table 3 Degree of correlations and corresponding fuzzy numbers

Degree of relationships

Fuzzy numbers

Degree of correlation

Fuzzy numbers

Strong

(0.7; 1; 1)

Strong positive (SP)

(0.7; 1; 1)

Medium

(0.3; 0.5; 0.7)

Positive (P)

(0.5; 0.7; 1)

Weak

(0; 0; 0.3)

Negative (N)

(0; 0.3; 0.5)

Strong negative (SN)

(0; 0; 0.3)

by TOPSIS for LAAs are used in the proposed models

Fuzzy-QFD component.

Prioritization of LAEs by considering the relation with

LAAs using fuzzy QFD
Fuzzy QFD is used to prioritize LAEs by determining the
relationships between LAAs and LAEs and the correlation
amongst the latter. QFD is a comprehensive quality system
targeting customer satisfaction based on HOQ. Fuzzy logic
approach is used, as it eliminates drawbacks like vagueness, ambiguity, uncertainties and impreciseness in decision
making. The evaluator can express performance ratings and
important weights using linguistic variables. Then linguistic
variables are converted into fuzzy numbers. In this study, to
build HOQ, LAAs are treated as the voice of the customer
(WHATs), as these are the requirements of an improved
Leagile organization. LAEs are considered as the HOWs
in a HOQ.
The relationship degree between LAAs and LAEs is
expressed by the corresponding Triangular Fuzzy Number
(TFN) and placed in the HOQ matrix. Also, the degree of
correlation between LAEs is expressed by TFNs in fuzzy
HOQ. Linguistic Variables and corresponding fuzzy numbers for relationship degrees and correlation are shown in
Tables 2 and 3 (Bottani and Rizzi 2006).
TFN can be represented as a triplet (a, b, c), as shown in
Fig. 2, where, a b c. When a = b = c, it is a non-fuzzy

Fig. 2 Triangular fuzzy number (TFN)

number by convention. The membership function is defined

as (Zimmermann 1991):

0xa i f x a

i
f
a

b
ba
A (x) = cx

if b x c

cb
0
if x c
If M = (a1 , b1 , c1 ) and N = (a2 , b2 , c2 ) represent two
TFNs, then,
Fuzzy addition : M + N = (a1 + a2 ; b1 + b2 ; c1 + c2 )
Fuzzy multiplication: M N = (a1 a2 ; b1 b2 ; c1 c2 )
Fuzzy division: M/N = (a1 /a2 ; b1 /b2 ; c1 /c2 )
Fuzzy reciprocal: 1/M = (1/c1 ; 1/b1 ; 1/a1 )
Fuzzy and natural number multiplication: r M = (r.a; r.b;
r.c)

123

J Intell Manuf
Table 4 CBs and LAAs for the
case company

Competitive bases (CBs)

Leagile attributes (LAAs)

CB1

Cost

LAA1

CB2

Quality

LAA2

Delivery reliability

CB3

Availability

LAA3

Cost efficiency

CB4

Responsiveness

LAA4

Market sensitivity

CB5

Speed

LAA5

Customer focus

CB6

Flexibility

LAA6

Volume flexibility

CB7

Innovation

LAA7

New product flexibility

CB8

Competency

LAA8

Delivery responsiveness

LAA9

Enterprise integration

LAA10

Improved supply chain material

and information flow

Illustration with case study

Food and food products are the largest consumption category in India, with a market size of USD 181 billion. It is
significant to note that challenges for the food processing
sectors are diverse and need to be addressed on many fronts
to derive maximum market benefits. Also, despite the Food
sectors importance, food industry has received little attention in literature in the context of lean and agile strategies.
Thus, there is a need to analyze leagile enablers for Indian
food processing industries. The proposed approach is illustrated with the help of a case study from a food processing
industry.
About the case company
The case company is in the business of manufacturing, selling and marketing of packaged snack foods with its base in
North India. The company has a turnover of Rupees 224.95
crores with employee strength of 390. The company plans to
meet the demand for their products across the nation. There
was a need for the organization to improve its performance
to sustain global competition. The management decided to
implement leagile supply chain strategy as it was cost effective and responsive to market demands.
Identification and selection of CBs, LAAs and LAEs
An expert committee of senior managers of the case company and academic experts was formed to facilitate application of this approach in the company. Initially, with the
help of literature review, all the available CBs, LAAs and
LAEs are collected (Agarwal et al. 2006; Bottani 2009; Naim
and Gosling 2011; Narasimhan et al. 2006; Soni and Kodali
2012; Shah and Ward 2003; Vinodh and Aravindraj 2013;
Yusuf and Adeleye 2002; Zarei et al. 2011). Then, discus-

123

Conformance quality

sions were held with the experts to identify the CBs, LAAs
and LAEs which are relevant to the case company. Apart
from choosing from the literature, the experts tried to identify
the decisive factors which are specific to their company. For
example, availability is identified as competitive base from
companys perspective as consumer can opt for an alternative product if the product is unavailable in the market. Similarly, advanced technology in food processing is added as
an enabler by the experts. Finally, with the help of literature
review, questionnaires and discussions, 8 CBs, 10 LAAs and
20 LAEs relevant to the case company were identified. These
are shown in Tables 4 and 5.

Finding priority weights for CBs using AHP

Based on the requirements of the company, 8 CBs were chosen by experts as shown in Table 4. AHP allocates priority
weights to these CBs. The objective in prioritizing CBs is to
enhance the leagility of the case company.
In AHP, a complex decision problem is structured as a hierarchy of objectives, criteria and alternatives. But, in this case,
AHP is used to allocate priority weights to alternatives based
on the objective. Pair wise comparison of CBs regarding the
objective is determined based on Saatys 9 point scale. Then
priority weights are computed and consistency ratio (CR)
determined to check the consistency of the judgements. If
the final CR exceeds 0.1, evaluation procedure should be
repeated to improve consistency. The pair wise matrix and
corresponding weights are shown in Table 6.

Finding the priority weights of LAAs based on CBs using

TOPSIS
TOPSIS is used to allocate priority weights of LAAs. 10
LAAs selected by experts are prioritized with respect to CBs.

J Intell Manuf
Table 5 LAEs for the case company
Sl.No

Leagile enablers

Description

LAE1

Virtual enterprise (VE)

Developing a common working environment between organizations to

manage collection of resources toward attainment of common goals

LAE2

Collaborative relationship with suppliers

and customers

Promises improved supply chain performance in several core areas

LAE3

Vendor managed inventory (VMI)

Improves supply chain performance by decreasing inventory levels

and improving customer service levels

LAE4

Just in time (JIT)

Simplifies various processes by eliminating waste

LAE5

Collaborative planning forecasting

replenishment (CPFR)

Improves supply chain performance results in lower inventories,

logistic costs and creates efficiency in the supply chain for all
participants

LAE6

Positioning of decoupling point

A strategic inventory point of supply chain and integration point of

lean and agile strategy

LAE7

Electronic data interchange (EDI) and

information technology (IT) tools

Enables partners in supply chain to act on the same real data rather
than relying on distorted and noisy picture that emerges in an
extended supply chain

LAE8

E-business

Improves service levels by serving the customers and collaborating

with partners through internet

LAE9

Cycle time reduction measures

Provides benefits like quicker customer responsiveness, improved

profitability, improved competitiveness etc

10

LAE10

Transhipments in inventory management

Common practice in multi-location inventory systems involving

monitored movement of stock between locations at the same level of
the supply chain

11

LAE11

Human resource management (HRM)

Training and managing employees to sustain the practices followed to

achieve leagility

12

LAE12

Total quality management (TQM)

Implementing a corporate culture emphasizing customer focus,

continuous improvement, employee empowerment, and data driven
decision-making

13

LAE13

Customer focus and satisfaction

When customers expectations are unmet, dissatisfaction results and

lowers satisfaction level, the customer is to stop purchasing the
product

14

LAE14

Flexible automation

Provides customized products through flexible processes in high

volumes and at reasonably low costs

15

LAE15

Process integration

Shared information between supply chain partner is possible through

process integration

16

LAE16

Advanced technology in food processing

Helps to improve food quality and productivity

17

LAE17

Integrated logistics management

Integration of various logistics functions to make better decisions as

logistics plays important role in food industry

18

LAE18

Information technology (IT) in production

planning and control (PPC)

Helps effective planning in less time

19

LAE19

Strategic alliance with other organizations

Policy to maintain competitive advantage to achieve various benefits

like technology sharing and cost savings

20

LAE20

New product development

Pressures due to increased competition and shortening of life cycles

Various steps involved in TOPSIS are presented below.

Step 1: The alternatives (LAAs) regarding CBs are evaluated and initial decision matrix formed as shown in Table 7.
For this assessment, 19 scale is used (Saaty 2008). Also,
weightage for CBs obtained using AHP are used in TOPSIS.
Step 2: Then, the decision matrix is converted into a normalized decision matrix (ri j ).



ri j = X i j /
X i2j for i = 1 to m; j = 1 to n

where, X i j is the decision matrix obtained in the previous

step.
Step 3: The weighted normalized matrix (Vi j ) is formed by
multiplying each column with their relative weights.
Vi j = W j ri j
where, W j is weight for J criterion
Step 4: Then, positive ideal solution and negative ideal solution are determined.

123

J Intell Manuf
Table 6 AHP decision matrix
and priority weights

CB1

CB2

CB3

CB4

CB5

CB6

CB7

CB8

Priority weights

CB1

2.1

2.3

2.4

2.4

2.6

2.5

2.6

0.23458

CB2

0.48

1.4

2.1

1.8

2.1

1.3

2.8

0.1632

CB3

0.43

0.71

1.8

2.1

1.7

1.2

2.9

0.1437

CB4

0.42

0.48

0.55

1.8

2.8

2.9

2.5

0.1342

CB5

0.38

0.55

0.47

0.55

1.2

1.8

1.8

0.0933

CB6

0.4

0.47

0.59

0.36

0.83

2.8

2.1

0.092

CB7

0.38

0.77

0.83

0.34

0.55

0.36

2.4

0.0755

Consistency ratio = 0.0461

CB8

0.38

0.36

0.34

0.4

0.55

0.48

0.42

0.0522

Table 7 Decision matrix for

TOPSIS

WCB

0.236
CB1

0.163
CB2

0.144
CB3

0.134
CB4

0.093
CB5

0.092
CB6

0.076
CB7

0.052
CB8

LAA1

2.1

5.5

2.1

1.9

1.6

1.2

1.4

3.2

LAA2

2.1

1.9

1.6

4.1

3.9

1.9

3.8

2.1

LAA3

2.3

3.6

2.1

2.6

2.8

1.5

1.6

1.9

LAA4

2.2

1.5

3.9

4.1

4.3

2.1

3.9

2.5

LAA5

2.3

3.4

3.9

2.9

2.8

4.1

4.2

3.3

LAA6

2.2

1.9

4.1

3.8

2.9

2.8

2.1

2.3

LAA7

2.9

2.1

4.3

3.1

2.8

4.1

3.2

1.9

LAA8

2.4

3.1

3.2

4.6

4.9

3.1

4.2

2.5

LAA9

2.3

2.9

3.1

3.2

3.3

2.9

2.7

2.1

LAA10

2.4

3.1

3.2

3.1

3.9

3.8

4.1

3.1

(a) Positive ideal solution (A ) in each row is determined

as follows


A = V1 , . . . . . . . . . ..Vn


where, V j = {max Vi j i f j J ; min Vi j i f j

J }
(b) Negative ideal solution (A ) in each row is determined
as follows.


A = V1 , . . . . . . . . . ..Vn

Step 5:
(a) Separation from ideal solution A* is calculated using,
S j

V j

Vi j

2 

for i = 1, . . .. . .m

(b) Separation from negative ideal solution A is calculated

using,

123




V j Vi j

2 

for i = 1, . . .. . .m

Step 6: Relative closeness to ideal solution is calculated using



Ci = Si / Si + S i
Calculations are shown in Table 8. These are priority weights
for LAAs. Then, priority weights for LAAs are normalized
and used in HOQ.
Prioritization of LAEs using fuzzy QFD

 
 
where, V j = {min Vi j i f j J ; max Vi j i f j
J }




S j

The degree of relationship between LAAs and LAEs (Rij )

was judged by the experts committee using linguistic terms,
defined in Table 2. The correlation among LEs (Tkj ) was
assessed in terms of linguistic terms, defined in Table 3. Tkj
is shown on the roof of HOQ. These were entered in HOQ
at corresponding places as shown in Fig. 3. Priority weights
for LAAs from TOPSIS were also entered.
The two parameters RIj and RIj* are calculated to determine LAEs which impact the leagile supply chain.

j = 1, 2, 3 . . . . . . m
(1)
RIj =
Wi Rij

Tkj RIk
j = 1, 2, 3 . . . . . . m
(2)
RIj = RIj +

J Intell Manuf
Table 8 Priority weights by
TOPSIS

Si =



vj vij 2

Si =

 
[(vj vij )2 ]2

Priority weights
Ci = Si /Si +Si

Normalized
weights

LAA1

0.39451

0.486598

0.55226

0.09803

LAA2

0.27781

0.255973

0.47954

0.085122

LAA3

0.35288

0.216374

0.38010

0.06747

LAA4

0.15369

0.317687

0.67395

0.119631

LAA5

0.21467

0.331655

0.60706

0.107758

LAA6

0.20943

0.280969

0.57294

0.1017

LAA7

0.21138

0.291447

0.57962

0.102886

LAA8

0.13854

0.367419

0.72618

0.128903

LAA9

0.24606

0.221555

0.47379

0.084102

LAA10

0.19978

0.285283

0.58813

0.104398

Fig. 3 Fuzzy HOQ developed for the case company between LAAS and LAEs

Then, to rank the LAEs, scores of RIJ were de-fuzzified to

find crisp values. Suppose M (a, b, c) is a TFN; then, the
de-fuzzified value is calculated using
(a + 4b + c)/6

(3)

Based on corresponding fuzzy numbers, values of RIj and

RIj were calculated using Eqs. (1) and (2). Then, RIj scores
were de-fuzzified using Eq. (3) to obtain crisp values. LAEs
were ranked according to crisp values. These computational

values are shown in Fig. 3. LAEs are ranked according to

crisp values in a highest to lowest value order.

Results and discussion

LAEs with high crisp values must be accorded priority to
enhance leagility of the organisation. Hence, such LAEs
must be selected for implementation. From results, it is

123

J Intell Manuf

understood that LAE2 (Collaborative relationship with suppliers and customers) has highest crisp value followed by
LAE7 (EDI and IT tools) which was the next highest in crisp
value. Collaborative relationship promises improved supply
chain performance in several core areas including increased
sales, improved forecasts, more accurate and timely information, reduced costs, reduced inventory and improved customer service (Soni and Kodali 2012). The presence of trust
at all stages reduces transaction time and makes flow of funds
and material faster, thereby increasing responsiveness of the
supply chain. The integration of information systems like
electronic data interchange facilitates improved management
of food product inventories, greater efficiency in distribution
and improved customer service levels. That is why EDI and
IT tools are the second priority among enablers. Strategic
alliance with other organizations (LAE19) is the third priority due to strategic alliances that helps companies access new
markets, expands geographic reach and obtains state of art
technology and core competencies at relatively faster rates.
Strategic alliances enable management with increasing organizational and technological complexities which emerged in
the global market. Flexible automation (LAE14) is the next
priority to LAE19. Flexible automation offers benefits like
reduced work-in-process, lead-time reduction, increased productivity and improved quality. Logistics plays a vital role
in the food industry to transport products in time at various stages. Logistics comprises several inter-related activities
including freight transport, warehousing, inventory management, materials handling and related information processing.
The supply and deliveries at various stages can be monitored with integrated logistics management enhancing delivery speed and reliability. Integrated logistics management
(LAE17) obtained the fifth priority.
Virtual Enterprise (LAE1), Vendor Managed Inventory
(LAE3), E- Business (LAE8), Process Integration (LAE15)
and new product development (LAE20) are the next priorities among the top 10 enablers. Based on market characteristics and customer demand, Virtual Enterprise can be
formed to take advantage of core competitiveness of each
partner. The promising benefits from Vendor managed Inventory like reduced inventory costs for supplier and buyer and
improved customer service levels motivated the organization
to implement Vendor Managed Inventory practices (Achabal
et al. 2000). Organizations have understood that conducting
business electronically reduces transaction costs, improves
revenues and enables them to manage corporate resources
efficiently and effectively. Process integration is the collaborative working between buyers and suppliers, joint product development, common systems and shared information.
Introducing a new product into the market can definitely bring
promising benefits like greater market share and higher profitability (Jayaram et al. 1999). The positioning of Decoupling Point, Customer focus and satisfaction, just in-time,

123

advanced technology in food processing, Cycle time reduction Measures, Total Quality Management, Collaborative
Planning Forecasting Replenishment, Transhipments in inventory management, human resource management and Information Technology in Production Planning and Control are
the next priorities. The management can improve the leagility
of the organisation by exploiting these enablers, prioritywise. The management focussed on measures to improve
the leagility of its supply chain based on the prioritization of
enablers.
Validation of the approach
To validate the feasibility of this approach, the results are
placed before three experts individually, for validation. The
experts are from the top management of the case company
with rich experience in the company and are not part of
the experts committee which participated in this study. The
experts express their satisfaction on results obtained from
this approach and agreed that the study was useful to enhance
the competitiveness of their firm by improving its leagility.
Based on the analysis of results and validation by experts, this
approach is practically feasible for organizations to improve
their leagility based on their preferences which suit their market characteristics.
Managerial implications
The framework presented in this paper helps in the empirical analysis of LAEs which management could consider
in the implementation of leagile supply chain. It is evident
from the results that the prioritization of LAEs is helpful to
enhance the performance of the organization by improving
its leagility. This approach will helpful to management to
implement leagile supply chain management, thus achieving
the both cost effectiveness and responsiveness in their supply
chain. Depending upon the competitive priorities of the market, this approach will guide the management in selecting the
best practices which should be implemented by organizations
to enhance leagility.

Conclusions
The current competitive and unstable market trends, increased product variety, and demand fluctuations compel organizations to adopt new strategies, to enable them to sustain in
global competition. Meeting customer demands at a quicker
rate and keeping costs low are key factors for organizations
to sustain in a global competition. With the development
of economy and technology, more intense competition has
emerged. The leagile supply chain management paradigm
which includes both lean and agile principles has attained

J Intell Manuf

greater importance in this scenario. In this work, an integrated

fuzzy QFD approach was proposed to enhance leagility of the
supply chain by identifying the most influential enablers. To
cope well with vagueness of judgments required in building
HOQs, linguistic variables defined with TFNs find relationships and correlations. Finally, the proposed methodology is
illustrated with the help of a case study from a food industry. This approach is suitable for organizations to enhance
the leagility of the supply chain. This methodology will
help management to exploit the most influential enablers to
achieve the desired degree of leagility.
In future, researchers can integrate other multi-criteria
decision making methods with QFD to prioritize LAEs. More
CBs, LAAs and LAEs can be considered for future study.
Also, advanced membership functions of fuzzy logic can be
used to enhance the approachs effectiveness. This paper presented a case study from the food industry. Case studies from
other sectors can also be considered.

References
Achabal, D., McIntyre, S. H., Smith, S. A., & Kalyanam, K. (2000). A
decision support system for vendor managed inventory. Journal of
retailing, 76(4), 430454.
Agarwal, A., Shankar, R., & Tiwari, M. K. (2006). Modeling the metrics
of lean, agile and leagile supply chain: An ANP-based approach.
European Journal of Operational Research, 173(1), 211225.
Ayag, Z., Samanlioglu, F., & Bykzkan, G. (2013). A fuzzy QFD
approach to determine supply chain management strategies in the
dairy industry. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, 24(6), 1111
1122.
Azevedo, S. G., Govindan, K., Carvalho, H., & Cruz-Machado, V.
(2012). An integrated model to assess the leanness and agility of
the automotive industry. Resources, Conservation and Recycling,
66, 8594.
Behzadian, M., Khanmohammadi Otaghsara, S., Yazdani, M., &
Ignatius, J. (2012). A state-of the-art survey of TOPSIS applications.
Expert Systems with Applications, 39(17), 1305113069.
Borade, B., Kannan, G., & Bansod, S. V. (2013). Analytical hierarchy
process-based framework for VMI adoption. International Journal
of Production Research, 51(4), 963978.
Bottani, E. (2009). A fuzzy QFD approach to achieve agility. International Journal of Production Economics, 119(2), 380391.
Bottani, E., & Rizzi, A. (2006). Strategic management of logistics service: A fuzzy QFD approach. International Journal of Production
Economics, 103(2), 585599.
Bourlakis, M. A., & Weightman, P. W. (Eds.). (2004). Food supply chain
management. Oxford: Blackwell Pub.
Carnevalli, J. A., & Miguel, P. C. (2008). Review, analysis and classification of the literature on QFDtypes of research, difficulties and
benefits. International Journal of Production Economics, 114, 737
754.
Costa, A. I. A., Dekker, M., & Jongen, W. M. F. (2000). Quality function
deployment in the food industry: A review. Trends in Food Science
& Technology, 11(9), 306314.
Govindan, K., Kaliyan, M., Kannan, D., & Haq, A. N. (2014). Barriers analysis for green supply chain management implementation
in Indian industries using analytic hierarchy process. International
Journal of Production Economics, 147, 555568.

Ho, W., He, T., Lee, C. K. M., & Emrouznejad, A. (2012). Strategic
logistics outsourcing: An integrated QFD and fuzzy AHP approach.
Expert Systems with Applications, 39(12), 1084110850.
Hwang, C. L., & Yoon, K. P. (1981). Multiple attribute decision making:
Methods and applications. New York: Springer.
Jayaram, J., Vickery, S. K., & Droge, C. (1999). An empirical study
of time-based competition in the North American automotive supplier industry. International Journal of Operations and Production
Management, 19(10), 10101034.
Kisperska-Moron, D., & De Haan, J. (2011). Improving supply chain
performance to satisfy final customers: Leagile experiences of a
polish distributor. International Journal of Production Economics,
133(1), 127134.
Kwong, C. K., & Bai, H. (2002). A fuzzy AHP approach to the determination of importance weights of customer requirements in quality
function deployment. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, 13(5),
367377.
Liang, G. S., Ding, J. F., & Wang, C. K. (2012). Applying fuzzy quality
function deployment to prioritize solutions of knowledge management for an international port in Taiwan. Knowledge-Based Systems,
33, 8391.
Mason-Jones, R., Naylo, B., & Towill, D. R. (2000). Engineering the
leagile supply chain. International Journal of Agile Management
Systems, 2(1), 5461.
Mathiyazhagan, K., Govindan, K., & Noorul Haq, A. (2014). Pressure analysis for green supply chain management implementation
in Indian industries using analytic hierarchy process. International
Journal of Production Research, 52(1), 188202.
Naim, M., & Gosling, J. (2011). On leanness, agility and leagile supply
chains. International Journal of Production Economics, 131(1), 342
354.
Narasimhan, R., Swink, M., & Kim, S. W. (2006). Disentangling leanness and agility: An empirical investigation. Journal of Operations
Management, 24(5), 440457.
Naylor, J. B., Naim, M., & Berry, D. (1999). Leagility: Integrating the
lean and agile manufacturing paradigms in the total supply chain.
International Journal of Production Economics, 62(1), 107118.
Rahimnia, F., Moghadasian, M., & Castka, P. (2009). Benchmarking
leagility in mass services: The case of a fast food restaurant chains
in Iran. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 16(6), 799816.
Saaty, T. L. (2008). Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process.
International Journal of Services Sciences, 1(1), 8398.
Shah, R., & Ward, P. T. (2003). Lean manufacturing: Context, practice bundles, and performance. Journal of Operations Management,
21(2), 129149.
Soni, G., & Kodali, R. (2012). Evaluating reliability and validity of lean,
agile and leagile supply chain constructs in Indian manufacturing
industry. Production Planning and Control, 23(1011), 864884.
Subramanian, N., & Ramanathan, R. (2012). A review of applications of
analytic hierarchy process in operations management. International
Journal of Production Economics, 138(2), 215241.
Vaidya, O. S., & Kumar, S. (2006). Analytic hierarchy process: An
overview of applications. European Journal of operational research,
169(1), 129.
Vinodh, S., & Aravindraj, S. (2013). Evaluation of leagility in supply
chains using fuzzy logic approach. International Journal of Production Research, 51(4), 11861195.
Vinodh, S., & Kumar Chintha, S. (2011). Application of fuzzy QFD
for enabling leanness in a manufacturing organisation. International
Journal of Production Research, 49(6), 16271644.
Xu, J., Xu, X., & Xie, S. Q. (2010). A comprehensive review on recent
developments in quality function deployment. International Journal
of Productivity and Quality Management, 6(4), 457494.
Yoon, K. P., & Hwang, C. L. (1995). Multiple attribute decision making.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

123

J Intell Manuf
Yusuf, Y. Y., & Adeleye, E. O. (2002). A comparative study of lean
and agile manufacturing with a related survey of current practices
in the UK. International Journal of Production Research, 40(17),
45454562.
Zarei, M., Fakhrzad, M. B., & Jamali Paghaleh, M. (2011). Food supply chain leanness using a developed QFD model. Journal of Food
Engineering, 102(1), 2533.

123

Zimmermann, H. J. (1991). Fuzzy set theory and its applications (2nd

ed.). Boston: Kluwer.