IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0270254.html

Investigating supply chain challenges of public sector agriculture development projects in Bangladesh: An application of modified Delphi-BWM-ISM approach

Author

Listed:
  • Md Raquibuzzaman Khan
  • Mohammad Jahangir Alam
  • Nazia Tabassum
  • Michael Burton
  • Niaz Ahmed Khan

Abstract

This study aims to investigate the supply chain challenges of public sector agriculture development projects in Bangladesh using the modified Delphi, Best Worst Method (BWM), and Interpretive Structural Modelling (ISM) methods. Based on these three widely acclaimed statistical techniques, the study identified, ranked, and identified interrelationships among the challenges. The study is unique not only in terms of research findings, but also in terms of methodology, as it is the first to use the three MCDM (Multicriteria Decision Making) tools to examine supply chain issues in public sector agriculture development projects in a developing country context. A literature review and two modified Delphi rounds with 15 industry experts’ opinions were applied to identify and validate a list of 11 key supply chain challenges. To determine the priority of the challenges, a panel of eight industry experts was consulted, and their responses were analysed using the BWM. Then, another group of 10 experts was consulted using ISM to investigate the contextual relationships among the challenges, resulting in a five-layered Interpretive Structural Model (ISM) and MICMAC (cross-impact matrix multiplication applied to classification) analysis of the challenges. According to relative importance (global weights), "improper procurement planning (0.213), "delay in project initiation (0.177), "demand forecasting error (0.146)", "lack of contract monitoring mechanism (0.097)", and "lack of competent staff (0.095)" are the top five ranked key challenges that have a significant impact on the project supply chain. Regarding contextual relationships, the ISM model and ISM-MICMAC analysis identified the "political influence" challenge as the most influential, and also independent of the other challenges. The findings are critical for project managers in managing challenges because understanding both relative importance and contextual relationships are required to address the challenges holistically. Additionally, these findings will benefit policymakers, academics, and future researchers.

Suggested Citation

  • Md Raquibuzzaman Khan & Mohammad Jahangir Alam & Nazia Tabassum & Michael Burton & Niaz Ahmed Khan, 2022. "Investigating supply chain challenges of public sector agriculture development projects in Bangladesh: An application of modified Delphi-BWM-ISM approach," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(6), pages 1-20, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0270254
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0270254
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0270254
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0270254&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0270254?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Moktadir, Md Abdul & Ali, Syed Mithun & Jabbour, Charbel Jose Chiappetta & Paul, Ananna & Ahmed, Sobur & Sultana, Razia & Rahman, Towfique, 2019. "Key factors for energy-efficient supply chains: Implications for energy policy in emerging economies," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 189(C).
    2. Liang, Fuqi & Brunelli, Matteo & Rezaei, Jafar, 2020. "Consistency issues in the best worst method: Measurements and thresholds," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 96(C).
    3. Bouzon, Marina & Govindan, Kannan & Rodriguez, Carlos M.Taboada & Campos, Lucila M.S., 2016. "Identification and analysis of reverse logistics barriers using fuzzy Delphi method and AHP," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 182-197.
    4. Normansyah Syahruddin & Matteo Kalchschmidt, 2012. "Sustainable supply chain management in the agricultural sector: a literature review," International Journal of Engineering Management and Economics, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 3(3), pages 237-258.
    5. Gunjan Yadav & Sachin Kumar Mangla & Sunil Luthra & Suresh Jakhar, 2018. "Hybrid BWM-ELECTRE-based decision framework for effective offshore outsourcing adoption: a case study," International Journal of Production Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 56(18), pages 6259-6278, September.
    6. Lijo John & A. Ramesh, 2016. "Modeling the Barriers of Humanitarian Supply Chain Management in India," Springer Proceedings in Business and Economics, in: B.S. Sahay & Sumeet Gupta & Vinod Chandra Menon (ed.), Managing Humanitarian Logistics, edition 1, chapter 0, pages 61-82, Springer.
    7. R. Sivaprakasam & V. Selladurai & P. Sasikumar, 2015. "Implementation of interpretive structural modelling methodology as a strategic decision making tool in a Green Supply Chain Context," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 233(1), pages 423-448, October.
    8. Rezaei, Jafar, 2015. "Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 49-57.
    9. Paul Winters & Alessandro Maffioli & Lina Salazar, 2011. "Introduction to the Special Feature: Evaluating the Impact of Agricultural Projects in Developing Countries," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 62(2), pages 393-402, June.
    10. Wen-Hwa Ko & Min-Yen Lu, 2020. "Evaluation of the Professional Competence of Kitchen Staff to Avoid Food Waste Using the Modified Delphi Method," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(19), pages 1-11, September.
    11. Luthra, Sunil & Garg, Dixit & Haleem, Abid, 2015. "An analysis of interactions among critical success factors to implement green supply chain management towards sustainability: An Indian perspective," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(P1), pages 37-50.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Zandi, Peyman & Soleiman Ekhtiari, Narges & Sorooshian, Shahryar, 2025. "From taste to price: Comparative analysis of customer satisfaction factors in three food products," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 87(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Md. Raquibuzzaman Khan & Nazia Tabassum & Niaz Ahmed Khan & Mohammad Jahangir Alam, 2022. "Procurement challenges in public-sector agricultural development projects in Bangladesh," Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-13, December.
    2. Wu, Qun & Liu, Xinwang & Zhou, Ligang & Qin, Jindong & Rezaei, Jafar, 2024. "An analytical framework for the best–worst method," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 123(C).
    3. Md. Raquibuzzaman Khan & Mohammad Jahangir Alam & Nazia Tabassum & Niaz Ahmed Khan, 2022. "A Systematic Review of the Delphi–AHP Method in Analyzing Challenges to Public-Sector Project Procurement and the Supply Chain: A Developing Country’s Perspective," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(21), pages 1-20, October.
    4. Sarthak Dhingra & Rakesh D. Raut & Vinay Surendra Yadav & Naoufel Cheikhrouhou & B. Koteswara Rao Naik, 2025. "Blockchain adoption challenges in the healthcare sector: a waste management perspective," Operations Management Research, Springer, vol. 18(2), pages 518-536, June.
    5. Liang, Fuqi & Brunelli, Matteo & Rezaei, Jafar, 2020. "Consistency issues in the best worst method: Measurements and thresholds," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 96(C).
    6. Chun-Chieh Tseng & Jun-Yi Zeng & Min-Liang Hsieh & Chih-Hung Hsu, 2022. "Analysis of Innovation Drivers of New and Old Kinetic Energy Conversion Using a Hybrid Multiple-Criteria Decision-Making Model in the Post-COVID-19 Era: A Chinese Case," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 10(20), pages 1-25, October.
    7. van de Kaa, G. & Fens, T. & Rezaei, J. & Kaynak, D. & Hatun, Z. & Tsilimeni-Archangelidi, A., 2019. "Realizing smart meter connectivity: Analyzing the competing technologies Power line communication, mobile telephony, and radio frequency using the best worst method," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 320-327.
    8. Balali, Amirhossein & Yunusa-Kaltungo, Akilu & Edwards, Rodger, 2023. "A systematic review of passive energy consumption optimisation strategy selection for buildings through multiple criteria decision-making techniques," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 171(C).
    9. Siamak Kheybari & Mohammad Reza Mehrpour & Paul Bauer & Alessio Ishizaka, 2024. "How Can Risk-Averse and Risk-Taking Approaches be Considered in a Group Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Problem?," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 33(4), pages 883-909, August.
    10. Le Ngo Ngoc Thu & Long Van Hoang & Quynh Manh Doan & Nguyen Tan Huynh, 2024. "The performance model of logistic distribution centers: Quality function deployment based on the Best-Worst Method," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 19(10), pages 1-21, October.
    11. Mangla, Sachin Kumar & Luthra, Sunil & Rich, Nick & Kumar, Divesh & Rana, Nripendra P. & Dwivedi, Yogesh K., 2018. "Enablers to implement sustainable initiatives in agri-food supply chains," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 203(C), pages 379-393.
    12. Amin Vafadarnikjoo & Madjid Tavana & Tiago Botelho & Konstantinos Chalvatzis, 2020. "A neutrosophic enhanced best–worst method for considering decision-makers’ confidence in the best and worst criteria," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 289(2), pages 391-418, June.
    13. Gao, Fei & Wang, Weixiang & Bi, Chencan & Bi, Wenhao & Zhang, An, 2023. "Prioritization of used aircraft acquisition criteria: A fuzzy best–worst method (BWM)-based approach," Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    14. Cavallo, Bice & Ishizaka, Alessio, 2025. "A comparative study on precision of direct evaluations, the Pairwise Comparisons Method and the Best-Worst Method," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 130(C).
    15. Mi, Xiaomei & Tang, Ming & Liao, Huchang & Shen, Wenjing & Lev, Benjamin, 2019. "The state-of-the-art survey on integrations and applications of the best worst method in decision making: Why, what, what for and what's next?," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 205-225.
    16. Sisto, Roberta & Fernández-Portillo, Luis A. & Yazdani, Morteza & Estepa-Mohedano, Lorenzo & Torkayesh, Ali Ebadi, 2022. "Strategic planning of rural areas: Integrating participatory backcasting and multiple criteria decision analysis tools," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 82(PA).
    17. Min, Xinyuan & Sok, Jaap & Qian, Tian & Zhou, Weihao & Oude Lansink, Alfons, 2025. "Evaluating the adoption of sensor and robotic technologies from a multi-stakeholder perspective: The case of greenhouse sector in China," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 210(C).
    18. Devendra K. Yadav & Akhilesh Barve, 2016. "Modeling Post-disaster Challenges of Humanitarian Supply Chains: A TISM Approach," Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, Springer;Global Institute of Flexible Systems Management, vol. 17(3), pages 321-340, September.
    19. Sricharan Chirra & Rakesh Raut, 2025. "Critical Success Factors for Sustainable Supply Chain Flexibility," Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, Springer;Global Institute of Flexible Systems Management, vol. 26(3), pages 491-513, September.
    20. Aziz Naghizadeh Vardin & Ramin Ansari & Mohammad Khalilzadeh & Jurgita Antucheviciene & Romualdas Bausys, 2021. "An Integrated Decision Support Model Based on BWM and Fuzzy-VIKOR Techniques for Contractor Selection in Construction Projects," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-28, June.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0270254. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.