This article was downloaded by: [Abid Haleem]

On: 17 January 2012, At: 07:38

Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Production Planning & Control

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tppc20

Analysis of critical success factors of worldclass manufacturing practices: an application of

interpretative structural modelling and interpretative
ranking process
a

Abid Haleem , Sushil , Mohammad Asim Qadri & Sanjay Kumar

Department of Mechanical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Technology, Jamia

Millia Islamia, New Delhi 110025, India
b

Department of Management Studies, Indian Institute of Technology, New Delhi 110016,

India
c

Department of Mechanical Engineering, Galgotias College of Engineering and Technology,

Greater Noida 201306, India
Available online: 16 Jan 2012

To cite this article: Abid Haleem, Sushil, Mohammad Asim Qadri & Sanjay Kumar (2012): Analysis of critical success factors of
world-class manufacturing practices: an application of interpretative structural modelling and interpretative ranking process,
Production Planning & Control, DOI:10.1080/09537287.2011.642134
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2011.642134

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to
anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents
will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should
be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims,
proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in
connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Production Planning & Control

2012, 113, iFirst

Analysis of critical success factors of world-class manufacturing practices: an application of

interpretative structural modelling and interpretative ranking process
Abid Haleema*, Sushilb, Mohammad Asim Qadric and Sanjay Kumarc
a

Department of Mechanical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Technology, Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi 110025,
India; bDepartment of Management Studies, Indian Institute of Technology, New Delhi 110016, India;
c
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Galgotias College of Engineering and Technology, Greater Noida 201306, India

Downloaded by [Abid Haleem] at 07:38 17 January 2012

(Received in final form 10 November 2011)

The aim of this article is to analyse the key factors behind the successful implementation of world-class
manufacturing practices. Two distinct modelling approaches have been employed to examine the contextual
relationship among the critical success factors (CSFs) and to rank them w.r.t. performance areas. CSFs and
performance areas were identified through literature review and opinion of experts from industry and academia.
Interpretive structural modelling (ISM) is used to develop a hierarchical structure for analysing the interactions
among CSFs. Interpretive ranking process (IRP) is then used to examine the dominance relationship. ISM model
highlights the importance of excellent top management over other CSFs, whereas IRP model revealed reduction
in energy consumption and waste minimisations as the most important CSF when evaluated against various
performance areas. This study also gives a comparative account of ISM and IRP and shows that IRP is a more
powerful tool, as it goes one step further and considers the relationship of CSFs with measurable performance
indicators.
Keywords: critical success factors; digraph; interpretative ranking process; interpretative structural modelling;
world-class manufacturing

1. Introduction
The removal of trade barriers and concomitantintensified competition among firms at the international level has put the organisations under paramount
pressure to review their traditional manufacturing
practices. Now, they are motivated to consider
adoption of emerging world-class manufacturing
(WCM) practices that differentiate them from, and
provide them with an edge over, the run-of-the-mill
companies. Nakane and Hall (2007) observed that
some of the manufacturers were undergoing a paradigm shift in the way they look at manufacturing
operations these days. As of today, Indian manufacturing industry has not fared well against the
aggressive competitive strategies adopted by their
international counterparts.
The challenge for the Indian manufacturers today
is to update their manufacturing activities to remain
competitive in the global arena. To address this
challenge, the Indian manufacturing firms need to
understand the factors that play a critical role in the
implementation of WCM practices and their implications on strategic business objectives. This study

*Corresponding author. Email: haleem.abid@gmail.com

ISSN 09537287 print/ISSN 13665871 online
2012 Taylor & Francis
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2011.642134
http://www.tandfonline.com

provides a framework for knowing the relative

importance of key factors that play a major role in
successful adoption of WCM practices.
In this article, the interactions of critical success
factors (CSFs) for WCM are examined, and modelling
approach is used to rank CSFs in reference to
performance outcomes. Interpretive structural modelling (ISM) is used to understand the contextual
relationship among the CSFs and extract the crucial
factors that facilitate the adoption of WCM practices.
Further, interpretive ranking process (IRP) is used to
rank the CSFs w.r.t. performance indicators.
This remainder of the article is organised as
follows: the next two sections briefly cover the WCM
practices and their CSFs. Then, Section 4 describes the
two research methodologies used in this study.
In Section 5, an interpretive structural model for
CSFs of WCM is developed. The IRP modelling for
ranking of the CSFs of WCM is covered in Section 6.
Then, Section 7 discusses the findings and limitations
of this study. Finally, the concluding section summarises the entire article and suggests directions for
further research in the area.

Downloaded by [Abid Haleem] at 07:38 17 January 2012

A. Haleem et al.

2. World-class manufacturing

2.3. Six-sigma

According to Schonberger (1986), the term WCM

nicely captures the breadth and the essence of the
fundamental changes taking place in industrial enterprises. This implies that the companies must critically
examine the competitiveness of their manufacturing
strategies to achieve the status of a world-class
manufacturer. Companies engaged in WCM practices
focus on improving operations, elimination of waste,
managing customer relationships, creating lean organisations and imbibing green practices, among others.
This often leads to higher productivity. Some WCM
practices are discussed in the following sections.

Six-sigma is a business management strategy originally

developed by Motorola in 1981. It is now widely
recognised as a business strategy that employs statistical and non-statistical tools and techniques, change
management techniques, project management skills,
team-working skills and a powerful roadmap to
maximise an organisations return on investment
through the elimination of defects in processes
(Kumar et al. 2008). Six-sigma implementation aims
at improving customer satisfaction by means of
improved process capability.

2.1. Lean manufacturing

Lean thinking aims at producing high-quality products
and services at the lowest cost with maximum customer
responsiveness through systematic identification and
elimination of waste. Lean literally unites the organisation in a relentless drive for improvement (Hall 2004).
The main thrust of lean production is that these
practices can synergistically work to create a systematised, high-quality system that fulfils the demands of
the customers at the required pace (Shah and Ward
2003). Lean manufacturing should be viewed as a
holistic multi-dimensional approach, encompassing a
wide variety of management concepts, such as justin-time (JIT), total quality management (TQM), work
teams, cellular manufacturing and customers and
suppliers involvement. JIT is a manufacturing philosophy primarily based on planned elimination of all
wastes and continuous improvement of productivity
(Vokurka et al. 2007).

2.2. Total quality management

TQM can be defined as a holistic management
philosophy that strives for continuous improvement
in all functions of an organisation, and it can be
achieved only if the total quality concept is utilised
right from the acquisition of resources to customer
service after the sale (Kaynak 2003). This approach
integrates the fundamental techniques and principles of
quality function deployment, statistical quality control
and existing management tools in a structured manner.
The aim of TQM is to reduce the errors produced
during the manufacturing/service process, enhance
customer satisfaction, streamline supply chain operations, have workers with the highest level of
training, etc.

2.4. Total productive maintenance

The total productive maintenance (TPM) is based on
synergistic relationships among all the organisational
functions, particularly between production and maintenance. This aims at continuous improvement of
product quality, operational efficiency, capacity assurance and safety (Chan et al. 2005). The goal of TPM is
to increase the availability/effectiveness of existing
equipments in a given situation by minimising input
(improving and maintaining equipment at optimal
level to reduce its life cycle cost) and the investment in
human resources which results in better hardware
utilisation.

2.5. Customer relationship management

A customer relationship management (CRM) system is
a combination of people, processes and technology,
which seeks to provide understanding of a companys
customers and to support a business strategy to build
long-term, profitable relationships with them (Shang
and Fen 2006). CRM is the overall process of building
and maintaining profitable customer relationships by
delivering superior customer value and satisfaction
(Sen and Sinha 2011). The most important expected
outcomes of CRM can be listed as follows:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)

improvements in efficiency;
cost reduction;
improved sales/profitability;
enhanced customer value;
customer satisfaction;
improved customer loyalty (Oztays et al. 2011).

2.6. Environmentally responsible manufacturing

According to Melnyk and Handfield (1995), environmentally responsible manufacturing (ERM) is a system
which integrates product and process design issues with

Production Planning & Control

Downloaded by [Abid Haleem] at 07:38 17 January 2012

issues of manufacturing production planning and

control in such a manner as to identify, quantify,
assess and manage the flow of environmental waste
with the goal of reducing and ultimately minimising its
impact on the environment while also trying to
maximise resource efficiency. Some of the more
often-cited labels used to differentiate approaches to
environmental practices are pollution control, pollution prevention and product stewardship (Rusinko
2007). The goal of ERM is to protect environment by
reducing the consumption of hazardous substances, to
conserve the resources and minimise the energy
consumption.

3. Main CSFs of WCM

A CSF is an element that is necessary for an
organisation to achieve its goal. According to
Boynlon and Zmud (1984), CSFs are those few
things that must go well to ensure success for a
manager or an organisation. CSFs include issues vital
to an organisations current operating activities and its
future success. Eid (2009) identified a comprehensive
set of factors influencing the successful implementation
of WCM in Egyptian manufacturing firms. Mendoza
et al. (2007) proposed a model based on CSFs for a
CRM strategy. These factors cover the three key
aspects of every CRM strategy: human factors,
processes and technology. Achanga et al. (2006)
presented the CSFs for successful lean implementation
within small and medium enterprises (SMEs). They
found leadership, management, finance organisational
culture and skills and expertise, among other factors as
the most pertinent issues critical for the successful
adoption of lean manufacturing within SME environment. Bamber and Dale (2010) reported redundancy
programme and a lack of employee education in lean
production as two barriers to the application of lean
production. Brun (2011) discussed the CSFs of sixsigma implementation in Italian companies and found
management involvement and commitment, cultural
change, communication, organisational infrastructure
and culture, education and training as important
CSFs. Chan et al. (2005) highlighted maintenance
training system, management support and resource
management as some CSFs for TPM implementation
in electronic manufacturing company. Saxena and
Sahay (2000) conducted a survey to determine the
world-class status of Indian manufacturing companies
and suggested that companies must align their IT
initiatives towards facilitating agile manufacturing
rather than introducing IT to merely automate their
conventional operations.

Since the number of such factors is large, each

capable of influencing the most of others to varying
degree, it is very difficult, if not impossible, to consider
them all. Here, in this study, a team of experts from
industry and academia participated in a brainstorming
session and identified the following 10 CSFs:
(1) satisfaction of internal customers (Sahney et al.
2008);
(2) health management of employees (Wreder et al.
2007);
(3) use of information system in TQM (Zeng et al.
2007);
(4) excellent top management (Achanga et al.
2006);
(5) reductions in energy consumption and waste
minimisation (industry input);
(6) flexible computer-integrated manufacturing
systems (Vokurka et al. 2007);
(7) adequate and poka-yoke quality (Alsaleh
2007);
(8) continuous improvements in the process (Onuh
and Hon 2001);
(9) rewards and incentives (industry input);
(10) responsiveness of supply chain (Stephens 2009).

4. Research methodology
The objectives of this article are to examine the
relationships among various CSFs of WCM practices
and to rank them with reference to various performance measures. Here, the ISM is used to examine the
contextual relationships among CSFs of WCM practices. IRP is applied to rank the CSFs in relation to
various performance measures.

4.1. Interpretive structural modelling

ISM technique developed by Warfield (1974) and Sage
(1977) is an adaptation of paired-comparison
approach. It is usually computer-aided and has the
capability to manage group input. It helps in identification of the inter-relationships among variables
under consideration. ISM is an interactive learning
process, whereby a set of different and directly related
factors are structured into a comprehensive systematic
model. The so-formed model portrays the structure of
a complex issue or problem, a system or a field of
study, in a carefully designed pattern involving
graphics as well as words (Lal and Haleem 2009).
The ISM methodology is interpretive in the sense that
judgements of the groups decide whether the variables
are related or not and how they are related if they do.
It is structural too, since an overall structure is

A. Haleem et al.

Downloaded by [Abid Haleem] at 07:38 17 January 2012

extracted from the complex set of variables on the basis

of relationships.

4.2. Interpretive ranking process

IRP is a novel ranking method that combines the
analytical logic of the rational choice process with the
strengths of the intuitive process at the elemental level.
The methodology builds on the strengths of the pairedcomparison approach (Warfield 1974, Saaty 1977)
which minimises the cognitive overload. It uses
interpretative matrix as a basic tool and paired
comparison of interpretation in the matrix (Sushil
2009). The traditional AHPs drawback that the
interpretation of judgements of the experts remains
opaque to the implementer is overcome in this method
as the experts here are supposed to spell out the
interpretive logic for dominance of one element over
the other for each paired comparison. Further, IRP
does not require the information about the extent of
dominance. It also makes an internal validity check via
the vector logic of the dominance relationships in the
form of a dominance system graph.
The steps of IRP (Sushil 2009) are as follows:
Step 1: Identify two sets of variables one to be
ranked with reference to the other, e.g. actions and
performance, actors and processes, etc.
Step 2: Clarify the contextual relationship between
the two sets of variables.
Step 3: Develop a cross-interaction matrix between
the two sets of variables.
Step 4: Convert the cross-interaction matrix into an
interpretive matrix (Sushil 2005).
Step 5: Convert the interpretive matrix into an
interpretive logic of pair-wise comparisons and dominating interactions matrix by interpreting the
dominance of one interaction over the other.

Table 1. Structural self-interaction matrix.

CSF

10

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

A
O
V
V
O
V
A
X
X

O
O
O
X
O
O
A
A

A
V
V
V
X
V
X

A
O
V
V
V
V

A
O
X
V
A

O
O
V
V

A
X
A

O
O

5.1. Development of structural self-interaction

matrix
ISM methodology relies on the opinion of the experts
for developing structural self-interaction matrix
(SSIM). In this study, experts from the industry, and
academia were consulted for identifying the contextual
relationship among the CSFs of WCM practices.
Contextual relationship between variables is developed
and is presented in Table 1. The notations used for
representing the type of relation between a pair of
CSFs are
. V for the relation from i to j but not in both
directions;
. A for the relation from j to i but not in both
directions;
. X for both direction relations from i to j and
j to i;
. for the relation that exists between i and j.
The SSIM is converted into a binary matrix, called the
reachability matrix by substituting X, A, V and O by 1
and 0 (Lal and Haleem 2009).
Final reachability matrix showing the driving
power and dependence is provided in Table 2.

Step 9: Interpret the ranking order and use it as the

base for recommending action.

5.2. Level partitioning

Segregation of the components of a structure into
different levels is of great assistance in understanding
the relationships in a hierarchy. It helps in the
construction of the digraph and subsequently the
final model. In the present case, the factors along
with their reachability set, antecedent set, intersection
set and levels are shown in Table 3.

5. Interpretive structural model for CSFs of WCM

5.3. Development of ISM model

In this section, the development of model using ISM is

described.

The structural model is developed from the final

reachability matrix, by constructing digraph using

Step 6: Develop ranking and interpret the ranks in

terms of dominance of number of interactions.
Step 7: Validate the ranks thus derived.
Step 8: Represent the obtained ranking diagrammatically in the form of an interpretive ranking model.

Production Planning & Control

Table 2. Final reachability matrix with driving power and dependence.
CSF

10

Driving power

Rank

1
7
8
2
5
9
10
3
6
4
Dependence

1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
9

0
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
8

0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
9

0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
1
3

0
0
1
0
1
0
0
1
1
1
5

0
1
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
5

0
0
1
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
6

0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
4

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
3

0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
1
3

1
5
6
4
3
7
5
7
7
10

VII
IV
III
V
VI
II
IV
II
II
I

Downloaded by [Abid Haleem] at 07:38 17 January 2012

Table 3. Summary of levels assigned to CSFs.

CSF
1
7
8
2
5
9
10
3
6
4

Reachability
set

Antecedent
set

Intersection

Level

1
3,7,8,9
5,7,8,9,10
2,4
5
4,9,10
9,10
3,6
3,6
4

1,2,4,6,7,8,9,10
3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10
2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10
2,4,9
3,4,5,6,10
4,9,10
3,4,6,9,10
3,4,6
3,4,6
4

1
3,7,8,9
5,7,8,9,10
2,4
5
4,9,10
9,10
3,6
3,6
4

I
II
II
III
III
IV
IV
V
V
VI

vertices or nodes and lines of edges. If there is a

relationship between the success factors i and j, it is
shown by an arrow that points from i to j. The digraph
is finally converted into interpretive structural model
after removing transitivity. The ISM model developed
for the current problem is shown in Figure 1.

5.4. Analysis of driving power and dependence power

The matrix of cross-impact multiplications applied to
classification analysis is used to analyse the driver
power and the dependence power of the variables. On
the basis of this analysis, the variables are classified
into the following four clusters (Mandal and
Deshmukh 1994): autonomous, dependent, linkages
and independent.
The driver power-dependence diagram shown in
Figure 2 is constructed based on driving power and the
dependence of each CSF shown in Table 2. The
variables, health management of employees and
reductions in energy consumption and waste minimisation, fall under the autonomous category and can

be considered disconnected from the whole system.

The next cluster includes three factors, namely
satisfaction of internal customers, adequate and
poka-yoke quality and responsiveness of supply
chain. In this category, satisfaction of internal customers has the least driving power and the highest
dependence and comes at the top most level in the ISM
hierarchy. Its strong dependence shows that all the
other factors need to come together for effective
implementation of WCM. The factor, continuous
improvement in the process falls under third category
of linkage factors as it has strong driving power as well
as strong dependence. This factor is unstable as any
action on this factor will have an effect on others and
also a feedback on itself. The last category includes the
factors, use of information system in TQM, excellent
top management, flexible computer integrated manufacturing systems and rewards and incentives. These
factors have high driving power and weak dependence.
These factors also play a key role in implementation
of WCM.

6. IRP modelling for CSFs of WCM

IRP uses two sets of variables, i.e. one set of variables
that are to be ranked and the other set of reference
variables that provide the basis for ranking. In this
study, based on the opinion of the experts from
industry and academia, 10 such performance variables
are identified and listed in Table 4. The CSFs of WCM
identified in Section 3 are considered as actions to
achieve selected performance variables.

6.1. Development of cross-interaction matrix

A cross-interaction matrix shows the existence or nonexistence of relationship between each action and

A. Haleem et al.
1. Satisfaction of internal customers
7. Adequate and poka-yoke quality

8. Continuous improvements in the

process

2. Health management of employees

5. Reductions in energy consumption

and waste minimisation

9. Rewards and incentives

10. Responsiveness of supply chain

6. Flexible computer integrated

manufacturing systems

3. Use of information system in TQM

Downloaded by [Abid Haleem] at 07:38 17 January 2012

4. Excellent top management

Figure 1. ISM-based model for CSFs of WCM.

Driving power
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1

IV

III

9
8
10

2
5
I
1

II

10

Dependence

Figure 2. Driving power and dependence for CSFs of WCM.

Table 4. Performance variables used for IRP.
Table 5. Cross-interaction matrix.
Performance variables
P1
P2
P3
P4
P5
P6
P7
P8
P9
P10

Improved quality of product

Reduced stress level among employees
Zero-defect
Minimum inventory
Management commitment and involvement
Market presence
Financial profitability
Company must portray a green and
environmental friendly image
Reduction in lead time
Optimal usage of resources

A1
A2
A3
A4
A5
A6
A7
A8
A9
A10

P1

P2

P3

P4

P5

P6

P7

P8

P9

P10

0
0
1
1
0
1
1
1
0
0

1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0

0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1

0
1
0
1
0
0
0
1
1
0

1
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
0
0

1
0
1
1
1
0
1
0
0
1

0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0

0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
1

Excellent top management has

direct impact on
quality of
product

A4

Quality directly
improves

Continuous
improvement is
important for
increase in
quality

A7

A8

A10

A9

It improves quality

A6

A5

Use of IT directly
improves quality
through fast
communication

A3

A2

A1

P1

Reward and incentives increase

satisfaction and
reduces stresses

A more satisfied
staff is subjected to
reduced level of
stresses
Health management help in reducing stress level

P2

Table 6. Interpretive matrix.

Direct effect of
reduction in
defects

P3

Better SCM reduces

inventory level

Information system
helps in knowing exact level of
inventory to be
kept

P4
Satisfied staff
increases market
presence through
word of mouth

P6
Direct impact of
employee satisfaction can be seen on
profitability

P7

More rewarded
staff is highly
committed
towards
company

More viability in
market

Increased market
presence means
strong customer
base and thus
increased profit

Direct impact on
financial profit

It improves
profitability

A green company Energy consumphas wider

tion improves
market presence
profit

Information systems help in fast

processing and
hence, increase
profit
Staff become more Directly related to Excellent top managements straincreased
responsible and
tegies always
market presence
committed to
increase profit
their work

Better health management of

employee causes
lesser absenteeism

P5

Downloaded by [Abid Haleem] at 07:38 17 January 2012

Leads to improved
green image of
the company

P8

Production time
decreases

P9

Reduced
wastages

Reduction in waste
helps in optimal
usage of
resources

It helps in reducing
waste and optimal usage of
resources

P10

Production Planning & Control

7

A. Haleem et al.

Table 7. Interpretive logic-knowledge base.

Downloaded by [Abid Haleem] at 07:38 17 January 2012

Paired comparison of
CSFs in terms of
dominance
A1 dominating A2
A3 dominating A1
A3 dominating A10
A4 dominating A1
A4 dominating A2
A4 dominating A3
A4 dominating A9
A5 dominating A1
A5 dominating A3
A5 dominating A4
A5 dominating A7
A5 dominating A10
A6 dominating A3
A6 dominating A4
A6 dominating A8
A7 dominating A1
A7 dominating A3
A7 dominating A4
A7 dominating A6
A7 dominating A8
A7 dominating A10
A8 dominating A1
A8 dominating A3
A8 dominating A4
A8 dominating A5
A8 dominating A10
A9 dominating A1
A9 dominating A2
A10 dominating A1
A10 dominating A3
A10 dominating A4

Performance variable(s)
for which the dominance
holds good
P2
P7
P4, P7, P10
P6, P7
P5, P7
P1, P7
P6
P6, P7
P7, P10
P6, P7
P7, P10
P7, P10
P1
P1
P1
P7
P1, P7
P1, P3
P1
P1, P7
P7
P6, P7
P1, P7
P1, P6, P7
P6
P7
P2
P2, P5
P7
P7
P7

pair-wise, one by one. For example, the action A1 is

compared with action A2 w.r.t. various performances
P1, P2, . . . , and P10, respectively, and the interpretive
logic of dominating interaction between A1 and A2
w.r.t. different performances is recorded in the knowledge base, as shown in Table 7.
In the above-paired comparisons, the ranking
variables are not directly compared; rather their
interaction w.r.t. reference variable(s) is compared.
All the dominating interactions are summarised in
the dominating interaction matrix, as shown in
Table 8.

6.4. Development of dominance matrix

The dominating interactions are summarised in the
form of dominance matrix. Each cell in this matrix
gives the number of cases (performances), where one
ranking variable dominates or is dominated by other
ranking variables.
The net dominance for a ranking variable is
computed as (D  B), where D is the total number of
cases where ranking variable(s) dominates all other
ranking variables and B the total number of cases in
which a particular ranking variable is dominated by all
other ranking variables. The ranking variable having
the highest net positive dominance is ranked 1
followed by next lower and so on. The dominance
matrix clearly indicating the ranking of all the factors
is shown in Table 9.

6.5. Interpretive ranking model

performance combination. Numeric 1 defines a
presence of relationship exist and 0 defines its
absence. The cross-interaction matrix is developed
and presented in Table 5.

6.2. Interpretation of interactions

The cross-interaction matrix is converted into a crossinteraction-interpretive matrix by interpreting all the
interactions with entry 1 in terms of contextual
relationships. For example, (A1, P2) is interpreted as
A more satisfied staff is subjected to reduced level of
stresses as shown in Table 6.

6.3. Pair-wise comparisons

The interpretive matrix is used to compare the CSFs
w.r.t. the reference variables (performances areas)

The interpretive ranking model diagrammatically displays the final ranks of the ranking variables. Figure 3
shows the ranks of various actions w.r.t. their roles in
achieving different performance areas. The arrows in
the diagram represent the reference variable(s) in the
cases where a particular ranking variable is dominating
the other ranking variables.

7. Results and discussions

Some of the results and findings of the study are
discussed here. The ISM model (Figure 3) revealed the
contextual relationship of identified CSFs and helped
develop a hierarchical model. The driver-dependence
diagram gives some valuable insights into the relative
importance of CSFs and interdependencies among
them. The digraph depicts the linkages among various
CSFs. Excellent top management having driving power
of 10 and dependence power of 4 emerged as the most
important CSFs for WCM practices. Use of

P1,P6,P7
P2,P5

P4,P7,P10

A9

A10

P6,P7,P8,P10

A5

A8

P1,P5,P6,P7

A4

P1,P9

P1,P4,P7,P10

A3

P1,P3,P7

P5

A2

A7

A1

Being
dominated #

A6

A1

Dominating !

A2

P4,P7,P10

P2,P5

P1,P6,P7

P1,P3,P7

P1,P9

P6,P7,P8,P10

P1,P5,P6,P7

P1,P4,P7,P10

P2,P6,P7

Table 8. Dominating interaction matrix.

P7

P2,P5

P1,P6,P7

P1,P3,P7

P1,P9

P6,P7,P8,P10

P1,P5,P6,P7

P2,P5

P2,P6

A3

P4,P7,P10

P2

P1,P6,P7

P1,P3,P7

P1,P9

P6,P7,P8,P10

P4,P10

P2

P2

A4

P4

P2,P5

P1,P6

P1,P3

P1,P9

P1,P5

P1,P4

P2,P5

P2

A5

P4,P7,P10

P2,P5

P6,P7

P1,P3,P7

P6,P7,P8,P10

P5,P6,P7

P4,P7,P10

P2,P5

P2,P6,P7

A6

P5,P6

P4,P10

P2,P5

P2,P6

A7

P4,P10

P2,P5

P6

P9

P6,P7,P8,P10

Downloaded by [Abid Haleem] at 07:38 17 January 2012

P1,P5,P6,P7

P1,P4,P7,P10

P6,P7

A9

P4,P10

P2,P5

P1,P3,P7

P1,P9

P4,P7,P10

P1,P6,P7

P1,P3,P7

P1,P9

P7,P8,P10 P6,P7,P8,P10

P5

P4,P10

P2,P5

P2

A8

P2,P5

P1,P6,P7

P1,P3,P7

P1,P9

P6,P7,P8,P10

P1,P5,P6

P1,P4,P7,P10

P2,P5

P2,P6

A10

Production Planning & Control

9

10

A. Haleem et al.

Table 9. Dominance matrix.

A1
A2
A3
A4
A5
A6
A7
A8
A9
A10
(B)a

A1

A2

A3

A4

A5

A6

A7

A8

A9

A10

Number of cases
dominating (D)

Net dominance
(D  B)

Rank dominating

1
4
4
4
2
3
3
2
3
26

4
4
4
2
3
3
2
3
28

2
2

4
4
2
3
3
2
1
23

1
1
2

4
2
3
3
1
3
20

1
2
2
2

2
2
2
2
1
16

3
2
3
3
4

3
2
2
3
25

2
2
2
2
4
1

1
2
2
18

1
2
2
1
3
2
3

2
2
18

2
0
4
4
4
2
3
3

3
25

2
2
4
3
4
2
3
3
2

25

17
14
27
27
35
17
26
23
17
21
224

9
14
4
7
19
8
8
5
8
4

IX
X
V
III
I
VII
II
IV
VIII
VI

Downloaded by [Abid Haleem] at 07:38 17 January 2012

Note: aNumber of cases being dominated.

information system in TQM and flexible computerintegrated manufacturing system are driven by excellent top management and in turn have salutary effect
on responsiveness of supply chain. The two CSFs,
rewards and incentives and Health management of
employees, have bi-directional relationship with excellent top management. Continuous improvements in the
process and adequate and poka-yoke quality also have
bi-directional interactions. Reduction in energy consumption and waste minimisation drives the continuous improvement process.
The interpretive ranking model shown in Figure 3
depicts the ranks of selected CSFs w.r.t. performance
areas. The CSF, reduction in energy consumption and
waste minimisation received the highest ranking by
IRP. This clearly indicates that for any company who
needs to portray itself as WCM firm need to be a green
company. The CSFs in descending order of rankings
are: adequate and poka-yoke quality, excellent top
management, continuous improvement in the process,
use of information system in TQM, responsiveness of
supply chain, flexible computer-integrated manufacturing system, rewards and incentives, satisfaction of
internal customers and health management of
employees.
As can be seen from Table 8, reduction in energy
consumption and waste minimisation dominates excellent top management w.r.t. four performance areas,
namely market presence, financial profitability, company must portray a green and environmental friendly
image and optimal usage of resources.
In ISM model, excellent top management has
emerged as the key driving factor. While in IRP,
reduction in energy consumption and waste minimisation has received the highest rank.

This study suffers from few limitations also. The

contextual relationships among the variables always
depend on the experts knowledge about the firms and
its operations. The bias of the person who is judging
the variables might, therefore, influence the final result.
And since the models used can differ from industry to
industry, accuracy determination and comparison is
difficult due to lack of any common base or context.

8. Conclusions
In this research study, an attempt has been made to
identify the major CSFs that facilitate successful
implementation of WCM practices in India. The
study gives a comprehensive perspective regarding
CSFs of WCM and can act as ready reckoner for the
practitioners.
This is the first study that focuses on two modelling
procedures based on interpretive logic. The major
strengths of IRP are follows (1) it does not require the
information about the extent of dominance, which is
difficult to be interpreted and generally remains
questionable in terms of validity and (2) it is easier to
measure and compare the impact of interactions rather
than variables in abstract sense. Some of the drawbacks of IRP are as follows (1) the results are not free
from bias due to interpretive and judgemental processes (2) all the variables are assigned equal weights
and the interpretation of matrix of size beyond 10  10
is difficult due to non-availability of software for the
purpose.
IRP is a novel ranking tool and can be applied to
rank relevant factors in the light of their performance
outcomes as against ISM which limits itself to
considering those factors only. Thus, if both ISM

Production Planning & Control

11

A5: Reduction in energy consumption and

waste minimisation

A7: Adequate and poka-yoke quality

A4: Excellent top management

A8: Continuous improvement in the process

Downloaded by [Abid Haleem] at 07:38 17 January 2012

A3: Use of information system in TQM

A10: Responsiveness of supply chain

A6: Flexible computer integrated

manufacturing system

A9: Rewards and incentives

A1: Satisfaction of internal customers

A2: Health management of employees

Figure 3. Interpretive ranking model for actions w.r.t. performance.

and IRP are used for the same industry, IRP calls for
more information and yields qualitatively better and
realistic results than ISM. But in problems involving
a large number of variables, IRP will find its complexity level higher than ISM. Hence, the areas/industries
where the decision makers cannot afford going specific
or their performance requirements are not specific,
they can use ISM model otherwise IRP model will be
better choice.

This study will also provide a set of guidelines to

the professionals for comparing the available ranking
tools and choosing the one that best suits their
requirements. Moreover, the study demonstrates that
rather than relying on a single tool, two or more
modelling techniques can be combined and made use
of for ranking purposes. Developing IRP models for
decision-making under fuzzy environment can be a
direction for further research.

12

A. Haleem et al.

Acknowledgements
The authors extend their indebtedness to the anonymous
reviewers for their useful comments and suggestions that
helped in improving the quality of this study. The authors are
also grateful to Akshay Vrat Gautam, Nitin Sengar, Rahul
Gupta, Rakesh Kumar Meena, Shivam Gupta and Vinay
Tomar for their contribution.

Downloaded by [Abid Haleem] at 07:38 17 January 2012

Notes on contributors
Dr. Abid Haleem is a Professor in the
Department
of
Mechanical
Engineering
in
Faculty
of
Engineering and Technology, Jamia
Millia Islamia, India. He is also on the
Board
of
Telecommunications
Consultants of India Ltd. as an
independent director. He obtained
his PhD from the Department of
Mechanical Engineering, IIT, Delhi. His research interests
include Policy Planning, Flexible Manufacturing Systems,
Business Process Re-engineering, e-Governance, Industrial
Engineering,
Operations
Management,
Technology
Management,
Creative
Problem
Solving,
Systems
Modelling, Supply Chain Management, Green Practices
and Supply Chain Management.

Sushil is a Professor of Strategic,

Flexible Systems and Technology
Management at the Department of
Management Studies, Indian Institute
of Technology, Delhi. He has
12 books to his credit in the areas of
Flexibility, Systems Thinking and
Technology Management. He has
over 200 papers in various refereed
journals and conferences. He is Editor-in-chief of Global
Journal of Flexible Systems Management (giftjourn@l). He
has pioneered the area of Flexible Systems Management
and made original contributions to the field of knowledge in
the form of SAP-LAP models and linkages. He has evolved
the concept and framework of Flowing Stream Strategy as
strategic flexibility to manage continuity and change. He has
also provided mantras for continuous organisational vitalisation and a model for execution excellence. He has acted as
consultant to both governmental and private industrial
organisations; a few representative ones being LG
Electronics, Rockwell International, Tata Consultancy
Services, Tata Infotech Ltd., CMC Ltd., James Martin &
Co., Gas Authority of India Ltd. and Sona Koyo Steering
Systems. He is the Founder President of the Global Institute
of Flexible Systems Management (www.giftsociety.org).
Mohammad Asim Qadri is an
Associate Professor in Mechanical
Engineering Department of Galgotias
College
of
Engineering
and
Technology, Greater Noida, India.
He did his BSc (Mechanical
Engineering) in Jamia Millia Islamia,
New Delhi and MSc (Mechanical

Engineering) in Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh. He is

presently pursuing PhD from Jamia Millia Islamia on Green
Supply Chain practices in India. His research interests
include Green Supply Chain Management, Optimisation
Techniques and Operations Management, among others.

Sanjay Kumar is an Associate

Professor of Galgotias College of
Engineering and Technology, Greater
Noida, India. He did his UG in
Production from the University of
Poona and PG in Production and
Operations Management from IMT,
Ghaziabad. He has more than
20 years of teaching and industrial
experience. He has been a Guest
Faculty at Jamia Millia Islamia, IMT, Greater Noida and
Indian Institute of Packaging, New Delhi. He teaches OR,
TQM, SQC, SCM, POM, Mechanical System Design,
Industrial Engineering, Concurrent Engineering and Project
Management at UG and PG levels. His research interests
include SCM, TQM, Lean/Agile/Green Manufacturing and
MCDM Techniques. He is a Life Member of Indian Society
for Technical Education. He has authored a book on
Industrial Management.

References
Achanga, P., et al., 2006. Critical success factors for lean
implementation within SMEs. Journal of Manufacturing
Technology Management, 17 (4), 460471.
Alsaleh, N.A., 2007. Application of quality tools by the
Saudi food industry. The TQM Magazine, 19 (2), 150161.
Bamber, L. and Dale, B.G., 2010. Lean production: a study
of application in a traditional manufacturing environment.
Production Planning and Control, 11 (3), 291298.
Boynlon, A.C. and Zmud, R.W., 1984. An assessment of
critical success factors. Sloan Management Review, 25 (4),
1727.
Brun, A., 2011. Critical success factors of six-sigma
implementations in Italian companies. International
Journal of Production Economics, 131 (1), 158164.
Chan, F.T.S., et al., 2005. Implementation of total productive maintenance: a case study. International Journal of
Production Economics, 95 (1), 7194.
Eid, R., 2009. Factors affecting the success of world class
manufacturing implementation in less developed countries:
the case of Egypt. Journal of Manufacturing Technology
Management, 20 (7), 9891008.
Hall, R., 2004. Lean and Toyota production system. Target,
22 (7), 2227.
Kaynak, H., 2003. The relationship between total quality
management practises and their effects on firm performance. Journal of Operations Management, 21 (4),
405435.

Downloaded by [Abid Haleem] at 07:38 17 January 2012

Production Planning & Control

Kumar, M., et al., 2008. Common myths of six sigma
demystified. International Journal of Quality & Reliability
Management, 25 (8), 878895.
Lal, R. and Haleem, A., 2009. A structural modelling for
e-governance service delivery in rural India. International
Journal of Electronic Governance, 2 (1), 321.
Mandal, A. and Deshmukh, S.G., 1994. Vendor selection
using interpretive structural modelling (ISM). International
Journal of Operation and Production Management, 14 (6),
5259.
Melnyk, S.A. and Handfield, R.B., 1995. Environmentally
responsible manufacturing. In: APICS conference,
Orlando, FL.
Mendoza, L.E., et al., 2007. Critical success factors for a
customer relationship management strategy. Information
and Software Technology, 49 (8), 913945.
Nakane, J. and Hall, R.W., 2007. Holonic manufacturing:
flexibilitythe competitive battle in the 1990s. Production
Planning and Control, 2 (1), 213.
Onuh, S.O. and Hon, K.K.B., 2001. Integration of rapid
prototyping technology into FMS for agile manufacturing.
Integrated Manufacturing Systems, 12 (3), 179186.
Oztays, B., Kaya, T., and Kahraman, C., 2011. Performance
comparison based on customer relationship management
using analytic network process. Expert Systems with
Applications, 38 (8), 97889798.
Rusinko, C.A., 2007. Green manufacturing: an evaluation of
environmentally sustainable manufacturing practises and
their impact on competitive outcomes. IEEE Transactions
on Engineering Management, 54 (3), 445454.
Saaty, T.L., 1977. The analytic hierarchy process. New York:
McGraw Hill.
Sage, A.P., 1977. Interpretive structural modelling: methodology for large-scale systems. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill,
91164.
Sahney, S., Banwet, D.K., and Karunes, S., 2008.
An integrated framework of indices for quality management in education: a faculty perspective. The TQM
Journal, 20 (5), 502519.

13

Saxena, K.B.C. and Sahay, B.S., 2000. Managing IT for worldclass manufacturing: the Indian scenario. International
Journal of Information Management, 20 (1), 2957.
Schonberger, R.J., 1986. World class manufacturing:
the lessons of simplicity applied. New York: The Free Press.
Sen, A. and Sinha, A.P., 2011. IT alignment strategies for
customer relationship management. Decision Support
Systems, 51 (3), 609619.
Shah, R. and Ward, P.T., 2003. Lean manufacturing:
context, practice bundles, and performance. Journal of
Operations Management, 21 (2), 129149.
Shang, S.S.C. and Fen, Y., 2006. Understanding the
technology and organizational elements of customer
relationship management systems. In: Proceedings of the
twelfth Americas conference on information systems
(AMCIS), 46 August 2006, Acapulco, Mexico.
Stephens, K., 2009. Quality principles, philosophies, and
methodologies applicable to the mortgage-finance
supply chain. Quality Management Journal, 16 (3),
2627.
Sushil. 2005. Interpretive Matrix: a tool to aid interpretation
of management and social research. Global Journal of
Flexible System Management, 6 (2), 1120.
Sushil. 2009. Interpretive ranking process. Global Journal of
Flexible Systems Management, 10 (4), 110.
Vokurka, R.J., Lummus, R.R., and Krumwiede, D., 2007.
Improving manufacturing flexibility: the enduring value of
JIT and TQM. SAM Advanced Management Journal, 72
(1), 1422.
Warfield, J.N., 1974. Developing interconnection matrices in
structural modelling. IEEE Transactions on Systems Man
and Cybernetics, 4 (1), 8187.
Wreder, A., Gustavsson, M., and Klefsjo, B., 2007.
Management for sustainable health a TQM-inspired
model based on experiences taken from successful
Swedish organizations. Benchmarking: An International
Journal, 14 (4), 561584.
Zeng, S.X., et al., 2007. Managing information flows for
quality improvement of projects. Measuring Business
Excellence, 11 (3), 3040.