IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/vision/v29y2025i2p200-208.html

Barriers Prioritization of the Indian Steel Industry Supply Chain: Applying AHP and Fuzzy AHP Method

Author

Listed:
  • Rupesh Kumar
  • Saurabh Tiwari
  • Surendra Kansara

Abstract

This study seeks to identify possible key barriers in the supply chain of the Indian steel industry. Each of these hindrances has a significance in serving the store network and refining the economy of India. The study is a mix of theoretical and useful structures, which would zero in on those critical barriers in the steel supply chain. It includes a theoretical examination of the barriers in the Indian steel industry and ranking of these barriers using multicriteria methods, that is, analytical hierarchical process (AHP) and fuzzy analytical hierarchical process (FAHP) approaches. The main finding is the identification of key barriers in the Indian steel industry supply chain and prioritizing them according to the severity of their impact. Eleven potential key barriers have been considered in the study for analysis. There can be more barriers in the Indian steel industry. This study exposes the application of both methods, that is, AHP and FAHP, for ranking identified barriers.

Suggested Citation

  • Rupesh Kumar & Saurabh Tiwari & Surendra Kansara, 2025. "Barriers Prioritization of the Indian Steel Industry Supply Chain: Applying AHP and Fuzzy AHP Method," Vision, , vol. 29(2), pages 200-208, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:vision:v:29:y:2025:i:2:p:200-208
    DOI: 10.1177/09722629211065687
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/09722629211065687
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/09722629211065687?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. Chang, Da-Yong, 1996. "Applications of the extent analysis method on fuzzy AHP," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 95(3), pages 649-655, December.
    2. Saaty, Thomas L., 1994. "Homogeneity and clustering in AHP ensures the validity of the scale," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 72(3), pages 598-601, February.
    3. Saaty, Thomas L. & Vargas, Luis G., 1987. "Uncertainty and rank order in the analytic hierarchy process," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 107-117, October.
    4. Yoram Wind & Thomas L. Saaty, 1980. "Marketing Applications of the Analytic Hierarchy Process," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(7), pages 641-658, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Paweł Karczmarek & Witold Pedrycz & Adam Kiersztyn, 2021. "Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process in a Graphical Approach," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 30(2), pages 463-481, April.
    2. Yibin Zhang & Kevin W. Li & Zhou-Jing Wang, 2017. "Prioritization and Aggregation of Intuitionistic Preference Relations: A Multiplicative-Transitivity-Based Transformation from Intuitionistic Judgment Data to Priority Weights," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 26(2), pages 409-436, March.
    3. Leung, L. C. & Cao, D., 2000. "On consistency and ranking of alternatives in fuzzy AHP," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 124(1), pages 102-113, July.
    4. Madjid Tavana & Kaveh Khalili-Damghani & Rahman Rahmatian, 2015. "A hybrid fuzzy MCDM method for measuring the performance of publicly held pharmaceutical companies," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 226(1), pages 589-621, March.
    5. Sajid Ali & Sang-Moon Lee & Choon-Man Jang, 2017. "Determination of the Most Optimal On-Shore Wind Farm Site Location Using a GIS-MCDM Methodology: Evaluating the Case of South Korea," Energies, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-22, December.
    6. Zeshui Xu, 2013. "Compatibility Analysis of Intuitionistic Fuzzy Preference Relations in Group Decision Making," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 22(3), pages 463-482, May.
    7. Choudhary, Devendra & Shankar, Ravi, 2012. "An STEEP-fuzzy AHP-TOPSIS framework for evaluation and selection of thermal power plant location: A case study from India," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 42(1), pages 510-521.
    8. Zhu, Bin & Xu, Zeshui, 2014. "Stochastic preference analysis in numerical preference relations," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 237(2), pages 628-633.
    9. Bojan Srdjevic & Yvonilde Medeiros, 2008. "Fuzzy AHP Assessment of Water Management Plans," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 22(7), pages 877-894, July.
    10. Deng, Yanfei & Xu, Jiuping & Liu, Ying & Mancl, Karen, 2014. "Biogas as a sustainable energy source in China: Regional development strategy application and decision making," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 294-303.
    11. Zhu, Bin & Xu, Zeshui & Zhang, Ren & Hong, Mei, 2016. "Hesitant analytic hierarchy process," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 250(2), pages 602-614.
    12. Caprioli, Caterina & Bottero, Marta, 2021. "Addressing complex challenges in transformations and planning: A fuzzy spatial multicriteria analysis for identifying suitable locations for urban infrastructures," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 102(C).
    13. Pınar Kaya Samut, 2017. "Integrated FANP-f-MIGP model for supplier selection in the renewable energy sector," Journal of Business Economics and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 18(3), pages 427-450, May.
    14. Grošelj, Petra & Hodges, Donald G. & Zadnik Stirn, Lidija, 2016. "Participatory and multi-criteria analysis for forest (ecosystem) management: A case study of Pohorje, Slovenia," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 80-86.
    15. Lucas, Rochelle Irene & Promentilla, Michael Angelo & Ubando, Aristotle & Tan, Raymond Girard & Aviso, Kathleen & Yu, Krista Danielle, 2017. "An AHP-based evaluation method for teacher training workshop on information and communication technology," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 93-100.
    16. Yulan Wang & Huayou Chen & Ligang Zhou, 2013. "Logarithm Compatibility of Interval Multiplicative Preference Relations with an Application to Determining the Optimal Weights of Experts in the Group Decision Making," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 22(4), pages 759-772, July.
    17. Mohamed Hanine & Omar Boutkhoum & Tarik Agouti & Abdessadek Tikniouine, 2017. "A new integrated methodology using modified Delphi-fuzzy AHP-PROMETHEE for Geospatial Business Intelligence selection," Information Systems and e-Business Management, Springer, vol. 15(4), pages 897-925, November.
    18. Shigeaki Innan & Masahiro Inuiguchi, 2025. "Decision analysis using set of fuzzy priority weight vectors estimated from a fuzzy pairwise comparison matrix," Fuzzy Optimization and Decision Making, Springer, vol. 24(4), pages 695-722, December.
    19. Şebnem Karul Tonka & Ismail Ekmekci, 2022. "A Model Proposal for Occupational Health and Safety Performance Measurement in Geothermal Drilling Areas," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(23), pages 1-24, November.
    20. Mohamed Hanine & Omar Boutkhoum & Abderrafie El Maknissi & Abdessadek Tikniouine & Tarik Agouti, 2016. "Decision making under uncertainty using PEES–fuzzy AHP–fuzzy TOPSIS methodology for landfill location selection," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 36(4), pages 351-367, December.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:sae:vision:v:29:y:2025:i:2:p:200-208. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.