Annals of Management and Organization Research (AMOR)

ISSN 2685-7715, Vol 2, No 3, 2021, 175-190 https://doi.org/10.35912/amor.v2i3.801

The effect of supply chain management

challenges on research and development
projects using Fuzzy DEMATEL and TOPSIS
approach
Mohammad Forozandeh
[email protected]
Department of Industrial Engineering, University of Science and Technology (IUST) Tehran, Tehran
Abstract
Purpose: This paper aimed to identify, classify and prioritize supply
chain management challenges for research-development projects in
the R&D organization.
Research Methodology: Based on previous literature and interview
with related experts, the initial challenges of SCM for research-
development projects in Iran organization were extracted.
Thereafter, the identified challenges were finalized, classified, and
prioritized. For this purpose, a semi-interview and questionnaire
were designed, applied, and then analyzed using some statistical
methods. Validation of the results was done through several
Article History interviews. Finally, the necessary modifications were made to the
Received on 28 August 2021 factors of environmental sustainability associated with the COVID-
1st Revision on 3 September 2021 19 crisis.
2nd Revision on 15 September 2021 Results: In this study, the challenges of SCM for research-
Accepted on 21 October 2021 development projects in Iran organization were divided into six
categories: cultural, motivational, contextual, process,
infrastructural, and capabilities. Thereafter, suggested solutions
were presented which describe how the challenges of SCM in
research-development projects may be removed progressively.
Limitations: This research is only described in project-based
organizations. The study was limited to construction projects in
different cities of Iran.
Contribution: The prioritized challenges of SCM are a guideline
for managers or decision-makers of R&D projects which will enable
them, resolve challenges or improve on decision making. It also
serves as a useful base for researchers to expand further research
concerning the challenges of SCM in other research-development
organizations. This study may present high value for researchers in
the SCM field for research-development projects. Also, this study
presents several solutions for the improvement of challenges
considering the level of their importance to SCM.
Keywords: project supply chain management, research-
development project, fuzzy DEMATEL, fuzzy TOPSI
How to cite: Forozandeh, M. (2021). The Effect of Supply Chain
Management Challenges on Research and Development Projects
using Fuzzy DEMATEL and TOPSIS Approach. Annals of
Management and Organization Research, 2(3), 175-190.
1. Introduction
The temporary-unique nature of the project's uncertainty with regard to chain flexibility involved in the
research phase and sustainability in the production phase, cause project organizations to pay more
attention to the concurrent engineering process. Project in these organizations is faced with serious
challenges due to their scant knowledge of the importance of these issues. Therefore, they need to focus
on network interaction, optimal participation with layers involved in the project, and reduction of time
and costs in the project research cycle and product research outcomes by considering the benefit of all
layers in the project. These requirements led to the emergence of a new concept of project supply chain
management1 that was first introduced by Asbjrnslett in 1980 but was less emphasized (Asbjrnslett,
1998). Project supply chain management (PSCM) creates opportunities for organizations and influence
project successfully. Although its deficiency could cause an increase in costs, time, and delay in
projects, and could also decrease quality and waste of financial resources.

Studies have shown that during the 1990s, numerous public and private organizations accepted and used
the techniques of SCM, such as efficient response to the customer, continuous procurement, and
inventory and vendor management systems, to gain sufficient competitive advantage in the market.
Evidence has shown that organizations manage effectively their entire supply chain, successfully reduce
logistics costs and related inventory, cycle time, and improve customer service. For example, the use of
the supply chain in Procter Company led to annual savings of about $ 65 million. According to its
management reports, a principle approach that is based on both production and works with suppliers
was used to eliminate the additional activity and resources in the entire supply chain. But several
project-based organizations have neglected the acceptance and use of supply chain techniques. This
type of organization, in the construction industry, is usually associated with low quality, low-profit
margins, high time, and cost (Yeo & Ning, 2002). In a study, it was estimated that about 40% of the
work in the construction industry is non-value-added activities, such as time spent waiting for the
approval or achievement of material at the project site (Mohamed, 1996). Although there are proven
advantages of applying supply chain in projects,research-development project supply chains are faced
with numerous challenges in its application and integration such as intercultural problems, lack of
necessary skills, operational problems, lack of resources, and external problems (Ritchie & Brindley,
2007).

Therefore, the purpose of this study was to identify, classify and prioritize SCM challenges in Iran's
R&D Organization. The novelty of this research article was to consider two concepts include supply
chain management and project management together for the project-based organizations. In addition,
this study considers SCM challenges in the whole project life cycle including planning, implementing,
control and monitoring. The study covers both single project management and megaproject
management.

1. Theoretical background and literature review

Iran R&D Organization is focused on the field of research-development projects. These projects can
include any scientific research, technology, and systems and all levels of the organization (Young,
2003). Their life cycle includes need assessment, conceptual design, preliminary design, detail design
(development phase), construction, utilization, and disposal (operation phase). Project supply chain
management, which seeks value enhancement in projects through logistics’, focuses on demand (in
development phase) and supply (in operations phase) alignment. However, value enhancement can be
achieved through engineering and supply chains contribution in developing the demand for the project
object, and by creating value through cost efficiency in the operations supply chains (Hetland, 1999 ).

There are several different challenges associated with research-development PSCM. Thus these
challenges have been divided into six categories: capabilities, process, contextual, infrastructural,
motivational, and cultural. They may be related from three perspectives: macro, inter-organizational
and micro perspective. Challenges from the macro perspective are related in such a way that they can
be exploited and resources in the development and operation phase from several sources can be obtained
from different locations and procurement processes among operators, contractors, and suppliers.
However, challenges from the inter-organizational perspective are related to collaboration in inter-
organizational arenas. While challenges from the micro perspective are related to each actor in being
attractive as a supply chain actor (Cousins & Spekman, 2003).

1
Project supply chain management= PSCM
2021 | Annals of Management and Organization Research / Vol 2 No 3, 175-190
176
Capability challenges are the scientific and technological capabilities associated with industry and
external partners which are the minimum requirement necessary for cooperation partnership. In fact,
there are different types of actors with different roles, responsibilities, and capabilities in a project
supply chain that cause challenges in the project. These increase the complexity of project management
and the rate of change (Young, 2003). The major challenge in this field is to find a way to utilize the
capacities and capability of local-external organizations in order to maximize their benefits (Morris &
pinto, 2007). Also, some challenges and obstacles are associated with collaborative innovation and
property intellectual. However, several researchers have identified the different necessary factors for
effective collaboration in PSCM, which include cognitive differences, organizational, cultural, and
institutional differences between parties (Parrod, et al., 2007), (Vrijhoef & Koskela, 2000).
Collaboration may draw up a single contract with a prime contractor or alliance group of contractors.
Prime contractors announce that they seek to reduce the number of subcontractors and develop long-
term relationships with a smaller number of partners. When industries are becoming mature, they tend
to focus more on cost efficiency and value enhancements through a rich set of suppliers with technology
development capabilities. The relationship that existed between the Operators and the technology-based
companies permits close integration of their operations and R&D (Lainez & Kopanos, 2008).

Process challenges refer to specific steps, a certain sequence of activities, and specific mechanisms for
doing things. The demand definition and specification process in project development is directly related
to the value positioning of the project. This demanding process will establish and commit the supply
chain when the defined demand is supplied through the contract execution model (Kerzner, 2006).
PSCM needs to establish mechanisms to create integration. The major challenge in this field is the
selection process of the operator or contractor in the development or operation phase of the projects.
The selection process can cause an optimal network through a life cycle (Tam, et al., 2011). Also,
alternatives selection in conceptual design, technologies alternative and supply chains alternative, due
to new supply chains, can establish new opportunities or challenges that are uncovered through
uncertainty management of the project and are able to change cost and execution time (Yeo & Ning,
2006).

Contextual challenges refer to the industry’s background and context. and regulation of behaviors in
the institutional framework and interaction forms. The major challenge in this field is related to project
life cycle, project stages, and nature. The supply chain should be involved in a project life cycle in order
for it to be part of project definition and project object specification (Kim, et al., 1992), (Young, 2003).

Infrastructural challenges refer to the structure and equipment necessary to facilitate and expedite
matters such as communication, ICT infrastructure. Project-based organizations require integrated
information systems. Moreover, Motivational Challenges refer to situations in which the individual and
group are motivated to interact and exchange ideas and to obtain cooperation and participation. Cultural
challenges refer to situations of trust culture, honesty, teamwork, data and information sharing,
cooperation and interaction culture, and collective learning during the project life cycle (Lainez &
Kopanos, 2008).

Several researchers have identified four key actions that must be carried out for the successful
implementation of PSCM: building a network within the different enterprise, change in organizational
structure, establishing assessment processes, and cooperation and coordination design (Edum, et al.,
2001). Other researchers have introduced five necessary activities for the implementation of PSCM in
order to select appropriate mechanisms for integration and trade-off between different organizations
(Gattorna, 2005), (Vrijhoef & Koskela, 2000). Forozandeh et al. reported the right suppliers, right
project executors, and network design of layers as the key success factors involved in project-based
organization's implementation of PSCM (Forozandeh, 2015). Moreover, Miguel believes that many
potential problems and challenges may be due to inadequate knowledge, cultural differences,

2021 | Annals of Management and Organization Research / Vol 2 No 3, 175-190

177
 motivational factors, different organizational styles and bureaucracy (Lainez & Kopanos, 2008).
Among other obstacles lack of resources and problems in contracts can be singled out.

2. Research methodology
In this study, the method of data collection was descriptive because it included a set of methods that
describe the conditions necessary to make better decisions. Also, it was a survey because it examined
an existing situation, the relationship between variables, and the challenges faced by the R&D projects.
At first, 20 research-development projects were selected for examination in the R&D Organization.
They were obtained from different fields such as electronics, mechanics, etc. Many of them were related
to non-integration between supply, production, and construction, and as such, can cause problems and
challenges.

Based on previous literature, the challenges of PSCM in R&D industries were extracted. In the next
stage, the different challenges of PSCM were classified by reviewing the related literature and
thereafter, conducting a semi-structured interview with 12 experts that were asked to either verify or
reject the existence of each challenge. Accordingly, 42 challenges were identified and extracted from
the interview, and after the elimination of duplicated challenges and integration/removal of some with
the same themes, 25 key challenges were obtained. In order to categorize the identified key challenges,
10 experts were selected using the Delphi technique; however, the majority opinion of the experts was
considered. Subsequently, the PSCM challenges were classified into six categories. The sources of the
extraction of these challenges have been mentioned previously. Then each of the PSCM identified
challenges was put into one of these groups.

Table 1. Important PSCM challenges in R&D projects -contextual

Code Challenge Class source

Co1 Lack of understanding and comprehension of concepts and principles of PSCM (Asbjrnslett, 1998), (Simchi-
and its importance for research-development projects Levi, et al., 2000)

Co2 Lack of necessary development in the field of process design and layers Contextual (Morris & pinto, 2007)
interaction procedure
Co3 Lack of consistency of project approach with its supply chain type (Young, 2003), (Shapiro, 2004)

Table 2. Important PSCM challenges in R&D projects -process

Code Challenge Class source

Pr1 Weaknesses in the needed mechanisms for the establishment of PSCM (Young, 2003)

P22 Weakness in the definition, standardization, frameworks and rules and transparency of (Basu & Wright, 2008),
collaboration and cooperation between layers involved in the project (Morris & pinto, 2007),
(Nassimbeni, 1998)
Process
Pr3 Lack of transparency in tasks and role of each layer in research cycle process (Shapiro, 2004)

Pr4 Lack of audit processes in research PSC and preventive and corrective actions (Morris & pinto, 2007),
(Simchi-Levi, et al., 2000)

Table 3. Important PSCM challenges in R&D projects -capabilitical

Code Challenge Class source
Non-forming and lack of optimal participation in the entire life cycle and in (Schultzel & Unruh, 1996), (Xuea, et
Ca1 key bottlenecks al., 2005),(Forozandeh,2018).
Capabilitical
Lack of optimized network design for optimal management of the research- (Silver, 1988), (Risku & Karkkainen,
Ca2 development project life cycle in Iranian industry 2006), (Forozandeh, et al, 2019)

2021 | Annals of Management and Organization Research / Vol 2 No 3, 175-190

178
 Lack of integration of research and development, production and supply in (Kim, et al., 1992), (Zailani &
all project life cycle phase Rajagopal, 2005), (Palaneeswaran, et
Ca3
al., 2003), , (Madadi, 2008)

Lack of mature industry and full control overcome the design and integration (Morris & pinto, 2007), (Schmidt &
Ca4 of systems and products Glen, 2011), (Caron, et al., 1998),

Lack of understanding and identification of knowledgeable and proficient (Basu & Wright, 2008) , (Dainty, et
Ca5 partners to manage, execute, and better control network partners al., 2001)

Lack of information and full awareness of the capabilities of the suppliers (Basu & Wright, 2008)
Ca6
and sub-contractors by the industry

Table 4. Important PSCM challenges in R&D projects -motivational

Code Challenge Class source

Mo1 Unmotivated and indifferent of staff due to lack of attention to training and (Shapiro, 2004)
motivational issues
Mo2 Lack of financial commitments by some layers and reduced cooperation (Basu & Wright, 2008)
incentive among them Motivational
Mo3 Decrease in External partners incentives (motivation)due to legal issues and (Schultzel & Unruh, 1996), (Basu &
financial-intellectual property Wright, 2008), (Seneviratne,2020)

Table 5. Important PSCM challenges in R&D projects -cultural

Code Challenge Class source

Cu1 Lack of cultural definition of long-term cooperation, strategic win-win (Basu & Wright, 2008),
(Moradi,2020)

Cu2 Reduced Attention to cultural issues such as trust, dishonesty, teamwork, and (Basu & Wright, 2008), (Kanji &
Cultural Wong, 1998)
collaborative learning among layers
Cu3 Existence of competition environment between the layers, instead of (Forozandeh, 2015), (Shapiro, 2004)
collaboration and cooperation among them

Table 6. Important challenges in PSCM in R&D projects -infrastructural

Code Challenge Class source

St1 Lack of necessary development in the field of ICT-IT infrastructure (Morris & pinto, 2007), (Shapiro,
2004), (Edum, et al., 2001),
(Ghorbani ,2020)

St2 Lack of consistency between the product nature and selected supply chain (Vollmann, et al., 1995)
type
St3 Lack of integration between quality management activities and PSC infrastructural (Morris & pinto, 2007), (Young,
members 2003), (Basu & Wright, 2008)

St4 Standardization of processes between PSC partners (Basu & Wright, 2008) , (Khalfan,
et al., 2001)

St5 Lack of examination of qualified layers in terms of quality and capability (Young, 2003), (Khalfan, et al.,
through related certificates 2001)

St6 The lack of precise and systematic identification and application of (Burton & Lanciault, 1999),
technology through the agile supply chain and leaning in different phases (Khalfan, et al., 2001), (Borodako,
of the project life cycle, as well as to resolve the project key bottlenecks et al ,2019)

Subsequently, a questionnaire was prepared to confirm the results of the interview and to prioritize the
identified challenges. The questionnaire consisted of six parts, in which each part included one class of
PSCM identified challenges. In each part, the related challenges were listed (25 identified challenges),

2021 | Annals of Management and Organization Research / Vol 2 No 3, 175-190

179
and the importance of each of them was scored from 1 to 5 according to the Likert scale (5 being the
most important, 1 being the least important). Thereafter, the questionnaires were distributed among 50
experts that comprised topics of different areas such as electronics, mechanics, etc. Thus 42
questionnaires were answered and returned. In this study, questionnaires validity was conducted using
the content validity method. Thus the quantity and quality of the questions and index were examined
and evaluated by ten experts, and any ambiguity and shortcomings of the questionnaire were resolved.
Finally, suggested solutions were presented for minimizing the identified challenges of PSCM. The
research process is shown in Figure 1.

Interview with Designing

questionnaire Identifying
experts for suggestions for Presenting
Study of literature in field of subject approval/identify/ considering resultant suggestion ways
and extraction of PSCM challenges points of interview improving
rejection of challenges of for improving
from literature identified and categorizing challenges
challenges to six PSCM in R&D
challenges projects
different categories

Figure1. Process and method of research

The statistical population of this research is composed of different responsibilities in the three sectors
of the contractor, executor, and consultor in R&D projects. These industries fulfilled the following three
criteria: Being project-based; Functioning in the research-development projects of different areas, and
having an SCM sector within the organization. The population information is given in the table below.

Table 7. Demographic information of statistical sam

Age fi Gender fi Session fi

20-30 4 Male 30 Bachelor 6

30-40 17 Female 12 M sc 32

40-50 17 Phd 3

50-60 4

Total 42 Total 42 Total 42

The main hypotheses to be tested are H0: All challenges identified are of the same priority, H1: At least
a challenge has different priorities from other challenges.
The collected data were analyzed using two methods: descriptive and deductive. A single sample t-test
and Friedman test were used for the deductive analysis of the data. The single sample t-test was applied
for the approval or rejection of the 42 identified challenges. The identified challenges were prioritized
using the Friedman test (nonparametric test). SPSS software was used for data analysis.

The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of the questionnaire was equal to 0.919. The reliability coefficient
was 0.7 and as such, it can be concluded that the applied questionnaire required research reliability. On
the other hand, evaluation of the conditions for each variable indicated that omission of each variable
does not lead to a significant increase or decrease in the reliability coefficient of the questionnaire.

3. Results and discussions

According to the results of the SPSS, the number of valid statistical samples was 42 (100%), excluded was 0,
and total cases were 42 (100%). Based on the results of the Friedman test, the total number of samples
was 42, the chi-square value was 65.003, the DF value was 24, and the significant amount (sig) was 0.
Due to the fact that the significant amount was less than 5%, the null hypothesis is rejected. Therefore,
it can be concluded that the rank means and challenges priority is not the same. Also, the Friedman test

2021 | Annals of Management and Organization Research / Vol 2 No 3, 175-190

180
 was used to calculate the rank mean for each variable. The larger rank mean had higher priority. The
challenges and rank mean are given in Table 8.

Table 8. Challenges and rank mea

Code Ranks Rank Code Ranks Rank Code Ranks Rank
Mean Mean Mean
Pr1 16.04 1 Ca3 13.4 11 St1 11.95 21

Co1 15.45 2 Ca1 13.39 12 Cu2 11.92 22

Ca6 14.69 3 Ca4 13.31 13 Mo1 10.44 23

Cu3 14.57 4 Pr4 13.27 14 St6 10.26 24

Co3 14.11 5 Ca5 13.06 15 St3 8.04 25

St5 14.11 6 Mo2 12.98 16

Co2 13.96 7 Mo3 12.64 17

Pr3 13.79 8 Cu1 12.32 18

Pr2 13.55 9 St4 12.23 19

Ca2 13.48 10 St2 12.05 20

Subsequently, the rank means of challenges for each category were averaged. Thus, this is the criteria
for the determination of the priority of each category of challenges (Table 9).

Table 9. Prioritize classified challenges

category challenges Average of ranks mean

C1 Contextual Co1,Co2,Co3 14.5

C2 Process Pr1 ,Pr2,Pr3,Pr4 14.16

C3 Capabilitical Ca1,Ca2,Ca3,Ca4,Ca5,Ca6 13.55

C4 Cultural Cu1,Cu2,Cu3 12.93

C5 Motivational Mo1,Mo2,Mo3 12.02

C6 Infrastructural St1,St2,St3,St4,St5,St6 11.44

In the next step, a questionnaire was designed to determine and evaluate the intensity of the relationship
between the challenges and was provided to a number of experts active in the field of scope. They were
asked to assign a number between 0 and 4 according to Table 2, according to the effect of each index
on the other indices. Due to the limited values, the data were analyzed in a fuzzy environment to be
more accurate. According to the collected data, the initial decision matrix was formed according to
Table 10.
Table 10. Fuzzy decision-making matrix base on experts active
C8 C7 C6 C5 C4 C3 C2 C1 Z

(0.75,0.75,1) (0.75,0.75,1) (0.75,0.75,1) (0.75,0.75,1) (0.5,0.75,1) (0.75,0.75,1) (0,0.25,0.5) (0,0,0) C1

2021 | Annals of Management and Organization Research / Vol 2 No 3, 175-190

181
(0.75,0.75,1) (0.5,0.75,1) (0.5,0.75,1) (0.25,0.5,0.75) (0.5,0.75,1) (0.75,0.75,1) (0,0,0) (0.5,0.75,1) C2

(0.25,0.5,0.75) (0.75,0.75,1) (0.5,0.75,1) (0.75,0.75,1) (0.5,0.75,1) (0,0,0) (0,0.25,0.5) (0.75,0.75,1) C3

(0.5,0.75,1) (0.25,0.5,0.75) (0.5,0.75,1) (0.25,0.5,0.75) (0,0,0) (0,0.25,0.5) (0,0,0) (0,0,0) C4

(0.5,0.75,1) (0.75,0.75,1) (0.5,0.75,1) (0,0,0) (0,0,0) (0.5,0.75,1) (0.25,0.5,0.75) (0.25,0.5,0.75) C5

(0.75,0.75,1) (0.5,0.75,1) (0,0,0) (0,0.25,0.5) (0,0,0) (0,0.25,0.5) (0,0.25,0.5) (0.25,0.5,0.75) C6

By performing the mentioned steps, the total relations matrix was obtained as follows (Table 11):

Table 11. The relations matrix

Definitive D-R Definitive D+R R D Indicator

0.15 (0.24, 0.16, 0.01) -2 (-1.89, -2.03, -1.97) (-1.06, -1.09, -0.98) (-0.82, -0.93, -0.98) C1

0.16 (065, 0.067, 0.034) -1.79 (-1.12, -1.91, -1.99) (-0.88, -0.99, -1.01) (-0.23, -0.92, -0.97) C2

0.19 (0.39, 0.15, 0.066) -1.99 (-1.96, -1.99, -2) (-1.17, -1.07, -1.03) (-0.78, -0.92, -0.96) C3

-0.21 (-0.53, -0.16, -0.07) -1.94 (-1.95, -1.94, -1.96) (-0.71, -0.88, -0.94) (-1.24, -1.05, -1.01) C4

0.22 (0.65, 0.15, 0.05) -1.92 (-1.81, -1.93, -1.98) (-1.22, -1.04, -1.01) (-0.58, -0.88, -0.96) C5

-0.1 (-0.52, -0.02, 0.013) -2.03 (-2, -2..03, -2.02) (-0.74, -1.01, -1.01) (-1.26, -1.03, -1.00) C6

According to the calculations and the results, it was found that indices C2 and C5 have the most
interaction with other indices because they have the highest amount of D + R. Is effective, so the most
important among the indicators is C2. On the other hand, index C6 has the least interaction with other
indices (D + R = -2.03).
It was also found that indices C1, C2, C3, and C5 are causal variables and affect other indices. In
contrast, indices C4, C6 are disabled variables and are influenced by other indices. In addition, we have:
▪ C1 is an indicator that affects all other indicators. C1 is one of the key problem-solving
indicators and should be given priority.
▪ C2, like C1, is an indicator that affects all other indicators. This index is also one of the main
problem solvers.
▪ C3 is affected by the C4 index and other indicators are affected. This indicator, like the other
two indicators, should be a priority.
▪ C4 is affected by all other indicators and does not affect any criteria.
▪ C5 is an indicator that affects all other indicators. This index is also one of the effective
indicators.
▪ C6 affects the C4 index. Thus C6 is an independent indicator that affects quantitative indicators.
The weight of the indicators was calculated in Table 12.
Table 12. The weight of the indicators based on the Dematel method

Definite Normalized Definite Normalized

Weight Indicator Weight Indicator
weight weight weight weight

0.03008 2.765688 L 0.03008 0.04362 4.01021 L

0.037293 3.428512 M 0.037293 C4 0.047 0.04848 4.45718 M C1

0.04045 3.71907 U 0.04045 0.04239 3.89742 U

2021 | Annals of Management and Organization Research / Vol 2 No 3, 175-190

182
 0.04839 4.4483 L 0.02153 1.97959 L

0.044 0.04358 4.00605 M C5 0.038 0.04128 3.79505 M C2

0.04385 4.03132 U 0.04374 4.02133 U

0.03232 2.97116 L 0.05024 4.61834 L

0.042 0.04456 4.0966 M C6 0.04646 4.2714 M C3

0.04451 4.09157 U 0.04491 4.12899 U

In the last stage, the challenges were ranked with TOPSIS technique. TOPSIS technique is one of the
multidisciplinary decision-making methods, from the compensatory group and the subgroup of
adaptation techniques. The strength of this technique is in solving multiple-choice problems due to the
overlap of indicators in strengths and weaknesses (Kohansal and Rafiei, 2008). Using this technique
and the weights obtained in the previous step, the challenges are ranked to form a challenges basket.
The initial matrix is formed after data collection. Table 13 is used to convert verbal variables to fuzzy
numbers.
Table 13. Fuzzy verbal variables
Fuzzy values Verbal expressions

(0.9,1,1) Very much

(0.7,0.9,1) Much

(0.5,0.7,0.9) Medium

(0.3,0.5,0.7) Few

(0.1,0.3,0.5) Very few

After forming the initial matrix and scaling it, the weightless scaling matrix was obtained by multiplying
the weights (Table 12) obtained in the scaled matrix (Table 14).
Table 14. The fuzzy weightless scaling matrix
C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6

P1 (0.01,0.02,0.03) (0.02,0.04,0.04) (0.04,0.04,0.04) (0.01,0.02,0.03) (0.01,0.02,0.03) (0.02,0.03,0.04)

P2 (0,0.01,0.02) (0.01,0.03,0.04) (0.04,0.04,0.04) (0.02,0.03,0.04) (0.04,0.04,0.04) (0.03,0.04,0.04)

P3 (0.04,0.05,0.04) (0.1,0.02,0.03) (0.02.0.02,0.03) (0,0.01,0.02) (0.01,0.02,0.03) (0.03,0.04,.04)

P4 (0.04,0.05,0.04) (0,0.01,0.02) (0.02,0.02,0.03) (0.02,0.03,0.04) (0.01,0.02,0.03) (0.02,0.03,0.04)

P5 (0,0.01,0.02) (0.01,0.02,0.03) (0.02,0.02,0.03) (0.02,0.03,0.04) (0.01,0.02,0.03) (0.02,0.04,0.04)

According to the mentioned steps, we calculate the distance of each point from the positive and anti-
ideal ideal points. We use the results in the final ranking of challenges. Challenges that are closest to
the positive ideal and farthest away from the counter-ideal are preferred. However, due to the
availability of opportunities to modify constraints or set new constraints for decision-makers, the project
selection composition may change, meaning that decision-makers remove or add specific challenges

2021 | Annals of Management and Organization Research / Vol 2 No 3, 175-190

183
(Alinejad and Farahabadi Victims, 2015). Table 15 shows the results of challenges evaluation and
ranking.
Table 15. The results of challenges evaluation and ranking using fuzzy TOPSIS
Rank Similarity rate Project

6 0.308295 C1

1 0.70959 C2

5 0.442117 C3

3 0.649088 C4

4 0.641494 C5

2 0.657088 C6

According to the collected data of the initial matrix, the decision matrix for analyzing the sub-criteria
was formed using the FUZZY DEMATEL technique. By performing different steps of this technique,
the following information was obtained (Table 16).

Table 16. Results of FUZZY DEMATEL technique for sub-criteria

code D+R certain D+R fuzzy D-R certain D-R fuzzy Weight

L -1.99 L -0.049 0.01259

Co1 -1.9766 M -1.975 -0.0201 M -0.015 0.01255

U -1.963 U -0.016 0.01238

L -2.056 L 0.017 0.01381

Co2 -2.659 M -2.971 0.63830 M 0.951 0.03774 C1

U -2.016 U 0.009 0.01324

L -2.077 L -0.032 0.01376

Co3 -2.629 M -2.93 -0.63898 M -0.95 0.0188

U -0.95 U -0.003 0.01269

L -2.045 L -0.006 0.0135

Pr1 -1.9857 M -1.973 -0.0165 M -0.02 0.01248

U -1.979 U -0.014 0.01259

L -2.05 L 0.016 0.01373

Pr2 -2.02194 M -2.018 -0.000434 M -0.007 0.01314

U -2.011 U -0.012 0.01302

L -2.043 L 0.088 0.0141

C2
Pr3 -2.040198 M -20.41 0.020979 M 0.009 0.01355

U -2.035 U 0.003 0.01344

2021 | Annals of Management and Organization Research / Vol 2 No 3, 175-190

184
 L -2.072 L -0.034 0.01368

Pr4 -2.040507 M -2.042 -0.007744 M -0.006 0.01346

U -2.005 U 0.012 0.0131

L -2.15 L -0.162 0.01385

Ca1 -2.02399 M -1.999 -0.0074395 M 0.023 0.01309

U -1.999 U 0.024 0.0131

L -2.02 L 0.023 0.01337

Ca2 -2.017749 M -2.018 0.0031009 M -0.0008 0.01319

U 2.015 U -0.0014 0.01314

L -1.969 L 0.0739 0.01303

Ca3 -1.99243 M -1.996 0.0481739 M 0.045 0.0132

U -2 U 0.0353 0.01319
C3
L -2.082 L -0.016 0.01393

Ca4 -2.033236 M -2.025 0.012591 M 0.0182 0.01384

U -2.018 U 0.0189 0.01331

L -1.945 L 0.0356 0.01248

Ca5 -1.966311 M -1.973 -0.034922 M -0.051 0.01229

U -1.96 U -0.042 0.01219

L -1.951 L -0.025 0.01217

Ca6 -2.0253206 M -2.038 -0.0449238 M -0.054 0.01311

U -2.047 U -0.029 0.01338

L -1.959 L 0.0791 0.01293

Mo1 -1.994364 M -2.006 -0.025764 M -0.048 0.01273

U -1.983 U -0.042 0.01247

L -2.013 L 0.0087 0.01318

Mo2 -2.04727 M -2.054 -0.0102339 M -0.017 0.01355 C4

U -2.056 U -0.004 0.01367

L -1.998 L 0.066 0.01335

Mo3 -2.027992 M -2.034 0.0101486 M 0.002 0.01342

U -2.032 U -0.013 0.01329

L -1.98 L -0.008 0.01265

Cu1 -1.984739 M -1.984 0.0176652 M 0.021 0.01288

C5
U -1.994 U 0.031 0.01308

Cu2 -2.0001847 L -1.978 -0.002869 L 0.0089 0.01308

2021 | Annals of Management and Organization Research / Vol 2 No 3, 175-190

185
 M -2.005 M -0.004 0.01274

U -2.004 U -0.009 0.01299

L -1.959 L -0.016 0.01296

Cu3 -1.975995 M -1.981 0.016435 M 0.0236 0.01233

U -1.974 U 0.0201 0.01286

L -2.06 L 0.0403 0.01275

St1 -2.038999 M -2.036 0.0607153 M 0.0657 0.01401

U -2.028 U 0.061 0.01387

L -1.987 L -0.041 0.01253

St2 -1.995795 M -1.992 0.0042266 M 0.014 0.01294

U -2.019 U 0.012 0.01329

L -1.992 L -0.018 0.01274

St3 -1.961168 M -1.954 -0.002064 M 0.003 0.01238

U -1.958 U -0.002 0.01241

C6
L -2.068 L 0.002 0.01386

St4 -1.650963 M -1.965 -0.0073387 M -0.008 0.01246

U 0.023 U -0.013 0.000002

L -1.997 L -0.012 0.01284

St5 -2.0161479 M -2.024 -0.0051920 M -0.005 0.01324

U -2.003 U -0.0022 0.01302

L -2.023 L -0.038 0.0131

St6 -2.0369102 M -2.039 0.0014737 M 0.0118 0.01354

U -2.037 U -0.0004 0.1344

Examining the relationships between challenges will help us achieve better results. According to the
results of Demetel technique, it was found that co2 challenge has the least interaction and the st4
challenge has the most interaction among other challenges. This shows the great importance of the st4
challenge. The challenges were ranked using the fuzzy TOPSIS technique and the weights obtained in
the previous step, the results of which can be seen in Table 17.

Table 17. Results of fuzzy TOPSIS technique and ranking of challenges for sub-criteria
challenges 𝐷𝑖+ 𝐷𝑖− 𝐶𝑙𝑖 rank challenges 𝐷𝑖+ 𝐷𝑖− 𝐶𝑙𝑖 rank

Co1 0.0697 0.026 0.2714 17 Mo1 0.0625 0.0369 0.3711 4

Co2 0.0619 0.0388 0.3852 1 Mo2 0.0703 0.0237 0.2516 20

Co3 0.0662 0.0401 0.377 2 Mo3 0.0711 0.0227 0.2418 22

Pr1 0.0723 0.0183 0.2025 25 Cu1 0.0625 0.0369 0.371 5

Pr2 0.065 0.0293 0.311 15 Cu2 0.0683 0.0304 0.3081 16

2021 | Annals of Management and Organization Research / Vol 2 No 3, 175-190

186
 Pr3 0.0673 0.0326 0.3263 12 Cu3 0.0719 0.0199 0.2167 23

Pr4 0.0729 0.0185 0.2026 24 St1 0.0638 0.032 0.3339 9

Ca1 0.0648 0.0305 0.3198 13 St2 0.0672 0.0341 0.3365 8

Ca2 0.068 0.0318 0.3186 14 St3 0.0714 0.0242 0.2532 19

Ca3 0.0716 0.0243 0.2536 18 St4 0.0629 0.0376 0.374 3

Ca4 0.0658 0.0327 0.3319 10 St5 0.0673 0.0363 0.3502 6

Ca5 0.0671 0.0347 0.3408 7 St6 0.0688 0.0338 0.3291 11

Ca6 0.0711 0.0228 0.243 21

4. Conclusion
In project-based organizations with high uncertainty levels, it is important to predict challenges in
supply and project management together. Many instances of events and impacts affect project supply
chain operations. Due to the nature of project-oriented organizations' activities, this organization is
always faced with the possibility of consistent challenges in the external environment. Therefore, this
article, by reviewing previous research in the field of project supply chain, first examines the important
indicators and parameters of this chain; Then, according to these organizations' nature, it tried to
integrate project parameters in this supply chain. Therefore, according to studies conducted in this field,
key challenges were extracted, and finally, challenges of project supply chain in project-based
organizations were given. Many researchers consider only supply chain and project management
separately. In addition, in the present work PSCM, challenges of different stages of the life cycle are
considered and their performance is studied. The research results from the opinions of managers and
supply chain experts of project-oriented organizations.

Iran R&D organization with research-development projects context require the implementation of PSCM
in order to take advantage of the knowledge and technological potentials and reduce the cost and time
of access to products and systems. The successful implementation of SCM depends on the existence of
different factors, and their utilization can resulting in better performance. However, the lack or
inefficiency of the factors can pose difficult challenges and obstacles to an organization. This research
was carried out to identify, categorize and prioritize the most important challenges of this issue.

As shown in Table 11, the contextual challenges with scores 2, 5, and 7 and a rank mean of 14.50 are
very important in the implementation of SCM. This means that R&D projects need to work hard on soft
issues such as culture, customs, and norms governing ratio to systems, processes, and procedures.
However, process, capabilities, cultural, motivational, and infrastructure challenges can be considered
as important, moderate to high importance, moderate to low importance, little importance, and least
important sequence in the next priorities. The results of this research are in agreement with the logic
and existing status of the Iranian R&D organization.

The major reason is that there are no proper contextual conditions for the implementation of PSCM, the
existing environment of R&D projects influenced the past cultural and contextual factors. Therefore, to
change this condition requires enough time and cost. Also, the necessary process cannot identify and
optimize the real condition. PSCM in R&D projects requires integrated information systems from
different capabilities in different industries. They should use the different capabilities to save cost and
time.

Based on the research findings, the following conclusions regarding managers, decision-makers, and
future researchers were drawn:

2021 | Annals of Management and Organization Research / Vol 2 No 3, 175-190

187
• Although most contextual challenges originated from Iran's R&D organization nature of industries,
but revision, perspective change, and updated rules and regulations reduced the size of these
challenges. Industries have tried to review and update the rules of intellectual property. Some
opinions and attention must be reformed based on the fact that the R&D Industries are missional
and as such, should not have economical view. They should consider the economic aspects, beside
the accepted mission and follow business perspective.
• Iran R&D organization should establish and implement processes and relevant mechanisms needed
for the exchange of ideas and technology. They should create proper mechanisms to cooperation
definition, cooperation implementation and the exchange of ideas, and exploit the capacities of the
party’s process and resolve existing barriers that can cause decreasing research speed.
• The use of human resources and technical knowledge can promote industry capabilities and
partnership. Some capability challenges consider centers that are formed within the organisation
and have necessary ability to manage external partner’s network. On the other hand, some
challenges are caused by low level of technological competence and capacity to absorb external
partners. Therefore, to proffer solution to address the challenges, industries should promote
internal technological capacity and capability through engagement to research- development
activity and establish the context of cooperation and interactive learning.
• PSCM requires education and culture in particular to provide mental and cultural context for the
implementation of research-development projects supply chain. Through this, they can promote a
culture of trust, collaboration, knowledge sharing, learning and collaboration, and synergies. This
can be achieved by the existence of cooperation and synergy between industries, promotion of
culture, information-knowledge sharing, the institutionalization of a culture of long-term
cooperation, and win-win strategy through the design and implementation of desirable business
models. To overcome cultural challenges in Iran, efforts should be geared towards improving
values, customs, and habits; norms are formed and institutionalized in Iran R&D organizations
which of course are difficult and dedicated tasks.
• Iranian R&D organizations should pay special attention to motivational issues at personal or
organizational levels, should consider organization benefits in the decision-making process, and
increase organization motivation for PSCM in research-development projects. To achieve these,
they should have a special plan for inter-organization promotion of individuals and external
cooperation motivation. To establish motivation by inter-organization promotion, the individuals
should be informed that the use of external capacity does not indicate low benefit and that its
application benefits all layers. Besides, colleagues and external actors should establish different
attractions such as financial, learning, etc that act as an effective factor.
• Iranian R&D organizations act to create the necessary infrastructure in order to facilitate the project
supply chain according to the specific requirements. They should try to develop and maximize the
application of information technology, communication and creatable platforms, and the creation
and use of moderators/facilitators. Also, they should create technology intelligence procedures
with appropriate methods, tools, structures, processes, and actors. The Internet and related e-
commerce technologies can be exploited to overcome major systemic constraints. The challenge
is to create and build a boundary-spanning information infrastructure that enables quick and
efficient information sharing and communication.

Limitation and study forward

To further accurately classify challenges, related studies need to be accessed via exploratory
factor analysis. In this study, the importance of each category was calculated based on the
average rate of challenges. However, structural equation modeling can be used to determine
the effectiveness or the importance of each category of challenges. Identification of causal
relationships and interactions between challenges can be done through Interpretive Structural
Modeling, demattel, and CM cognitive map. The relationships between these challenges Were
examined and the weight of each index was determined. Challenges were evaluated and
prioritized using the fuzzy TOPSIS technique, which is an efficient way of deciding on
2021 | Annals of Management and Organization Research / Vol 2 No 3, 175-190
188
complex issues. Using the above model in a project company, the proposed challenges were
evaluated and prioritized based on 6 effective indicators that were extracted with the help of
literature according to which were approved by experts. Finally, it was found that challenges
c2, c4, and c5, respectively, have the highest priority for placement in the basket. In future
research, in addition to the relationships between indicators, the interaction of challenges can
also be considered.
References
Ala-Risku, T., & Kärkkäinen, M. (2006). Material delivery problems in construction projects: A
possible solution. International Journal of Production Economics, 104(1), 19-29.
Asbjrnslett, B., (1998). Project supply chain management. Bringing supply chain management to
project management. Bremen, German Logistics Congress, BVL.
Basu, R. & Wright, J. N., (2008). Total Supply Chain Management. 1nd ed. s.l.:Elsevier 260-263.
Borodako, K., Berbeka, J., Rudnicki, M., & Łapczyński, M. (2019). The contribution of human capital
to the performance of Knowledge-Intensive Business Services. Annals of Management and
Organization Research, 1(2), 141-153. https://doi.org/10.35912/amor.v1i2.338
Burton, N., & Lanciault, D. (1999). Creating supply advantage for oil and gas companies with strategic
procurement. Oil & Gas Journal, 97(44), 54-54.
Caron, F., Marchet, G., & Perego, A. (1998). Project logistics: integrating the procurement and
construction processes. International journal of project management, 16(5), 311-319.
Cousins, P. D., & Spekman, R. (2003). Strategic supply and the management of inter-and intra-
organisational relationships. Journal of Purchasing and supply Management, 9(1), 19-29.
Dainty, A. R., Millett, S. J., & Briscoe, G. H. (2001). New perspectives on construction supply chain
integration. Supply chain management: An international journal.
Edum-Fotwe, F. T., Thorpe, A., & McCaffer, R. (2001). Information procurement practices of key
actors in construction supply chains. European Journal of Purchasing & Supply
Management, 7(3), 155-164.
Forozandeh, M., Teimoury, E., & Makui, A. (2018). A model for network design of supply chain
management in research projects. Uncertain Supply Chain Management, 6(4), 407-422.
Forozandeh, M., Teimoury, E., & Makui, A. (2019). A mathematical formulation of time-cost and
reliability optimization for supply chain management in research-development
projects. RAIRO-Operations Research, 53(4), 1385-1406.
Forozandeh, M.,(2015). Developing a model for intra-organisation project management. Quality and
Standard Management, 5(2).
Gattorna, J., (2005). Grower handbook of supply chain management. 5 edition ed. s.l.:s.n.
Ghorbani, S., & Shafaghat, A. (2020). Representing a conceptual model for integrating Project
Management Information Systems in project-based organizations. Annals of Management and
Organization Research, 1(3), 235-249. https://doi.org/10.35912/amor.v1i3.446.
Hetland, P., (1999) . Project uncertainties and complexities. A framework for complex projects and
complex strategies. Stavanger: European Programme for Project Executives.
Kanji, G. & Wong, A., (1998). Quality culture in the construction industry. In Total Quality
Management, 9(4-5), 133-140.
Kerzner, H. (2018). Project management best practices: Achieving global excellence. John Wiley &
Sons.
Khalfan, M. M., Anumba, C. J., Siemieniuch, C. E., & Sinclair, M. A. (2001). Readiness Assessment
of the construction supply chain for concurrent engineering. European Journal of Purchasing
& Supply Management, 7(2), 141-153.
Kim, J. S., Ritzman, L. P., Benton, W. C., & Snyder, D. L. (1992). Linking product planning and process
design decisions. Decision Sciences, 23(1), 44-60.
Laínez, J. M., Kopanos, G. M., Badell, M., Espuña, A., & Puigjaner, L. (2008). Integrating strategic,
tactical and operational supply chain decision levels in a model predictive control framework.
In Computer Aided Chemical Engineering. Elsevier, 25, 477-482.

2021 | Annals of Management and Organization Research / Vol 2 No 3, 175-190

189
Madadi, E., (2008). The role of right management of supply chain in shaduling of complex projects.
s.l., Third International Management Confrance.
Mohamed, S., & Tucker, S. (1996). Options for applying BPR in the Australian construction
industry. International Journal of Project Management, 14(6), 379-385.
Moradi, A. M., & Beigi, N. A. K. (2020). Strategic management of organizational resources using
predicting the organization’s bankruptcy level: New approach using Monte Carlo
Simulation. Annals of Management and Organization Research, 2(2), 113-127.
https://doi.org/10.35912/amor.v2i2.615.
Morris, P. W., & Pinto, J. K. (Eds.). (2010). The Wiley guide to project technology, supply chain, and
procurement management. John Wiley & Sons, 7.
Nassimbeni, G. (1998). Network structures and co‐ordination mechanisms: a taxonomy. International
journal of operations & production management
Palaneeswaran, E., Kumaraswamy, M., & Ng, S. T. (2003). Formulating a framework for relationally
integrated construction supply chains. Journal of Construction Research, 4(02), 189-205.
Parrod, N., Thierry, C., Fargier, H., & Cavaille, J. B. (2007). Cooperative subcontracting relationship
within a project supply chain: A simulation approach. Simulation Modelling Practice and
Theory, 15(2), 137-152.
Ritchie, B., & Brindley, C. (2007). Supply chain risk management and performance: A guiding
framework for future development. International Journal of Operations & Production
Management..
Schultzel, H. J., & Unruh, V. P. (1996). Successful partnering: Fundamentals for project owners and
contractors. John Wiley & Sons
Seneviratne, S. M. C., & Kalpani, G. (2020). Environmental management accounting and waste
management practices: A case of a manufacturing company. Annals of Management and
Organization Research, 2(2), 97-112. https://doi.org/10.35912/amor.v2i2.700
Shapiro, J. F. (2004). Challenges of strategic supply chain planning and modeling. Computers &
Chemical Engineering, 28(6-7), 855-861.
Silver, E. A. (1989). Materials management in large-scale construction projects: Some concerns and
research issues. Engineering Costs and Production Economics, 15, 223-229.
Simchi-Levi, D., Kaminsky, P., Simchi-Levi, E., & Shankar, R. (2008). Designing and managing the
supply chain: concepts, strategies and case studies. Tata McGraw-Hill Education.
Tam, V. W., Shen, L. Y., & Kong, J. S. (2011). Impacts of multi-layer chain subcontracting on project
management performance. International Journal of Project Management, 29(1), 108-116.
Ülkü, S., & Schmidt, G. M. (2011). Matching product architecture and supply chain
configuration. Production and Operations Management, 20(1), 16-31.
Vollmann, T., Cordon, C., & Raabe, H. (1995). From supply chain management to demand chain
management. IMD Perspectives for Managers, (9).
Vrijhoef, R., & Koskela, L. (2000). The four roles of supply chain management in
construction. European Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management, 6(3-4), 169-178.
Xue, X., Li, X., Shen, Q., & Wang, Y. (2005). An agent-based framework for supply chain coordination
in construction. Automation in construction, 14(3), 413-430.
Yeo, K. T., & Ning, J. H. (2002). Integrating supply chain and critical chain concepts in engineer-
procure-construct (EPC) projects. International Journal of Project Management, 20(4), 253-
262.
Yeo, K. T., & Ning, J. H. (2006). Managing uncertainty in major equipment procurement in engineering
projects. European Journal of Operational Research, 171(1), 123-134.
Young, T. L. (2007). The handbook of project management: a practical guide to effective policies,
techniques and processes. Kogan Page Publishers.
Zailani, S., & Rajagopal, P. (2005). Supply chain integration and performance: US versus East Asian
companies. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal.

2021 | Annals of Management and Organization Research / Vol 2 No 3, 175-190

190