what is supply chain management literature review

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

Download Free PDF

Supply Chain Management: Literature Review and Some Issues

Supply chain Management has assumed a significant role in firm's performance and has attracted serious research attention over the last few years. A literature review reveals a considerable spurt in research in theory and practice of SCM. Combining and informing on features of Supply Management and distribution Management. This integration has resulted in the concept of extended enterprise and the supply chain is now manifest as the collaborative supply chain across intercompany borders to maximize the value across the entire supply chain. A large number of research papers have been published in various journals in last two decades. In this paper an attempt is made to review the status of literature on Supply Chain Management. A literature classification scheme is proposed. A total of 588 articles from 13 refereed academic journals are classified into articles in five methodologies i.e. Exploratory, Normative, Methodology, Literature Review and Hypothesis testing. This literatur...

Related papers

ORiON, 2009

Today the study of supply chain management (SCM) is growing rapidly and provides a great opportunity to do research both empirical and theoretical development. Research opportunities in SCM has been reviewed by many researchers and grouped into many categories. This paper contains a review of research SCM and classify into 7 categories, namely (1) SCM Operational Management & Strategy, (2) knowledge management, (3) Relationship Management, (4) Information Technology in SCM, (5) Supply Chain Design, Logistics & Infrastructure, (6) Global Issues, (7) Environment, Legal & Regulations. The issue in each category and research opportunities will be discussed in this paper. Keywords: Supply Chain Management, Research Opportunities in SCM, Issue in SC

Supply Chain Management (SCM) has been widely researched in numerous application domains during the last two decades. Despite the popularity of SCM research and applications, considerable confusion remains as to its meaning. There are several attempts made by researchers and practitioners to appropriately define SCM, particularly for the service industries. This paper represents the evolution of Supply Chain Management (SCM) as the latest innovations of management. The chronological prospective of SCM in different areas of manufacturing and service industries through various time frames have been illustrated. Finally, this study demonstrates Integrated Tertiary Educational Supply Chain Management (ITESCM) model as the application of SCM in the service industry, which would unlock other applications of SCM in different arenas, particularly service industries. KeywordsSupply chain Management, ITESCM, service industry, education, evolution, SCM

International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 2006

In ongoing scenario, production and administration of a product or services and focus on core activities have lead to a perception that companies or firms are connected together in a network of supply chain. This created a challenge to coordinate the entire supply chain management in a fruitful manner. SCM has its roots since the business originated to provide product and services to the customers. SCM keeps on eye on the flow of information of goods and services in order to service maximum value to the customer. No research have been done till now which focuses on core initiative and constructs of SCM. The purpose of this study is to provide a criteria that flourishes knowledge of supply chain management and provide clear view to the researchers to understand the importance of theoretical investigation in different fields of supply chain management and explore the importance of its performance.. Keyword: Strategic purchasing in supply chain management; supply management; logistics integration; supply network coordination

Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 2018

Purpose This paper aims to review logistics and supply chain management topics where theories have been applied to better understand the supply chain management (SCM) discipline identity. The purpose is threefold: to identify research topics in logistics and supply chain management where one or more theories have been examined; provide commentary on the theories that have been applied to the various logistics and SCM research topics; and to provide reference material and direction for future research. Design/methodology/approach This structured literature review (SLR) examines research papers in logistics and SCM from 1991 to 2015 published in eight leading academic journals. Papers in the data set are grouped by topic and further analyzed in terms of research method, purpose, year and journal. Findings This research categorizes papers by the topics that were studied to understand important insights about how these topics have been examined by researchers. Within each topic area, th...

European Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management, 2000

There can be little dispute that supply chain management is an area of importance in the field of management research, yet there have been few literature reviews on this topic (Bechtel and Mulumudi, 1996, Proceedings of the 1996 NAPM Annual Academic Conference; Harland, 1996, British Journal of Management 7 (special issue), 63–80; Cooper et al., 1997). This paper sets out not to review the supply chain literature per se, but rather to contribute to a critical theory debate through the presentation and use of a framework for the categorisation of literature linked to supply chain management. The study is based on the analysis of a large number of publications on supply chain management (books, journal articles, and conference papers) using a Procite© database from which the literature has been classified according to two criteria: a content- and a methodology-oriented criterion.

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

Operations and Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 2020

Journal of the Academy of Marketing …, 2010

MATEC Web of Conferences

International Journal of Operations & Production Management

Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 2004

International Supply Chain Technology Journal, 2023

Industrial Management & Data Systems, 2000

Journal of Supply Chain Management, 2014

Related topics

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

Information

• Author Services

Initiatives

You are accessing a machine-readable page. In order to be human-readable, please install an RSS reader.

All articles published by MDPI are made immediately available worldwide under an open access license. No special permission is required to reuse all or part of the article published by MDPI, including figures and tables. For articles published under an open access Creative Common CC BY license, any part of the article may be reused without permission provided that the original article is clearly cited. For more information, please refer to https://www.mdpi.com/openaccess .

Feature papers represent the most advanced research with significant potential for high impact in the field. A Feature Paper should be a substantial original Article that involves several techniques or approaches, provides an outlook for future research directions and describes possible research applications.

Feature papers are submitted upon individual invitation or recommendation by the scientific editors and must receive positive feedback from the reviewers.

Editor’s Choice articles are based on recommendations by the scientific editors of MDPI journals from around the world. Editors select a small number of articles recently published in the journal that they believe will be particularly interesting to readers, or important in the respective research area. The aim is to provide a snapshot of some of the most exciting work published in the various research areas of the journal.

Original Submission Date Received: .

• Active Journals
• Find a Journal
• Journal Proposal
• Proceedings Series
• For Authors
• For Reviewers
• For Editors
• For Librarians
• For Publishers
• For Societies
• For Conference Organizers
• Open Access Policy
• Institutional Open Access Program
• Special Issues Guidelines
• Editorial Process
• Research and Publication Ethics
• Article Processing Charges
• Testimonials
• Preprints.org
• SciProfiles
• Encyclopedia

Article Menu

• Subscribe SciFeed
• Recommended Articles
• Google Scholar
• on Google Scholar
• Table of Contents

Find support for a specific problem in the support section of our website.

Please let us know what you think of our products and services.

Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.

JSmol Viewer

Supply chain risk management: literature review.

1. Introduction

2. literature review and research design, 2.1. scrm definitions, 2.2. risk disruption, 2.3. risk management, 2.4. risk detection and mitigation strategies.

• Material collection;
• Descriptive analysis;
• Category selection;
• Material evaluation.

3. Analysis and Discussions

4. research implications in scrm, 5. conclusions, author contributions, conflicts of interest.

• Achrol, Ravi Singh, Torger Reve, and Louis W. Stern. 1983. The Environment of Marketing Channel Dyads: A Framework for Comparative Analysis. Journal of Marketing 47: 55–67. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Alhawari, Samer, Louay Karadsheh, Amine Nehari Talet, and Ebrahim Mansour. 2012. Knowledge-Based Risk Management framework for Information Technology project. International Journal of Information Management 32: 50–65. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Altay, Nezih, and Andres Ramirez. 2010. Impact of Disasters on Firms in Different Sectors: Implications for Supply Chains. Journal of Supply Chain Management 46: 59–80. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Aqlan, Faisal, and Sarah S. Lam. 2016. Supply chain optimization under risk and uncertainty: A case study for high-end server manufacturing. Computers & Industrial Engineering 93: 78–87. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Azad, Nader, Georgios K. D. Saharidis, Hamid Davoudpour, Hooman Malekly, and Seyed Alireza Yektamaram. 2012. Strategies for protecting supply chain networks against facility and transportation disruptions: An improved Benders decomposition approach. Annals of Operations Research 210: 125–63. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bates, Hilary, Matthias Holweg, Michael Lewis, and Nick Oliver. 2007. Motor vehicle recalls: Trends, patterns and emerging issues. Omega 35: 202–10. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Blackhurst, Jennifer, Christopher W. Craighead, Debra Elkins, and Robert Beaudion Handfield. 2005. An empirically derived agenda of critical research issues for managing supply-chain disruptions. International Journal of Production Research 43: 4067–81. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bogataj, David, and Marija Bogataj. 2007. Measuring the supply chain risk and vulnerability in frequency space. International Journal of Production Economics 108: 291–301. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Braithwaite, Alan, and Darren Hall. 1999. Risky business? Critical decisions in supply chain management. Supply Chain Practice 1: 40–55. [ Google Scholar ]
• Brewerton, Paul, and Lynne Millward. 2001. Organizational Research Methods . Thousand Oaks: SAGE. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bryson, Kweku-Muata, Harvey Millar, Anito Joseph, and Ayodele Mobolurin. 2002. Using formal MS/OR modeling to support disaster recovery planning. European Journal of Operational Research 141: 679–88. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bucklin, Louis P. 1965. Postponement, Speculation and the Structure of Distribution Channels. Journal of Marketing Research 2: 26–31. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Cagliano, Anna Corinna, Alberto De Marco, Sabrina Grimaldi, and Carlo Rafele. 2012. An integrated approach to supply chain risk analysis. Journal of Risk Research 15: 817–40. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Caniato, Federico, and James B. Rice Jr. 2003. Building a secure and resilient supply network. Supply Chain Management Review 7: 22–30. [ Google Scholar ]
• Chandra, Charu, and Janis Grabis. 2007. Supply Chain Configuration-Concepts, Solutions, and Applications , 1st ed. New York: Springer. [ Google Scholar ]
• Chapman, Paul, Martin Christopher, Uta Jüttner, Helen Peck, and Richard Wilding. 2002. Identifying and Managing Supply Chain Vulnerability. Logistics & Transport Focus 4: 59–64. [ Google Scholar ]
• Chichilnisky, Graciela, and Geoffrey Heal. 1998. Managing Unknown Risks. The Journal of Portfolio Management 24: 85–91. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Chiou, Jyh-Shen, Lei-Yu Wu, and Jason C. Hsu. 2002. The Adoption of Form Postponement Strategy in a Global Logistics System: The Case of Taiwanese Information Technology Industry. Journal of Business Logistics 23: 107–24. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Choi, Kanghwa, Ram Narasimhan, and Soo Wook Kim. 2012. Postponement strategy for international transfer of products in a global supply chain: A system dynamics examination. Journal of Operations Management 30: 167–79. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chopra, Sunil, and ManMohan S. Sodhi. 2004. Managing risk to avoid supply-chain breakdown: By understanding the variety and interconnectedness of supply-chain risks, managers can tailor balanced, effective risk-reduction strategies for their companies. MIT Sloan Management Review 46: 53. [ Google Scholar ]
• Chopra, Sunil, and ManMohan S. Sodhi. 2014. Reducing the Risk of Supply Chain Disruptions. MIT Sloan Management Review 55: 73–80. [ Google Scholar ]
• Christopher, Martin. 1992. Logistics: The Strategic Issues , 1st ed. New York: Chapman & Hall. [ Google Scholar ]
• Christopher, Martin, and Hau Lee. 2004. Mitigating supply chain risk through improved confidence. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 34: 388–96. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Christopher, Martin, and Helen Peck. 2004. Building the Resilient Supply Chain. The International Journal of Logistics Management 15: 1–14. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Cigolini, Roberto, and Tommaso Rossi. 2010. Managing operational risks along the oil supply chain. Production Planning & Control 21: 452–67. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Colicchia, Claudia, Richard Wilding, and Fernanda Strozzi. 2012. Supply chain risk management: A new methodology for a systematic literature review. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 17: 403–18. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Craighead, Christopher W., Jennifer Blackhurst, M. Johnny Rungtusanatham, and Robert B. Handfield. 2007. The Severity of Supply Chain Disruptions: Design Characteristics and Mitigation Capabilities. Decision Sciences 38: 131–56. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• de Matta, Renato. 2016. Contingency planning during the formation of a supply chain. Annals of Operations Research 257: 45–75. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Dey, Asoke, Paul LaGuardia, and Mahesh Srinivasan. 2011. Building sustainability in logistics operations: A research agenda. Management Research Review 34: 1237–59. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Diehl, Doreen, and Stefan Spinler. 2013. Defining a common ground for supply chain risk management—A case study in the fast-moving consumer goods industry. International Journal of Logistics Research and Applications 16: 311–27. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Dyer, Jeffrey H., and Kentaro Nobeoka. 2000. Creating and managing a high-performance knowledge-sharing network: The Toyota case. Strategic Management Journal 21: 345–67. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ellis, Scott C., Raymond M. Henry, and Jeff Shockley. 2010. Buyer perceptions of supply disruption risk: A behavioral view and empirical assessment. Journal of Operations Management 28: 34–46. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Ellram, Lisa M., and P. Sue Siferd. 1998. Total cost of ownership: A key concept in strategic cost management decisions. Journal of Business Logistics 19: 55. [ Google Scholar ]
• Fernandes, Leão José, Ana Paula Barbosa-Póvoa, and Susana Relvas. 2011. Supply Chain Risk Management Review and a New Framework for Petroleum Supply Chains. In Quantitative Financial Risk Management . Edited by Dash Wu. Heidelberg: Springer, pp. 227–64. [ Google Scholar ]
• Fink, Arlene. 1998. Conducting Research Literature Reviews: From Paper to the Internet . Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. [ Google Scholar ]
• Fugate, Brian, Funda Sahin, and John T. Mentzer. 2006. Supply Chain Management Coordination Mechanisms. Journal of Business Logistics 27: 129–61. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Garvey, Myles D., Steven Carnovale, and Sengun Yeniyurt. 2015. An analytical framework for supply network risk propagation: A Bayesian network approach. European Journal of Operational Research 243: 618–27. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Giunipero, Larry C., and Reham Aly Eltantawy. 2004. Securing the upstream supply chain: A risk management approach. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 34: 698–713. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Goh, Mark, Joseph Y. S. Lim, and Fanwen Meng. 2007. A stochastic model for risk management in global supply chain networks. European Journal of Operational Research 182: 164–73. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gurtu, Amulya, and Jestin Johny. 2019. Potential of blockchain technology in supply chain management: A literature review. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 49: 881–900. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gurtu, Amulya, Mohamad Y. Jaber, and Cory Searcy. 2015. Impact of fuel price and emissions on inventory policies. Applied Mathematical Modelling 39: 1202–16. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gurtu, Amulya, Cory Searcy, and M. Y. Jaber. 2016. Effects of offshore outsourcing on a nation. Sustainable Production and Consumption 7: 94–105. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hachicha, Wafik, and Manel Elmsalmi. 2014. An integrated approach based-structural modeling for risk prioritization in supply network management. Journal of Risk Research 17: 1301–24. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Handfield, Robert B., and Kevin McCormack. 2008. Supply Chain Risk Management: Minimizing Disruptions in Global Sourcing . New York: Auerbach Publications. [ Google Scholar ]
• Harland, C. M., R. C. Lamming, H. Walker, W. E. Phillips, N. D. Caldwell, T. E. Johnsen, L. A. Knight, and J. Zheng. 2006. Supply management: Is it a discipline? International Journal of Operations & Production Management 26: 730–53. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hayes, Robert H., and Steven C. Wheelwright. 1979. Link manufacturing process and product life cycles. Harvard Business Review 57: 133. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hendricks, Kevin B., and Vinod R. Singhal. 2003. The effect of supply chain glitches on shareholder wealth. Journal of Operations Management 21: 501–22. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hendricks, Kevin B., and Vinod R. Singhal. 2009. An Empirical Analysis of the Effect of Supply Chain Disruptions on Long-Run Stock Price Performance and Equity Risk of the Firm. Production and Operations Management 14: 35–52. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Huang, H. Y., Y. C. Chou, and S. Chang. 2009. A dynamic system model for proactive control of dynamic events in full-load states of manufacturing chains. International Journal of Production Research 47: 2485–506. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hubbard, Douglas W. 2007. How to Measure Anything: Finding the Value of "Intangibles" in Business . Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hubbard, Douglas W. 2020. The Failure of Risk Management . Hoboken: Wiley. [ Google Scholar ]
• Jemison, David B. 1987. Risk and the Relationship Among Strategy, Organizational Processes, and Performance. Management Science 33: 1087–101. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Jüttner, Uta. 2005. Supply chain risk management. The International Journal of Logistics Management 16: 120–41. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Jüttner, Uta, Helen Peck, and Martin Christopher. 2010. Supply chain risk management: Outlining an agenda for future research. International Journal of Logistics Research and Applications 6: 197–210. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Khan, Omera, and Bernard Burnes. 2007. Risk and supply chain management: Creating a research agenda. The International Journal of Logistics Management 18: 197–216. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kleindorfer, Paul R., and Germaine H. Saad. 2009. Managing Disruption Risks in Supply Chains. Production and Operations Management 14: 53–68. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Knight, Frank H. 1921. Risk, Uncertainty and Profit . Boston and New York: Houghton Mifflin. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kouvelis, Panos, and Jian Li. 2008. Flexible Backup Supply and the Management of Lead-Time Uncertainty. Production and Operations Management 17: 184–99. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Lavastre, Olivier, Angappa Gunasekaran, and Alain Spalanzani. 2012. Supply chain risk management in French companies. Decision Support Systems 52: 828–38. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lee, Hau L., and Seungjin Whang. 2005. Higher supply chain security with lower cost: Lessons from total quality management. International Journal of Production Economics 96: 289–300. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Lucas, Louise. 2013. Diageo overhauls its supply chain. Financial Times , March 11. [ Google Scholar ]
• Macneil, Ian R. 1978. Contracts: Adjustment of Long-Term Economic Relations under Classical and Neoclassical, and Relational Contract Law. Northwestern University Law Review 72: 854–905. [ Google Scholar ]
• Manuj, Ila, and John T. Mentzer. 2008. Global supply chain risk management strategies. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 38: 192–223. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• MeInyk, Steven A., Gary L. Ragatz, and George A. Zsidisin. 2005. The dark side of supply chain management. Supply Chain Management Review 9: 46–52. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mentzer, John T., James S. Keebler, Nancy W. Nix, Carlo D. Smith, and Zach G. Zacharia. 2001. Defining Supply Chain Management. Journal of Business Logistics 22: 1–25. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Meredith, Jack. 1993. Theory Building through Conceptual Methods. International Journal of Operations & Production Management 13: 3–11. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Miller, Kent D. 1992. A Framework for Integrated Risk Management in International Business. Journal of International Business Studies 23: 311–31. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mingers, John, and Leroy White. 2010. A review of the recent contribution of systems thinking to operational research and management science. European Journal of Operational Research 207: 1147–61. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Mortimer, L. Downey. 2004. The Challenge of Transportation Security. Supply Chain Management Review 8: 9. [ Google Scholar ]
• Narasimhan, Ram, and Srinivas Talluri. 2009. Perspectives on risk management in supply chains. Journal of Operations Management 27: 114–18. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Natarajarathinam, Malini, R. Glenn Richey, Ismail Capar, and Arunachalam Narayanan. 2009. Managing supply chains in times of crisis: A review of literature and insights. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 39: 535–73. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Norrman, Andreas, and Ulf Jansson. 2004. Ericsson’s proactive supply chain risk management approach after a serious sub-supplier accident. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 34: 434–56. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Perry, James H. 1991. Emerging Economic and Technological Futures: Implications for Design and Management of Logistics Systems in the 1990s. Journal of Business Logistics 12: 1. [ Google Scholar ]
• Prasad, Sameer, Rimi Zakaria, and Nezih Altay. 2016. Big data in humanitarian supply chain networks: A resource dependence perspective. Annals of Operations Research 270: 383–413. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Rao, Shashank, and Thomas J. Goldsby. 2009. Supply chain risks: A review and typology. The International Journal of Logistics Management 20: 97–123. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ritchie, Bob, and Clare Brindley. 2007. Supply chain risk management and performance. International Journal of Operations & Production Management 27: 303–22. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Rodd, Zolkos. 2003. Many companies still ignoring supply-chain risks. Business Insurance 37: 21. [ Google Scholar ]
• Roloff, Julia, and Michael S. Aßländer. 2010. Corporate Autonomy and Buyer–Supplier Relationships: The Case of Unsafe Mattel Toys. Journal of Business Ethics 97: 517–34. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Seuring, Stefan, and Martin Müller. 2008. From a literature review to a conceptual framework for sustainable supply chain management. Journal of Cleaner Production 16: 1699–710. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sheffi, Yossi. 2001. Supply Chain Management under the Threat of International Terrorism. The International Journal of Logistics Management 12: 1–11. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sheffi, Yossi. 2005. Resilient Enterprise Overcoming Vulnerability for Competitive Advantage . Cambridge: The MIT Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sheffi, Yossi, and James B. Rice Jr. 2005. A Supply Chain View of the Resilient Enterprise. MIT Sloan Management Review 47: 41. [ Google Scholar ]
• Silva, Juliano, and Surender Reddy. 2011. A framework for reducing disaster risks in supply chains. International Journal of Business Research 11: 112–17. [ Google Scholar ]
• Slack, Nigel, and Michael Lewis. 2002. Operations Strategy , 3rd ed. Harlow: Prentice-Hall. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sodhi, ManMohan S., and S. Lee. 2007. An analysis of sources of risk in the consumer electronics industry. J Oper Res Soc 58: 1430–39. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Sodhi, ManMohan S., Byung-Gak Son, and Christopher S. Tang. 2012. Researchers’ Perspectives on Supply Chain Risk Management. Production and Operations Management 21: 1–13. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sofyalıoğlu, Çiğdem, and Burak Kartal. 2012. The Selection of Global Supply Chain Risk Management Strategies by Using Fuzzy Analytical Hierarchy Process—A Case from Turkey. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences 58: 1448–57. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Spekman, Robert E., and Edward W. Davis. 2004. Risky business: Expanding the discussion on risk and the extended enterprise. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 34: 414–33. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Tang, Christopher S. 2007. Robust strategies for mitigating supply chain disruptions. International Journal of Logistics Research and Applications 9: 33–45. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Tang, Ou, and S. Nurmaya Musa. 2011. Identifying risk issues and research advancements in supply chain risk management. International Journal of Production Economics 133: 25–34. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Teigen, Karl Halvor. 1996. Risk-taking behavior, J. Frank Yates (ed.), Chichester: John Wiley, 1992, 345 pp., ISBN 0-471-92250-1, (hc), ISBN 0-471-95140-4 (pb). Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 9: 73–74. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Thun, Jörn-Henrik, Martin Drüke, and Daniel Hoenig. 2011. Managing uncertainty—An empirical analysis of supply chain risk management in small and medium-sized enterprises. International Journal of Production Research 49: 5511–25. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Vahid Nooraie, S., and Mahour Mellat Parast. 2016. Mitigating supply chain disruptions through the assessment of trade-offs among risks, costs and investments in capabilities. International Journal of Production Economics 171: 8–21. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Vanany, Iwan, Suhaiza Zailani, and Nyoman Pujawan. 2009. Supply Chain Risk Management: Literature Review and Future Research. International Journal of Information Systems and Supply Chain Management 2: 16–33. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Verbano, Chiara, and Karen Venturini. 2011. Development paths of risk management: Approaches, methods and fields of application. Journal of Risk Research 14: 519–50. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Véronneau, Simon, and Jacques Roy. 2014. Security at the source: Securing today’s critical supply chain networks. Journal of Transportation Security 7: 359–71. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Vorst, Jack G. A. J., Andrie J. M. Beulens, W. Wit, and Paul Beek. 1998. Supply Chain Management in Food Chains: Improving Performance by Reducing Uncertainty. International Transactions in Operational Research 5: 487–99. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wagner, Stephan M., and Christoph Bode. 2006. An empirical investigation into supply chain vulnerability. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management 12: 301–12. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wang, Xihui, Yunfei Wu, Liang Liang, and Zhimin Huang. 2014. Service outsourcing and disaster response methods in a relief supply chain. Annals of Operations Research 240: 471–87. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Williams, Zachary, Matthew Waller, Jason E. Lueg, and Stephen A. LeMay. 2008. Supply chain security: An overview and research agenda. The International Journal of Logistics Management 19: 254–81. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Williamson, Oliver E. 1979. Transaction-Cost Economics: The Governance of Contractual Relations. The Journal of Law and Economics 22: 233–61. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wilson, Martha C. 2007. The impact of transportation disruptions on supply chain performance. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review 43: 295–320. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wu, Ing-Long, Cheng-Hung Chuang, and Chien-Hua Hsu. 2014. Information sharing and collaborative behaviors in enabling supply chain performance: A social exchange perspective. International Journal of Production Economics 148: 122–32. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Xanthopoulos, Anastasios, Dimitrios Vlachos, and Eleftherios Iakovou. 2012. Optimal newsvendor policies for dual-sourcing supply chains: A disruption risk management framework. Computers & Operations Research 39: 350–57. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Xu, Jie, Jun Zhuang, and Zigeng Liu. 2015. Modeling and mitigating the effects of supply chain disruption in a defender–attacker game. Annals of Operations Research 236: 255–70. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zsidisin, George A. 2003. A grounded definition of supply risk. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management 9: 217–24. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]

Click here to enlarge figure

Share and Cite

Gurtu, A.; Johny, J. Supply Chain Risk Management: Literature Review. Risks 2021 , 9 , 16. https://doi.org/10.3390/risks9010016

Gurtu A, Johny J. Supply Chain Risk Management: Literature Review. Risks . 2021; 9(1):16. https://doi.org/10.3390/risks9010016

Gurtu, Amulya, and Jestin Johny. 2021. "Supply Chain Risk Management: Literature Review" Risks 9, no. 1: 16. https://doi.org/10.3390/risks9010016

Article Metrics

Article access statistics, further information, mdpi initiatives, follow mdpi.

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Open access
• Published: 27 September 2024

Assessing Southeast Asia countries’ potential in the semiconductor supply chain: an objectively weighting multi-criteria decision-making approach

• Chia-Nan Wang   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-2374-3830 1 ,
• Nhat-Luong Nhieu   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-9732-601X 1 ,
• Chen-Te Chiang 1 &
• Yen-Hui Wang 2  

Humanities and Social Sciences Communications volume  11 , Article number:  1260 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

Metrics details

• Science, technology and society

The semiconductor industry serves as a key enabler of technological progress and economic growth on a global scale. With Southeast Asia emerging as a region of increasing importance in the global supply chain landscape, understanding the potential for its countries to participate in the semiconductor supply chain becomes crucial. Despite extensive research on global supply chain dynamics, a focused analysis on the role of Southeast Asia within this crucial industry has been notably absent, particularly considering recent geopolitical and economic shifts. This gap has been filled by employing a rigorously designed Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) approach that integrates the Criteria Importance Through Intercriteria Correlation (CRITIC) method and the Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS). Data on fifteen indicators, including economic stability, technological innovation capacity, and infrastructural capabilities, were collected and identified through an extensive literature review and consultations with stakeholders. These indicators were weighted using the CRITIC method to reflect their relative importance, and each country’s position relative to an ideal solution was assessed using the TOPSIS method. It was revealed that countries such as Singapore and Malaysia possess significant potential due to their advanced technological infrastructure and stable economic environments. Other countries, like Vietnam and Indonesia, were also found to exhibit promising capabilities, albeit with certain limitations. The study highlights the varying strengths and strategic areas that should be considered by policymakers and investors to enhance integration into the global semiconductor supply chain. Significant contributions to the strategic decision-making process have been made by providing a nuanced analysis of the region’s readiness and identifying specific areas for investment and policy intervention. By offering a methodological framework that can be adapted to other regions and sectors, not only has an existing research void been filled, but the practical understanding of effectively leveraging Southeast Asia’s potential in the semiconductor industry has also been enhanced.

Introduction

The semiconductor supply chain plays a crucial and indispensable role in today’s technology-driven world. Semiconductors are the foundation of modern electronics, powering everything from smartphones and laptops to advanced medical devices and automotive systems (Saif M. Khan, Alexander Mann, & Peterson, 2021). According to the Worldwide Semiconductor Trade Statistics (WSTS), as shown in Fig. 1 , the forecasted global semiconductor market in 2024 is US$576 billion (WSTS Semiconductor Market Forecast Spring 2023, 2023 ). The supply chain encompasses a complex network of companies involved in various stages, including semiconductor design, fabrication, assembly, testing, and distribution (Mönch, Uzsoy, & Fowler, 2018a , 2018b ). It is a highly interconnected and globalized system, where any disruptions or delays in one part can have far-reaching impacts on industries and economies worldwide (Kuo, Ponsignon, Ehm, & Chien, 2019 ). Ensuring a robust and resilient semiconductor supply chain is vital for maintaining innovation, competitiveness, and the continued advancement of technology across sectors (Chang et al., 2021 ). As demand for electronics and cutting-edge technologies continues to surge, effective supply chain management becomes even more critical in meeting the needs of consumers and businesses alike. In the semiconductor supply chain, one of the main players is the semiconductor manufacturers, also known as semiconductor fabs (Keil, 2017 ). These companies are responsible for the design, development, and production of integrated circuits and other semiconductor devices. They are at the forefront of technological advancements and play a pivotal role in driving innovation in the electronics industry (Cui, Li, & Wang, 2021 ). Semiconductor manufacturers operate state-of-the-art fabrication facilities that utilize highly sophisticated processes to create microchips on silicon wafers. These facilities are known as fabs, and they require substantial investments in terms of capital, research and development, and skilled workforce (Okada & Shirahada, 2022 ). Leading semiconductor manufacturers often have multiple fabs strategically located around the world to cater to global demand (Hsiao, Hibiya, Nakano, Cheng, & Wen, 2015 ). Some of the major semiconductor manufacturers in the industry include Intel, Samsung Electronics, Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC), and GlobalFoundries, among others (Tsujimura, 2020 ). These companies are consistently pushing the boundaries of semiconductor technology, striving to make chips smaller, faster, and more energy efficient (Hwang & Lu, 2013 ). As the demand for advanced electronics and cutting-edge technologies increases, semiconductor manufacturers must continuously enhance their capabilities and capacities to stay competitive. They collaborate closely with various stakeholders in the supply chain, such as semiconductor equipment suppliers, materials providers, and design houses, to ensure a seamless flow of products from concept to market (Lin, Spiegler, & Naim, 2018 ). Given the critical role they play in the semiconductor supply chain, these companies’ decisions and actions can significantly impact the global technology landscape and have far-reaching consequences for industries, economies, and consumers worldwide (Semiconductor Supply Chain: Policy Considerations from Selected Experts for Reducing Risks and Mitigating Shortages, 2022 ). As a result, semiconductor manufacturers are constantly navigating the challenges of supply and demand fluctuations, technological complexity, and geopolitical factors to maintain their position as key players driving innovation in the semiconductor industry.

Projected global semiconductor market size from 2020 to 2024. Source: (WSTS Semiconductor Market Forecast Spring 2023, 2023 ).

The semiconductor supply chain is a highly globalized and interconnected ecosystem, and countries participate based on their strengths and priorities, working together to drive innovation and meet the demands of a technology-driven world as shown in Table 1 (Khan et al., 2021 ). For example, the fabrication segment contributes 38.4% of the value of the entire semiconductor supply chain. In this segment, Taiwan’s market share is 19%. Some countries have established themselves as major players in semiconductor manufacturing, hosting semiconductor fabs operated by both domestic and international companies (Bridwell & Richard, 1998 ). These countries invest heavily in infrastructure, research and development, and skilled labor to attract semiconductor manufacturers. China, the United States, Taiwan, South Korea, and Japan are among the key countries with a significant presence in semiconductor fabrication (Chau, 2018 ). Southeast Asian countries are increasingly playing a vital role in the semiconductor supply chain, driven by their growing electronics market and the rise of semiconductor manufacturing hubs in countries like Malaysia, Singapore, and the Philippines (Pasadilla, 2023 ; Salleh, Musaddad, & Elyas, 2023 ). These nations attract investment from multinational semiconductor companies with competitive facilities and skilled labor. Additionally, Southeast Asian countries are making strides in semiconductor design and intellectual property development, fostering innovation, and building a talented workforce (Maini, 2023 ). By focusing on supporting industries, such as semiconductor equipment and materials, and investing in research and development, they are positioning themselves as important contributors to the semiconductor industry’s growth. Government policies and incentives, along with regional cooperation, further enhance their chances in the global semiconductor landscape (Kim, 2023 ). Leveraging their strategic location and political stability, Southeast Asia countries are poised to become reliable and resilient partners in the semiconductor supply chain amid geopolitical disruptions, contributing to the industry’s continued success.

The application of Multiple Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) is particularly advantageous for assessing Southeast Asian countries’ roles in the semiconductor supply chain. MCDM facilitates complex decision-making by systematically evaluating multiple conflicting criteria, such as strategic location, political stability, and resilience to geopolitical disruptions—key factors in identifying potential regional leaders in the semiconductor industry (Wang, Nhieu, & Liu, 2024 ). However, there is a notable research gap in applying MCDM specifically to analyze how these countries can leverage their unique geopolitical and economic attributes to enhance their integration and performance within the global semiconductor market. Addressing this gap could provide deeper insights into effectively harnessing the strengths of Southeast Asian countries, ensuring a more resilient and successful semiconductor supply chain on a global scale.

This study aims to assess the ability and opportunity to join the supply chain of Southeast Asian countries in the near future. Accordingly, the factors, indicators, and criteria for assessing the status and potential of Southeast Asian countries are determined. Based on those indicators, the potential, advantages, and limitations of each Southeast Asian country are analyzed and evaluated through an integrated MCDM approach. The method employed in this study takes inspiration from two established decision-making methodologies: CRITIC (Criteria Importance Through Intercriteria Correlation) and TOPSIS (Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution). The CRITIC method is chosen for its robust ability to objectively determine the weights of various criteria based on their statistical variance and inter-correlations, without necessitating subjective input from decision-makers. This attribute is particularly beneficial in the semiconductor industry, where an objective, data-driven approach is crucial for minimizing biases in strategic decision-making. Furthermore, TOPSIS is utilized due to its efficiency in handling multiple criteria, effectively identifying solutions that are closest to the ideal solution and farthest from the nadir point. This capability is vital for providing a clear, rank-ordered result that underscores which countries are best suited for integration into the semiconductor supply chain, based on the specified criteria. The ability of TOPSIS to accommodate both beneficial and non-beneficial attributes makes it exceptionally suitable for evaluating the complex facets of semiconductor supply chain readiness. The integration of CRITIC and TOPSIS provides a comprehensive and systematic framework for assessing and comparing the potential of Southeast Asian countries within the semiconductor industry. This approach, though not commonly applied in existing regional supply chain analyses, offers a novel contribution to the field by ensuring that the evaluation is not only extensive but also anchored in rigorous quantitative analysis. Such a methodological alignment enhances the reliability and validity of the study’s conclusions, making it a transparent, reproducible, and rigorous framework well-suited for addressing the intricate dynamics of the semiconductor industry’s supply chain in Southeast Asia.

The structure of this article includes problems statement and research objectives in Section 1, Literature review in Section 2, Methodology in Section 3, Numerical results in Section 4, and Conclusions in Section 5.

Literature review

The semiconductor supply chain studies.

The global semiconductor supply chain has been a subject of extensive research due to its crucial role in technological advancement and economic growth. Scholars have investigated various aspects of the semiconductor supply chain, including its structure, challenges, resilience, and the impact of disruptions. Several studies have examined the structure and coordination mechanisms within the global semiconductor supply chain. Researchers have explored the relationships between semiconductor manufacturers, suppliers of raw materials and equipment, distributors, and end-users (Bui et al.; Guan et al., 2020 ; Lohmer, Silva, & Lasch, 2022 ; Khan et al., 2021 ; Shekarian & Flapper, 2021 ). They have analyzed strategies for effective coordination, collaboration, and information sharing among the supply chain partners to optimize production, reduce lead times, and enhance overall supply chain performance. Given the long lead times and complex manufacturing processes in the semiconductor industry, risk management and resilience have received significant attention in the literature (Craighead, Blackhurst, Rungtusanatham, & Handfield, 2007 ). Studies have focused on identifying and mitigating risks, such as supply disruptions, natural disasters, geopolitical tensions, and demand volatility (Guan et al., 2020 ; Gurtu & Johny, 2021 ; Hasan, Bellenstedt, & Islam, 2023 ). The recent global shortages and bottlenecks in the semiconductor industry have spurred research on the causes, impacts, and potential solutions (Semiconductor Supply Chain: Policy Considerations from Selected Experts for Reducing Risks and Mitigating Shortages, 2022 ). Scholars have investigated factors contributing to the shortages, such as increased demand, supply constraints, and supply chain vulnerabilities (Hasan et al., 2023 ). The global nature of the semiconductor supply chain necessitates collaboration and coordination across borders. Researchers have examined collaborative practices, partnerships, and alliances among semiconductor companies, suppliers, research institutions, and government entities (Bui et al.; Khan et al., 2021 ; Shekarian & Flapper, 2021 ). With growing concerns about environmental sustainability, research has also focused on sustainable practices in the semiconductor supply chain. Scholars have investigated energy efficiency, waste management, recycling, and the reduction of environmental impact throughout the lifecycle of semiconductor products (Tsai, 2023 ; Yang & Wang, 2020 ). The semiconductor supply chain is closely intertwined with technological advancements and innovation. Researchers have explored the impact of technological developments, such as advanced manufacturing processes, Internet of Things (IoT), artificial intelligence (AI), and blockchain, on the supply chain (Frederico, 2021 ; Lohmer et al., 2022 ). Scholars have proposed strategies for building resilient supply chains, addressing shortages, enhancing collaboration, promoting sustainability, and leveraging technological advancements in the semiconductor industry. This literature review demonstrates the breadth of research on the global semiconductor supply chain, covering various dimensions such as structure, coordination, risk management, collaboration, sustainability, and technological advancements. The existing body of knowledge provides valuable insights for practitioners, policymakers, and researchers seeking to understand and improve the efficiency, resilience, and sustainability of the semiconductor supply chain on a global scale. Research on the semiconductor supply chain in the Southeast Asian region has garnered significant attention due to the region’s potential and opportunities in the global semiconductor industry (Lin et al., 2018 ; Mönch et al., 2018a ). Scholars have conducted numerous studies, examining various aspects of the semiconductor supply chain within Southeast Asian countries (Ehm et al., 2019 ; Lin et al., 2018 ). These studies have encompassed comparative analyses of Southeast Asian countries to assess their industry development, competitiveness, and supply chain capabilities (Ehm et al., 2019 ; Mönch et al., 2018a ). They have explored factors such as strategic location, investment climate, skilled labor force, domestic market potential, technological capabilities, and government initiatives (Ehm et al., 2019 ; Lin et al., 2018 ). Collaboration and partnerships within the industry have also been investigated, focusing on regional integration programs, research collaborations, joint ventures, and industry-government partnerships aimed at strengthening the semiconductor supply chain in Southeast Asian (Ravenhill, 2016 ; Trinidad, 2018 ). The role of government policies and investment incentives in promoting the semiconductor industry has been scrutinized, including tax incentives, research funding, infrastructure development, and intellectual property rights protection (Chang et al., 2021 ).

Collectively, as shown in Table 2 , this literature review provides insights into the semiconductor supply chain in Southeast Asian, informing policymakers, industry leaders, and researchers about industry development, collaboration opportunities, risk management, government policies, technological advancements, and sustainability practices. Further research in this field can contribute to identifying and enhancing the competitiveness of the semiconductor supply chain within Southeast Asia countries.

Multiple criteria decision-making methods’ trends and applications

MCDM is a dynamic field of research that addresses the complexities of decision-making involving multiple conflicting criteria (Tzeng & Shen, 2017 ). MCDM methods were witnessing significant advancements driven by emerging trends. Integration with Artificial Intelligence (AI) techniques, such as machine learning and deep learning, was enhancing decision-making processes, while big data and data analytics were enabling the handling of large datasets for better insights (Nguyen, Nguyen, & Nguyen, 2022 ; Tronnebati, El Yadari, & Jawab, 2022 ). Multi-criteria optimization sought to find optimal solutions considering all objectives simultaneously, and sustainability concerns prompted MCDM’s application to address environmental and green-related decisions (C.-N. Wang, Nhieu, Chung, & Pham, 2021 ; C.-N. Wang, Nhieu, & Tran, 2021 ). Moreover, group decision-making, multi-level structures, and hierarchical approaches were accommodated to address complex real-world scenarios (Liu, Eckert, & Earl, 2020 ; J. Rezaei, 2015 ). MCDM methods were diversifying their application domains, including healthcare, smart cities, and finance, and being adapted for real-time decision support (Deveci, Pamucar, & Gokasar, 2021 ; Ramírez Ríos, Ramírez Polo, Jimenez Barros, Castro Bolaño, & Maldonado, 2013 ). These trends underscored the growing relevance of MCDM in making informed decisions across diverse fields, paving the way for continued research and innovation in this essential area. Another of the significant trends in the development of MCDM methods was the integration of fuzzy theory (Mardani, Jusoh, & Zavadskas, 2015 ). Fuzzy theory, rooted in fuzzy logic, deals with handling uncertainty and imprecision in decision-making processes(Djenadic et al., 2022 ; Le & Nhieu, 2022a , 2022b ; Peng & Li, 2022 ).

Distance-based MCDM methods are a family of approaches that use distance metrics to assess the proximity of alternatives to reference points or ideal solutions (Yao & Wu, 2000 ). These methods are particularly useful when there is no explicit mathematical function to aggregate criteria or when dealing with non-numeric or qualitative data (Donyatalab et al., 2022 ). Distance-based MCDM methods offer some advantages, such as simplicity, transparency, and ease of implementation, particularly when dealing with qualitative or ordinal data (Ataei, Mahmoudi, Feylizadeh, & Li, 2020 ; Kutlu Gündoğdu & Kahraman, 2019 ; P. Wang, Zhu, & Wang, 2016 ). In which, CRITIC and TOPSIS are two robust Distance-based MCDM methods (Chodha, Dubey, Kumar, Singh, & Kaur, 2022 ; Peng, Zhang, & Luo, 2020 ; M. Rezaei, Mostafaeipour, Qolipour, & Tavakkoli-Moghaddam, 2018 ; Sánchez-Lozano, Teruel-Solano, Soto-Elvira, & Socorro García-Cascales, 2013 ; Sandberg, Klementsen, Muller, de Andres, & Maillet, 2016 ). CRITIC focuses on determining the relative importance of criteria in a decision problem based on their intercriteria correlations (Diakoulaki, Mavrotas, & Papayannakis, 1995 ). It involves two main steps: first, the intercriteria correlations are calculated based on the performance of each alternative against the criteria. These correlations represent how criteria are related to each other. Second, the importance weights of criteria are derived from the intercriteria correlations. The idea is that criteria with higher correlations among them are considered more important in the decision-making process. CRITIC provides a systematic way to allocate appropriate weights to each criterion, considering the relationships between criteria, which can lead to more accurate and insightful decision outcomes. TOPSIS is used to identify the most suitable alternative based on its similarity to the ideal solution (Kutlu Gündoğdu & Kahraman, 2019 ). In TOPSIS, each alternative is represented as a vector of criteria values, and the distance between each alternative and the ideal solution (maximizing criteria) and the anti-ideal solution (minimizing criteria) is calculated using a distance metric (e.g., Euclidean distance). The relative closeness of each alternative to the ideal and anti-ideal solutions determines its ranking. TOPSIS is a straightforward and intuitive method that provides a clear ranking of alternatives based on their overall performance, making it widely used in various decision-making scenarios (Youssef, 2020 ). Inspired by these two methods, this study proposes an integrated MCDM approach based on distance.

The MCDM applications in semiconductor industries

MCDM techniques have seen diverse applications across various facets of the semiconductor industry, adapting to strategic challenges and opportunities as shown in Table 3 . For instance, Chen et al. utilized SCDT (the selectively calibrated derivation technique)—GFTOPSIS (generalized fuzzy TOPSIS) for optimal facility location in response to geopolitical pressures, demonstrating its efficacy in Singapore (Chen, Wang, & Jiang, 2023 ). Meanwhile, Saputro et al. integrated Fuzzy AHP (Analytical Hierarchy Process) and Interval TOPSIS for robust supplier selection, blending multi-criteria decision-making with simulation-optimization to manage supplier risks effectively (Saputro, Figueira, & Almada-Lobo, 2023 ). He and Chen applied DEMATEL (The decision making trial and evaluation laboratory) and ANP (The analytic network process) to develop a green supplier evaluation system in China, emphasizing environmental responsibility (He & Chen, 2023 ). Wang et al. employed FRST-PSO (fuzzy rough set theory with particle swarm optimization) and Fuzzy DEMATEL to dissect the complexities of sustainability reporting in China’s semiconductor sector, prioritizing strategic improvements for sustainability practices (Wang, Wang, & Ou, 2023 ). Recently, Moktadir and Ren innovated with a DFS (Decomposed Fuzzy Set)-based Delphi WINGS (Weighted Influence Non-linear Gauge System) and QFD (Quality Function Deployment) model to assess resilience in global supply chains, highlighting the urgency of addressing geopolitical tensions and natural disasters (Moktadir & Ren, 2024 ). In the same year, Magdy et al. explored the potential of blockchain to mitigate the bullwhip effect within the supply chain, particularly in the context of the Middle East (Magdy, Grida, & Hussein, 2024 ). Besides, Qiu et al. combined several advanced analytics techniques to facilitate a sustainable transition within the semiconductor supply chain (Qiu, Tseng, Zhang, Huang, & Wu, 2024 ). These studies collectively showcase the expansive use of MCDM methods to address both operational and strategic challenges in the semiconductor industry, yet they highlight a critical research gap in applying these methods specifically to evaluate and enhance the semiconductor supply chain capabilities of Southeast Asian countries. This study aims to fill this gap by focusing on the unique attributes and strategic needs of Southeast Asia, utilizing a tailored MCDM approach that leverages the strengths of CRITIC and TOPSIS methodologies to offer a nuanced evaluation of the region’s potential and limitations in the semiconductor industry.

Methodology

To conduct the assessment of Southeast Asia countries’ ability to participate in the semiconductor supply chain, this study proposes a multi-criteria assessment framework, which is inspired by the CRITIC and TOPSIS methods. As shown in Fig. 2 , Phase I of the proposed methodology focuses on setting a solid foundation through a comprehensive literature review, indicator identification, and meticulous data collection. The literature search was conducted using multiple academic databases such as Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar. Search criteria were defined to include key terms like “semiconductor supply chain,” “multi-criteria decision making,” “CRITIC method,” and “TOPSIS,” combined with Boolean operators to refine and target the retrieval of relevant literature effectively. The selection process started with screening titles and abstracts for relevance, followed by an in-depth review of full texts to confirm their applicability to the study’s objectives. This ensured the inclusion of the most pertinent and recent publications, thus encapsulating the latest insights and developments in the field over the last 5 years. Following the literature review, a systematic data collection process was undertaken to gather quantitative data necessary for developing a robust case study. This involved identifying key variables and indicators from the literature that influence semiconductor supply chain efficiency and effectiveness. Data sources encompassing industry reports, governmental publications, and statistical databases relevant to the semiconductor industry in Southeast Asia. Thereby, the decision matrix, which have \(m\) alternatives and \(n\) indicators, is established in Phase I.

The flowchart of the proposed MCDM methodology for semiconductor supply chain assessment.

In Phase II, the decision matrix is normalized according to the min-max method. The min-max normalization method was chosen because it is suitable for determining the standard deviation within the indicators and the linear correlation coefficient between the indicators, in later steps. The values of the standard deviations and linear correlation coefficients refer to the amount of information that the indicators provide. Based on that amount of information, the weights of the indicators are determined. In this study, the min-max normalization method was selected for its efficacy in scaling the data into a fixed range—typically [0,1]—which simplifies comparison across different units and magnitudes. This method is particularly suitable for our data as it preserves the original distribution of values while adjusting for scale, ensuring that no single indicator disproportionately influences the outcome due to its unit or range of values. This standardization is crucial in a multi-criteria decision-making framework where indicators such as GDP, which might naturally have higher numerical values, are compared alongside lower magnitude indicators like the Global Peace Index. The weighting of indicators was conducted using the CRITIC method, which provides an objective basis for assigning weights by considering both the contrast intensity (measured by the standard deviation) and the conflict (measured by the correlation coefficients among indicators). This method was chosen because it reduces subjective bias in determining the importance of each criterion, which is essential in ensuring that the decision-making process is as robust and defensible as possible. By utilizing statistical variance and correlations, the CRITIC method quantitatively assesses how much unique information each indicator contributes to the overall evaluation, enhancing the reliability of the analysis. These methodologies impact the results by ensuring that all indicators are equally considered in their correct context and significance, leading to a balanced and nuanced assessment of each country’s potential in the semiconductor supply chain. The use of these specific normalization and weighting methods enhances the analytical rigor of the study, providing a transparent and methodologically sound basis for the comparative analysis conducted. The procedure of this phase is described in the following steps:

Step II-1: Consider the decision matrix \(A\) as shown in Eq. ( 1 ). In which, \({a}_{{ij}}\) represents the rating of the \({ith}\) alternative corresponding to the \({jth}\) indicator. The min-max normalized decision matrix \(B\) is constructed according to Eqs. ( 2 , 3 ).

The \({BI}\) and \({NBI}\) represent the set of benefit indicators and non-benefit indicators, respectively.

Step II-2: For each indictor, the evaluation vector ( \({v}_{j}\) ) is define as Eq. ( 4 ).

Step II-3: Determine the standard deviation within each indicator according to Eq. ( 5 ).

Step II-4: For each pair of the \({jth}\) indicator and \({kth}\) indicator, the linear correlation coefficient is calculated. As a result, the correlation coefficient matrix ( \(R\) ) according to Eq. ( 6 ).

where \({r}_{{jk}}\) represents the linear correlation coefficient between the vectors \({v}_{j}\) and \({v}_{k}\) .

Step II-5: The amount of information content of \({jth}\) indicator is estimated as Eq. ( 7 ).

Step II-6: The indicators’ weights are determined according to Eq. ( 8 ).

In Phase III, the overall score of alternatives is determined based on the distance between them and the reference points. The reference points applied in this framework are ideal and negative ideal solutions. Because the calculations in this Phase are based on distance, the vector normalization method is believed to be more suitable. The procedure of Phase III is described in the following steps:

Step III-1: The vector normalized decision matrix \(C\) is constructed according to Eqs. ( 9 , 10 ).

Step III-2: The weighted vector normalized decision matrix \(T\) is constructed according to Eqs. ( 11 , 12 ).

Step III-3: The ideal solution ( \({X}^{+}\) ) and negative ideal solution ( \({X}^{-}\) ) is determined according to Eqs. ( 13 – 16 ).

Step III-4: The Euclidean distance from the ideal ( \({D}_{i}^{+}\) ) and negative ideal ( \({D}_{i}^{-}\) ) of alternatives is determined according to Eqs. ( 17 , 18 ).

Step III-5: The overall score of alternatives is calculated according to Eq. ( 19 ). The higher the overall score, the better alternative.

Indicator identification and data collection

The selection of indicators for this case study was meticulously justified through an extensive literature review, pinpointing the key dimensions critical for evaluating the capabilities of countries within the semiconductor supply chain (Chang et al., 2021 ; Hsiao et al., 2015 ; Kuo et al., 2019 ; Mönch et al., 2018a ; Saif M. Khan et al., 2021 ; Sugano, 1994 ). Stability, research and development (R&D), technology infrastructure, and economic efficiency were identified as pivotal. Stability is crucial as it affects investment decisions and the operational environment essential in semiconductor production. R&D was chosen for its role in fostering innovation and technological advancement, which are vital for maintaining competitiveness in this rapidly evolving industry. Technology Infrastructure is integral for supporting sophisticated manufacturing processes characteristic of semiconductor production. Lastly, Economic Efficiency assesses how effectively countries convert their technological capabilities into productive outputs, a vital factor for sustaining competitive advantage in the high-tech sector. These indicators collectively provide a robust framework for assessing each country’s potential and strategic fit within the global semiconductor supply chain, ensuring the study’s alignment with industry-specific requirements and strategic objectives.

In this study, the data collection process was meticulously designed to ensure reliability and accuracy, crucial for the robust assessment of Southeast Asian countries’ capabilities in the semiconductor supply chain. Data were systematically gathered from transparent, trustworthy, and open databases published by recognized international organizations such as the World Bank, the UNESCO Institute for Statistics, the World Intellectual Property Organization, and the United Nations Industrial Development Organization. These sources provided up-to-date and standardized data across various indicators including economic performance, technological infrastructure, educational achievements, and innovation capacities. The time frame for the data collection spanned the most recent full calendar year available to ensure relevance and applicability to current conditions. Each data source was vetted for its credibility and consistency, with data extraction being carefully documented to facilitate reproducibility and transparency in research methods. The detailed breakdown of the data sources and the specific indicators sourced from each is systematically presented in Table 4 of the study. Despite the high quality of the sources, potential biases and limitations in the data collection were also considered. These include the inherent lag in data publication, which may not fully capture the most recent industry developments or economic shifts. Additionally, while these international databases provide extensive coverage, variations in data reporting standards across countries could introduce discrepancies. Recognizing these challenges, the study undertook additional verification steps where possible and acknowledges these limitations in interpreting the findings. This thorough approach to data collection not only strengthens the credibility of the research but also provides a solid foundation for analyzing the dynamics of the semiconductor supply chain in Southeast Asia. Accordingly, fifteen indicators are considered in this study to assess the opportunities of Southeast Asia countries to participate in the global semiconductor supply chain as summarized in Table 4 . The description, units of the indicators are presented in Table A1 , Table A2 , Table A3 , and Table A4 in the supplementary information. Because statistical data for countries are published at unequal intervals, this study uses the most recent published data for each country. This assumption is seen as a major limitation of this study.

Indicator weighting

The result of the data collection process is the formation of a decision matrix as shown in Table 5 . The purpose of this phase is to determine the weights of the indicators objectively based on the nature of the data. The min-max normalization process is used to transform raw data with different scales and units into a common scale according to Eq. ( 3 ). The purpose of min-max normalization is to bring all the criteria to a comparable range between 0 and 1, without distorting the relative relationships among the criteria. Accordingly, the min-max normalized decision matrix is construct as shown in Table 6 .

Then, the standard deviation of each indicator is calculated according to Eq. ( 5 ). As shown in Fig. 3 , it seems that the Global Occurrences from Natural Disasters (I2) has the highest standard deviation (0.490), suggesting that the data points for this indicator are more widely spread from the mean compared to others, indicating higher variability. The government effectiveness (I3), GDP (I11), E-participation Index (I12), ICT Development index (I13), and Logistics performance index (I14) have relatively low standard deviations (ranging from 0.306 to 0.331), implying that these indicators have less variation, and the data points are closer to the mean. The other indicators have moderate standard deviations, indicating a moderate amount of variation in their respective datasets.

The standard deviation of each indicator across countries was calculated using the CRITIC method.

The next factor affecting the amount of information in the data is the correlation between indicators. As mentioned in Step II-4, the linear correlation coefficient between indicators’ data is determined as shown in Fig. 4 . Those correlation coefficient measures the strength and direction of a linear relationship between two variables. It ranges from −1 to +1, where −1 indicates a perfect negative linear relationship, +1 indicates a perfect positive linear relationship, and 0 indicates no linear relationship.

Linear correlation coefficients among evaluation indicators derived by CRITIC method.

The results show that most indicator pairs have positive correlation coefficients, suggesting that they have a positive linear relationship. This means that when one indicator increases, the other tends to increase as well, and vice versa. The strongest positive correlation is between Logistics performance index (I14) and Competitive Industrial Performance Index (I15), with a correlation coefficient of 0.965, indicating a very strong positive linear relationship between them. Some indicator pairs exhibit negative correlation coefficients, indicating a negative linear relationship. This means that when one indicator increases, the other tends to decrease, and vice versa. The strongest negative correlation is between Patents applications (I8) and Logistics performance index (I14), with a correlation coefficient of −0.892, indicating a very strong negative linear relationship between them. There are also some weakly correlated indicator pairs, as seen in low correlation coefficient values (close to 0).

Based on standard deviation and correlation coefficient, the nature of the data reflects the amount of information content of the indicators, which are calculated according to Eq. ( 7 ) and presented in Table 7 . The more information, the greater the weight. According to Eq. ( 8 ), the indicator weighting is performed and presented as Fig. 5 .

Weights assigned to each indicator based on CRITIC method analysis.

According to the results, they can be classified into three distinct categories based on their assigned weight values. The categorization of indicators by weight values into high (above 10%), moderate (between 5% and 10%), and low (below 5%) was strategically chosen to reflect the varying levels of impact these indicators have on the overall assessment of countries’ capabilities within the semiconductor supply chain. This threshold-based categorization is rooted in statistical analysis and the principle of diminishing returns, where the most significant factors are assumed to have a disproportionately higher impact on the outcome relative to others.

The high weight threshold of over 10% was designated to identify indicators that are critical drivers of success in the semiconductor industry. These indicators, such as Patents Applications, Global Occurrences from Natural Disasters, and Graduates in Science and Engineering, are considered essential because they directly influence a country’s innovation capacity, resilience to disruptions, and availability of skilled manpower, respectively. These factors are pivotal in determining a country’s ability to sustain and grow within the highly competitive and innovation-driven semiconductor sector.

The moderate weight category (between 5% and 10%) encompasses indicators that, while significant, do not singularly dictate the outcome of the assessment but collectively contribute to a nuanced understanding of a country’s industrial and economic landscape. Indicators like GDP, High-tech Export, and ICT Goods Exports fall into this category as they reflect economic health and technological prowess, which are important but not the sole determinants of success.

The low weight threshold (below 5%) includes indicators that provide contextual and supporting insights which are useful in a holistic evaluation but are less critical in directly influencing the primary outcomes of the assessment. These indicators, such as the Rule of Law and Logistics Performance Index, while important, are supplementary in the context of this specific analysis focusing on the semiconductor industry’s dynamics.

The implications of these weight classifications are profound, as they influence the prioritization of strategies and policy formulations. For instance, a high weighting on innovation-related indicators suggests that policies encouraging R&D and intellectual property protection could yield significant competitive advantages. Conversely, the lower weighting on logistics performance may indicate that while necessary, improvements in this area alone will not be sufficient to dramatically enhance a country’s position in the semiconductor industry without simultaneous advancements in higher-weighted areas.

This structured approach to weighting not only ensures transparency and objectivity in the assessment process but also aligns the evaluation with the strategic objectives of enhancing regional capabilities in the semiconductor supply chain. It allows policymakers and stakeholders to focus their resources and interventions on areas that will have the most substantial impact on their strategic goals, thereby optimizing outcomes based on a clear understanding of priority areas.

Semiconductor industry opportunity assessment

In this phase, the opportunity to participate in the semiconductor supply chain of Southeast Asian countries is assessed. Because the computational procedures in this phase are based on the concept of distance, the decision matrix is normalized in a different way. As described in Eq. ( 10 ), the vector normalized decision matrix is established and presented in Table 8 . In the next step, the influence of weighted indicators’ is applied to the decision matrix according to Eqs. ( 11 , 12 ). The weighted vector normalized decision matrix is presented as Table 9 . Then, the ideal and negative ideal solutions are defined as discussed in Eqs. ( 13 – 16 ).

In Step III-4, the Euclidean distance to ideal and negative ideal of alternatives are determined according to Eqs. ( 17 , 18 ). As shown in Fig. 6 , The country with the smallest distance to the ideal solution is Singapore, followed closely by Brunei Darussalam and Vietnam. These countries perform well according to the indicator and are considered closer to the ideal solution. On the other hand, the country with the largest distance to the ideal solution is the Philippines, indicating that it is relatively farther from the ideal solution based on the given indicator. Conversely, the country with the smallest distance to the negative ideal solution is the Philippines, implying that it is the closest to the worst-performing country in terms of the indicator. The country with the largest distance to the negative ideal solution is Indonesia, suggesting that it performs relatively better compared to the worst-performing country based on the given indicators.

Euclidean distances to ideal and negative ideal solutions across countries.

The overall scores of countries obtained by the proposed approach are visualized in Fig. 7 . These results indicate that Singapore has the highest overall score, making it the top-performing country in terms of the opportunity to participate in the semiconductor supply chain among the Southeast Asian countries considered. Singapore has emerged as a prominent player in the semiconductor industry in Southeast Asia. It has a well-developed infrastructure, a skilled workforce, and a business-friendly environment that attracts semiconductor companies. The country’s strategic location, excellent logistics capabilities, and strong government support for research and development also contribute to its high overall score. As a result, Singapore is likely to offer attractive opportunities for companies looking to participate in the semiconductor supply chain.

Overall ranking and assessment results of Southeast Asian countries by TOPSIS method.

It is followed closely by Brunei Darussalam and Lao PDR, which also have relatively high overall scores, suggesting good potential for participation in the semiconductor supply chain. Brunei Darussalam also shows promising potential for participation in the semiconductor supply chain. While it may not have the same level of infrastructure and established semiconductor industry as Singapore, its geographic location and proximity to major markets in Asia could present advantageous opportunities. However, further developments in the semiconductor ecosystem and government initiatives to attract investments may be required to enhance its competitiveness. Lao PDR’s relatively high overall score suggests that it could be an emerging player in the semiconductor supply chain in Southeast Asia. Its low labor costs and growing economy might be appealing to semiconductor companies seeking cost-effective manufacturing and assembly options. However, infrastructure development and support for education and skill development will be crucial for sustaining and growing its participation in the semiconductor industry.

In the middle, Malaysia has been a significant player in the semiconductor industry for many years. It offers a well-established manufacturing base, skilled labor force, and a supportive business environment. Additionally, the government has actively promoted the semiconductor industry through various incentives and policies. Malaysia’s overall score reflects its attractiveness for semiconductor supply chain participants, although it may face increasing competition from other regional players. Vietnam has witnessed significant growth in the semiconductor sector in recent years. Its young and large labor force, competitive labor costs, and improving infrastructure have contributed to its overall score. The Vietnamese government’s efforts to promote the semiconductor industry and attract foreign investments have been instrumental in its growth. As the country continues to develop its capabilities, it is likely to become an even more appealing destination for semiconductor supply chain activities. Cambodia’s overall score indicates that it holds potential as a participant in the semiconductor supply chain. While it may not be as developed as some of its neighbors, it offers a relatively lower cost of doing business, making it attractive for companies seeking cost efficiencies. To enhance its competitiveness, investments in infrastructure and skill development initiatives will be essential.

Myanmar’s overall score reflects moderate potential for participation in the semiconductor supply chain. As the country opens to foreign investment and economic development, opportunities may arise in the semiconductor sector. However, it is essential to consider factors such as political stability and labor regulations before making investment decisions in Myanmar. Thailand has a well-established semiconductor industry and a supportive business environment. Its overall score suggests that it remains an attractive destination for semiconductor supply chain participants. The country’s strong manufacturing capabilities, skilled workforce, and strategic location in Southeast Asia contribute to its competitiveness.

On the other hand, the Philippines and Indonesia have lower overall scores compared to other countries in the list, indicating that they might have relatively less favorable conditions for participation in the semiconductor supply chain. Indonesia’s overall score indicates that it may have some challenges in attracting semiconductor supply chain participants compared to other Southeast Asian countries. While it is a large and growing market, infrastructure and bureaucratic hurdles might impact its appeal to semiconductor companies. However, Indonesia’s size and potential as a consumer market may still present opportunities for companies looking to participate in the supply chain. The Philippines receives the lowest overall score among the countries listed, suggesting that it may face significant challenges in attracting semiconductor supply chain activities. The country has struggled to keep up with some of its neighbors in terms of infrastructure development and ease of doing business. However, the Philippines’ skilled labor force and potential for domestic market growth could still offer some opportunities for niche segments in the semiconductor industry.

Recent studies, such as those by Thadani and Allen ( 2023 ) and Prabheesh and Vidya ( 2024 ), have laid a significant groundwork in understanding the semiconductor supply chain dynamics within Southeast Asia (Prabheesh & Vidya, 2024 ; Thadani & Allen, 2023 ). This discussion aims to juxtapose our study’s findings against these established narratives to highlight both corroborations and deviations in the regional assessment of semiconductor supply chain capacities.

This study’s findings underscore Singapore’s preeminent status within Southeast Asia’s semiconductor supply chain, corroborating observations by Thadani and Allen, who highlight the region’s significant concentration of ATP facilities and OSAT providers. Consistent with these findings, our research confirms that Singapore’s advanced infrastructure, strategic positioning, and strong governmental support have cemented its role as a pivotal hub in the semiconductor industry. This alignment supports the notion that well-established industry bases combined with proactive government policies are critical drivers of success in the semiconductor sector. Moreover, our study identifies Brunei Darussalam and Lao PDR as emerging players with considerable potential, a perspective less commonly detailed in the existing literature. While Thadani and Allen focus primarily on the major hubs, our analysis suggests that these smaller markets may possess untapped potential due to strategic geographical positioning and growing economic frameworks. This introduces a nuanced layer to the regional analysis of semiconductor supply chains, suggesting that peripheral countries are gradually enhancing their capabilities and participation in this sector. In contrast, Prabheesh and Vidya underscore the centrality of Singapore in the semiconductor trade network, while noting the increasing integration of Vietnam, Malaysia, Thailand, the Philippines, and Indonesia. Our findings complement this perspective by detailing the specific attributes contributing to each country’s capacity and potential challenges within the supply chain. For instance, Malaysia’s established semiconductor base and supportive policy environment align with our identification of its sustained attractiveness to supply chain participants. Similarly, the emerging significance of Vietnam, highlighted by its robust growth and governmental promotion in Prabheesh and Vidya’s study, is mirrored in our analysis, which points to Vietnam’s competitive labor costs and improving infrastructure.

Conversely, the challenges faced by the Philippines and Indonesia, as noted in this study, reflect their lower rankings in the regional semiconductor network. Prabheesh and Vidya suggest these countries have improved their network participation, yet our findings indicate ongoing infrastructural and bureaucratic hurdles that could hinder their fuller integration into the supply chain. This divergence necessitates a closer examination of how each country’s unique socio-economic and political landscapes impact their roles within the semiconductor industry.

Lastly, the economic implications of the COVID-19 pandemic, as discussed by Prabheesh and Vidya, resonates with our observations of disrupted trade flows and its impacts on regional connectivity. This shared challenge across studies emphasizes the need for robust supply chain strategies that can withstand global disruptions and highlights the critical role of resilience planning in maintaining supply chain efficacy.

The managerial implications

Policymakers are advised to bolster R&D infrastructures and educational programs, particularly in emerging countries like Brunei Darussalam and Lao PDR, to catalyze technological advancements and align educational outcomes with industry needs. Investors should focus on countries with robust infrastructure and stable economies like Singapore and Malaysia but also consider emerging markets such as Vietnam and the Philippines for diversified investment opportunities due to their growth potential and governmental support. Industry stakeholders could benefit from diversifying their supply chains to include new regional players, thereby enhancing resilience and reducing dependency risks highlighted by recent global disruptions. Additionally, fostering collaborative projects and joint ventures can tap into regional innovations, driving mutual growth across the industry.

Future research should explore longitudinal studies to track changes in the semiconductor industry over time and conduct comparative analyses with other regions to deepen the understanding of global supply chain strategies. These efforts will not only provide a richer analytical framework but also enable stakeholders to make more informed decisions that align with evolving market conditions and technological trends.

This study is grounded in the context of Southeast Asian countries and their potential involvement in the semiconductor supply chain. It aims to explore the opportunities and challenges these countries face in integrating into this critical industry. Our research employs a comprehensive objectively weighting multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) approach, which combines CRITIC and TOPSIS method, to evaluate the suitability of Southeast Asian countries for semiconductor supply chain integration. This method involves data collection, normalization, weight determination, and an overall assessment based on distance measures.

This study contributes significantly to the understanding of Southeast Asia’s role in the global semiconductor supply chain by employing a sophisticated MCDM approach. Integrating the CRITIC and the TOPSIS methodologies, the research provides a precise, quantitative framework that evaluates and ranks individual countries based on a comprehensive set of economic, technological, and infrastructural indicators. Unlike previous research, which generally offers broad overviews, this study’s contribution lies in its detailed assessment, offering nuanced insights into each country’s specific strengths and areas for improvement. These contributions are critical as they provide policymakers and business leaders with actionable information essential for strategic planning and investment decisions. Moreover, the innovative application of MCDM techniques enhances the methodological tools available for supply chain analysis, contributing a replicable model that can be adapted for other regions and sectors, thereby broadening the study’s relevance and applicability in the field of supply chain management and strategic decision-making.

The research findings indicate that Singapore emerges as the leading performer in the region, reaffirming its position as a prominent player in the semiconductor industry. Other countries like Brunei Darussalam and Lao PDR also exhibit promising potential. In contrast, the Philippines and Indonesia face challenges or have less favorable conditions for supply chain integration.

While this study provides valuable insights, it is not without limitations. The assessment is based on the selected indicators and weights, and the relevance of these factors may evolve over time. Additionally, the study focuses specifically on the semiconductor industry in Southeast Asia, and its findings may not directly apply to other regions or industries. Continuous monitoring and adjustments to the indicators and weights are necessary to maintain the framework’s relevance. Besides, the integrated MCDM approach also has limitations. One significant limitation is its dependence on static data, which may not fully capture the dynamic changes in the external environment or technological advancements. Additionally, the reliance on ideal and anti-ideal solutions in TOPSIS could oversimplify complex decision contexts, potentially overlooking subtle yet crucial factors. Future research should consider dynamic MCDM models that accommodate changes over time, enhancing responsiveness to industry shifts. Integrating qualitative assessments with quantitative data could also provide a more comprehensive analysis, reducing biases inherent in purely data-driven approaches. Additionally, comparative studies with other regions could offer broader insights and benchmarking opportunities, enriching the strategic understanding of Southeast Asia’s role in the global semiconductor supply chain.

Data availability

All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article.

Ataei Y, Mahmoudi A, Feylizadeh MR, Li D-F (2020) Ordinal priority approach (OPA) in multiple attribute decision-making. Appl Soft Comput 86:105893. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2019.105893

Article   Google Scholar  

Bridwell L, Richard M (1998) The semiconductor industry in the 21st century: a global analysis using michael porter’s industry related clusters. Competitiveness Rev Int Bus J Incorporating J Glob Competitiveness 8:24–36

Bui TD, Tsai M, Tseng ML, Tan RR, Yu KDS, Lim MK (2021) Sustainable supply chain management towards disruption and organizational ambidexterity: a data driven analysis. Sustain Prod Consum 26:373-410

Chang M-F, Lin C, Shen CH, Wang SW, Chang KC, Chang RC-H, Yeh WK (2021) The role of government policy in the building of a global semiconductor industry. Nat Electron 4(4):230–233

Chau T (2018) Semiconductor industry in China: China and United States relationship. https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jcems/2/1/2_21/_pdf/-char/ja . Accessed 7 March 2018

Chen T, Wang Y-C, Jiang P-H (2023) A selectively calibrated derivation technique and generalized fuzzy TOPSIS for semiconductor supply chain localization assessment. Decis Anal J 8:100275

Chodha V, Dubey R, Kumar R, Singh S, Kaur S (2022) Selection of industrial arc welding robot with TOPSIS and Entropy MCDM techniques. Mater Today Proc 50:709–715

Craighead CW, Blackhurst J, Rungtusanatham MJ, Handfield RB (2007) The severity of supply chain disruptions: design characteristics and mitigation capabilities. Decis Sci 38(1):131–156

Cui X, Li X, Wang S (2021) On capacity reservation contract in semiconductor supply chain. Int J Model Oper Manag 8:251–265. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJMOM.2021.116799

Deveci M, Pamucar D, Gokasar I (2021) Fuzzy power heronian function based CoCoSo method for the advantage prioritization of autonomous vehicles in real-time traffic management. Sustain. Cities Soc 69:102846

Diakoulaki D, Mavrotas G, Papayannakis L (1995) Determining objective weights in multiple criteria problems: the critic method. Comput Oper Res 22(7):763–770

Djenadic S, Tanasijevic M, Jovancic P, Ignjatovic D, Petrovic D, Bugaric U (2022) Risk evaluation: brief review and innovation model based on fuzzy logic and MCDM. Mathematics 10(5):811

Donyatalab Y, Kutlu Gündoğdu F, Farid F, Seyfi-Shishavan SA, Farrokhizadeh E, Kahraman C (2022) Novel spherical fuzzy distance and similarity measures and their applications to medical diagnosis. Expert Syst Appl 191:116330. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2021.116330

Ehm H, Neau C, Martens CJ, Lauer T, Ponsignon T, García J (2019) Research opportunities regarding tree and network productstructure representations in a semiconductor supply chain. Winter Simul Conf (WSC) 2019:2429–2440

Google Scholar  

Frederico GF (2021) From supply chain 4.0 to supply chain 5.0: findings from a systematic literature review and research directions. Logistics 5(3):49

GAO (2022) Semiconductor supply chain: policy considerations from selected experts for reducing risks and mitigating shortages. https://www.gao.gov/ . Accessed 26 July 2022

Global Peace Index 2023 (2023) www.economicsandpeace.org Accessed 2023

Guan D, Wang D, Hallegatte S, Davis SJ, Huo J, Li S, Gong P (2020) Global supply-chain effects of COVID-19 control measures. Nat Hum Behav 4(6):577–587. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-020-0896-8

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Gurtu A, Johny J (2021) Supply chain risk management: literature review. Risks, 9(1): 16. https://doi.org/10.3390/risks9010016

Hasan F, Bellenstedt MFR, Islam MR (2023) Demand and supply disruptions during the covid-19 crisis on firm productivity. Glob J Flex Syst Manag 24(1):87–105. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40171-022-00324-x

He Q-R, Chen P-K (2023) Developing a green supplier evaluation system for the Chinese semiconductor manufacturing industry based on supplier willingness. Oper Manag Res. 16(1):227–244

Hsiao HC, Hibiya T, Nakano M, Cheng Y-L, Wen H-C (2015) An analysis of managing sustainable competitiveness for semiconductor manufacturers

Hwang B-N, Lu T-P (2013) Key success factor analysis for e‐SCM project implementation and a case study in semiconductor manufacturers. Int J Phys Distrib Logist Manag 43:657–683

Industrial Development Organization (2023) United Nations https://stat.unido.org/cip/ . Accessed 23 February 2023

Intellectual Property Statistics Data Center (2023) The world intellectual property organization (WIPO) https://www.wipo.int/portal/en/index.html . Accessed 1 February 2023

Keil S (2017) Design of a cyber-physical production system for semiconductor manufacturing. Proceeding of the hamburg international conference of logistics, epubli GmbH, Berlin, 2017

Khan SM, Mann A Peterson D (2021) The semiconductor supply chain: assessing national competitiveness. Retrieved from

Kim K (2023) Towards sustainable and resilient ASEAN-Korea economic integration 2.0. Asia Glob Econ 3(2):100061

Kuo HA, Ponsignon T, Ehm H, Chien CF (2019) Overall supply chain effectiveness (OSCE) for demand and capacity incorporation in semiconductor supply chain industry. 2019 IEEE international conference on smart manufacturing, industrial & logistics engineering (SMILE), 24–28

Kutlu Gündoğdu F, Kahraman C (2019) Spherical fuzzy sets and spherical fuzzy TOPSIS method. J Intell fuzzy Syst 36(1):337–352. https://doi.org/10.3233/jifs-181401

Le M-T, Nhieu N-L (2022a) A behavior-simulated spherical fuzzy extension of the integrated multi-criteria decision-making approach. Symmetry 14(6):1136. https://doi.org/10.3390/sym14061136

Article   ADS   CAS   Google Scholar  

Le M-T, Nhieu N-L (2022b) A novel multi-criteria assessment approach for post-COVID-19 production strategies in Vietnam manufacturing industry: OPA–fuzzy EDAS model. Sustainability 14(8):4732. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14084732

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Lin J, Spiegler VLM, Naim MM (2018) Dynamic analysis and design of a semiconductor supply chain: a control engineering approach. Int J Prod Res 56:4585–4611

Liu Y, Eckert CM, Earl C (2020) A review of fuzzy AHP methods for decision-making with subjective judgements. Expert Syst Appl 161:113738. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2020.113738

Lohmer J, Ribeiro da Silva E, Lasch R (2022) Blockchain technology in operations & supply chain management: a content analysis. Sustainability 14(10):6192 https://doi.org/10.3390/su14106192

Magdy M, Grida M, Hussein G (2024) Disruption mitigation in the semiconductors supply chain by using public blockchains. J Supercomput 80(2):1852–1906

Maini TS (2023) China-US ties: economic and strategic ramifications for ASEAN. The Geopolitics

Mardani A, Jusoh A, Zavadskas EK (2015) Fuzzy multiple criteria decision-making techniques and applications—two decades review from 1994 to 2014. Expert Syst Appl 42(8):4126–4148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2015.01.003

Moktadir MA, Ren J (2024) Global semiconductor supply chain resilience challenges and mitigation strategies: a novel integrated decomposed fuzzy set Delphi, WINGS and QFD model. Int J Prod Econ 273:109280

Mönch L, Uzsoy R, Fowler JW (2018b) A survey of semiconductor supply chain models part III: master planning, production planning, and demand fulfilment. Int J Prod Res 56:4565–4584

Mönch L, Uzsoy R, Fowler JW (2018a) A survey of semiconductor supply chain models part I: semiconductor supply chains, strategic network design, and supply chain simulation. Int J Prod Res 56:4524–4545

Nguyen TMH, Nguyen V, Nguyen D (2022) A new hybrid pythagorean fuzzy AHP and COCOSO MCDM based approach by adopting artificial intelligence technologies. J Exp Theorl Artif Intell https://doi.org/10.1080/0952813X.2022.2143908

Okada M, Shirahada K (2022) Organizational learning for sustainable semiconductor supply chain operation: a case study of a Japanese company in cross border M&A. Sustainability 14(22):15316. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142215316

Pasadilla G (2023) Technology, global value chains, and jobs: continuing ASEAN’s role in transformed global value chains. Asean and global value chains. https://www.eria.org/ . Accessed 23 February 2024

Peng X, Li W (2022) Spherical fuzzy decision making method based on combined compromise solution for IIoT industry evaluation. Artif Intell Rev 55(3):1857–1886

Peng X, Zhang X, Luo Z (2020) Pythagorean fuzzy MCDM method based on CoCoSo and CRITIC with score function for 5G industry evaluation. Artif Intell Rev 53(5):3813–3847

Prabheesh, KP, Vidya, CT (2024) Interconnected horizons: ASEAN’s journey in the Global Semiconductor Trade Network Amidst the COVID-19 Pandemic

Qiu H, Tseng SW, Zhang X, Huang C, Wu K-J (2024) Revealing the compound interrelationships toward sustainable transition in semiconductor supply chain: a sensitivity analysis. Int J Prod Econ 271:109218

Ramírez Ríos DA, Ramírez Polo LA, Jimenez Barros MA, Castro Bolaño LA, Maldonado EA (2013) The design of a real-time warehouse management system that integrates simulation and optimization models with RFID technology. Int J Comput Sci 2(04)

Ravenhill J (2016) The political economy of an” Asian” mega-FTA: the regional comprehensive economic partnership. Asian Surv 56(6):1077–1100

Rezaei J (2015) Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method. Omega 53:49–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2014.11.009

Rezaei M, Mostafaeipour A, Qolipour M, Tavakkoli-Moghaddam R (2018) Investigation of the optimal location design of a hybrid wind-solar plant: a case study. Int J Hydrog Energy 43(1):100–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2017.10.147

Salleh AL, Musaddad HA, Elyas NA (2023) The impact of China and Vietnam’s economic growth on the exports performances of the ASEAN countries. In; finance, accounting and law in the digital age: the impact of technology and innovation in the financial services aector. Springer, pp 813–821

Sánchez-Lozano JM, Teruel-Solano J, Soto-Elvira PL, Socorro García-Cascales M (2013) Geographical information systems (GIS) and multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) methods for the evaluation of solar farms locations: case study in south-eastern Spain. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 24:544–556. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2013.03.019

Sandberg A, Klementsen E, Muller G, de Andres A, Maillet J (2016) Critical factors influencing viability of wave energy converters in off-grid luxury resorts and small utilities. Sustainability 8(12):1274. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8121274

Saputro TE, Figueira G, Almada-Lobo B (2023) Hybrid MCDM and simulation-optimization for strategic supplier selection. Expert Syst Appl 219:119624

Shekarian E, Flapper SD (2021) Analyzing the structure of closed-loop supply chains: a game theory perspective. Sustainability 13(3):1397. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13031397

Sugano T (1994) Suggestions toward enhancing collaboration between university and industry in semiconductor manufacturing science and technology research. International symposium on semiconductor manufacturing, extended abstracts of ISSM, 10-13

Thadani A, Allen GC (2023) Mapping the semiconductor supply chain: the critical role of the indo-pacific region. http://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep53721 . Accessed 9 Dec 2023

the International Disaster Database (2023) The centre for research on the epidemiology of disasters (CRED) https://www.emdat.be/ . Accessed 9 March 2023

The UNESCO Institute for Statistics database (2023) The UNESCO institute for statistics (UIS) http://data.uis.unesco.org/ . Accessed 3 March 2023

Trinidad DD (2018) What does strategic partnerships with ASEAN mean for Japan’s foreign aid? J Asian Security Int Aff 5(3):267–294

Tronnebati I, El Yadari M, Jawab F (2022) A review of green supplier evaluation and selection issues using MCDM, MP and AI models. Sustainability 14(24):16714

Tsai W-T (2023) Perspectives on the promotion of solid recovered fuels in Taiwan. Energies 17(3):1-10

Tsujimura M (2020) Lead the future : semiconductor evolution as seen by CMP manufacturers. 2020 China semiconductor technology international conference (CSTIC), 1-4

Tzeng GH, Shen KY (2017) New concepts and trends of hybrid multiple criteria decision making: CRC Press

Wang C-N, Nhieu N-L, Tran TTT (2021) Stochastic chebyshev goal programming mixed integer linear model for sustainable global production planning. Mathematics 9(5):483. https://doi.org/10.3390/math9050483

Wang C-N, Nhieu N-L, Liu W-L (2024) Unveiling the landscape of fintech in ASEAN: assessing development, regulations, and economic implications by decision-making approach. Hum Soc Sci Commun 11(1):1–16

Wang C-N, Nhieu N-L, Chung Y-C, Pham H-T (2021) Multi-objective optimization models for sustainable perishable intermodal multi-product networks with delivery time window. Mathematics 9(4):379. https://doi.org/10.3390/math9040379

Article   MathSciNet   CAS   Google Scholar  

Wang J-B, Wang G-H, Ou C-Y (2023) The key factors for sustainability reporting adoption in the semiconductor industry using the hybrid FRST-PSO technique and fuzzy DEMATEL approach. Sustainability 15(3):1929

Wang P, Zhu Z, Wang Y (2016) A novel hybrid MCDM model combining the SAW, TOPSIS and GRA methods based on experimental design. Inf Sci 345:27–45

World Bank Open Data (2022) The World Bank https://data.worldbank.org . Accessed 12 June 2022

WSTS (2023) Semiconductor market forecast spring 2023. https://www.wsts.org/ . Accessed 18 Nov 2023

Yang Y, Wang Y (2020) Supplier selection for the adoption of green innovation in sustainable supply chain management practices: a case of the Chinese textile manufacturing industry. Processes 8(6):717. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr8060717

Yao J-S, Wu K (2000) Ranking fuzzy numbers based on decomposition principle and signed distance. Fuzzy Sets Syst 116:275–288. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0165-0114(98)00122-5

Article   MathSciNet   Google Scholar  

Youssef AE (2020) An integrated MCDM approach for cloud service selection based on TOPSIS and BWM. IEEE Access 8:71851–71865. https://doi.org/10.1109/access.2020.2987111

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research work was partially supported by the National Science and Technology Council, Taiwan, under Grant No.: NSTC 113-2622-E-992-012.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Industrial Engineering and Management, National Kaohsiung University of Science and Technology, Kaohsiung, 807618, Taiwan

Chia-Nan Wang, Nhat-Luong Nhieu & Chen-Te Chiang

Department of Information Management, Chihlee University of Technology, New Taipei, 220068, Taiwan

Yen-Hui Wang

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

C-NW: methodology, supervision, validation, funding acquisition, writing—review and editing. N-LN: conceptualization, methodology, analysis, validation, writing—review and editing. C-TC: conceptualization, methodology, analysis, writing—original draft. Y-HW: conceptualization, analysis, writing—original draft. Corresponding author: N-LN.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nhat-Luong Nhieu .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors.

Informed consent

Additional information.

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary information, rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Wang, CN., Nhieu, NL., Chiang, CT. et al. Assessing Southeast Asia countries’ potential in the semiconductor supply chain: an objectively weighting multi-criteria decision-making approach. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 11 , 1260 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-03768-x

Download citation

Received : 16 January 2024

Accepted : 13 September 2024

Published : 27 September 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-03768-x

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

• Multiplexing
• Information Systems
• Broadcast Technology
• Information Systems (Business Informatics)

A LITERATURE REVIEW ON SUPPLY CHAIN MANAGEMENT EVOLUTION

• Conference: 14th International Scientific Conference on Economic and Social Development
• At: Belgrade

• Agricultural University of Tirana

Abstract and Figures

Discover the world's research

• 25+ million members
• 160+ million publication pages
• 2.3+ billion citations

• Ana Teixeira

• João Ferreira Santos

• Eur Bus Rev

• R.M. Monczka
• J.P. Morgan

• Bernard J. La Londe
• M. Margaret Weber

• Eur J Purch Supply Manag
• David Farmer
• Int J Phys Distrib Logist Manag
• Patricia J. Daugherty
• Int J Logist Manag
• Matthew G. Anderson
• Paul B. Katz
• Recruit researchers
• Join for free
• Login Email Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google Welcome back! Please log in. Email · Hint Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google No account? Sign up

To read this content please select one of the options below:

Please note you do not have access to teaching notes, supply chain risk management: a new methodology for a systematic literature review.

Supply Chain Management

ISSN : 1359-8546

Article publication date: 15 June 2012

Supply chain risk management (SCRM) has recently gained increasing attention in the supply chain context, both from the practitioners' perspective and as a research area. Given the relevance of the topic, the aim of the present paper is to present a focused literature review, investigating the process of knowledge creation, transfer and development from a dynamic perspective within the context of SCRM.

Design/methodology/approach

A review of the literature on SCRM was undertaken. The new proposed methodology combines the systematic literature review approach to identify the most relevant articles to be included in the study with the citation network analysis in order to unfold the dynamics of the field under study. The authors define this new methodology as systematic literature network analysis.

The paper demonstrates that there are a number of key themes in the field of SCRM. The contributions that influenced the field were identified and, by analysing the evolution over time of key concepts, a number of research directions were identified and discussed.

Research limitations/implications

The dynamic nature of current literature review allows the identification of the directions in which research is moving and thus the recognition of streams of research that appear most promising. However, the application of the research methodology, and in particular of the citation network analysis, requires the support of specific computer programs. Moreover, the underlying assumption of the citation network analysis is that, by analysing the network of citations made to and from articles, it is possible to explain the flows of knowledge used to generate new results. This is only partially true since the spread of measures based on impact assessment led many researchers to an excessive use of citations, even if their content is not always decisive for the outcome of their work.

Practical implications

The present paper outlines a research agenda that may facilitate the development of models for managing supply chain risk. Furthermore from the evidence of the performed literature review some managerial insights can be derived on how to manage supply chain risk: by considering uncertainty in the design of supply chains, by understanding the impact of risks arising from network collaboration and interactions between supply chain partners, by developing proactive mitigation capabilities to hedge the increasing level of risk.

Originality/value

The novelty of this research lies in the combination of two existing methodologies for reviewing the literature and in the adoption of a dynamic perspective in order to analyse theory development.

• Supply chain risk management
• Systematic literature review
• Citation network analysis
• Supply chain management
• Risk management

Colicchia, C. and Strozzi, F. (2012), "Supply chain risk management: a new methodology for a systematic literature review", Supply Chain Management , Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 403-418. https://doi.org/10.1108/13598541211246558

Emerald Group Publishing Limited

Copyright © 2012, Emerald Group Publishing Limited

Related articles

All feedback is valuable.

Please share your general feedback

Report an issue or find answers to frequently asked questions

Contact Customer Support

Smart Supply Chain Management: A Literature Review

• Conference paper
• First Online: 29 April 2023
• Cite this conference paper

• Nabila Bouti 11 &
• Fatima El Khoukhi 12  

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems ((LNNS,volume 668))

Included in the following conference series:

• International Conference on Digital Technologies and Applications

879 Accesses

2 Citations

Industry 4.0 (I4.0) is an innovative way of improving organizations' production methods by using new technologies that revolutionize the Supply Chain (SC). Traditionally, SC managers focused on simple tasks such as delivering products to customers and assuring that a company maintains a sufficient supply of raw materials to sustain ongoing operations. However, with the fast progress in logistics, SC Management (SCM) has become a complicated process involving forecasting demands, establishing lucrative partnerships, and optimizing business performance. To overcome this challenge, Smart Supply Chain Management (SSCM) uses several technologies such as Big Data (BD), the Internet of things (IoT), Blockchain, Artificial Intelligence (AI), and Advanced Robotics (AR) to analyze data, and identifies trends and opportunities in the market that enhance the effectiveness of logistics, whether inside or outside of the company. This paper examines the available literature on SSCM. It aims to assess the impact of new technologies on SSCM.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime
• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Industry 4.0 Technologies: Opportunities in the Sustainable Supply Chain Management

Smart supply chain management in Industry 4.0: the review, research agenda and strategies in North America

Smart Supply Chain: An Overview of Key Benefits and Challenges

Ballou, R.H.: The evolution and future of logistics and supply chain management. Eur. Bus. Rev. 19 , 332–348 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1108/09555340710760152

Cooper, M.C., Lambert, D.M., Pagh, J.D.: Supply chain management: more than a new name for logistics. Int. J. Logist. Manag. 8 , 1–14 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1108/09574099710805556

Arnold, J.R.T., Chapman, S.N., Clive, L.M.: Introduction to materials management. Pearson Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, N.J (2008)

Google Scholar  

Ng, T.C., Lau, S.Y., Ghobakhloo, M., Fathi, M., Liang, M.S.: The application of industry 4.0 technological constituents for sustainable manufacturing: a content-centric review. Sustainability  14 , 4327 (2022). https://doi.org/10.3390/su14074327

Montabon, F.L., Pagell, M., Wu, Z.: Making sustainability sustainable. Journal of Supply Chain Management. 52, (2016)

Bai, C., Dallasega, P., Orzes, G., Sarkis, J.: Industry 4.0 technologies assessment: A sustainability perspective. Int. J. Production Econ. 229 , 107776 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2020.107776

van Goor, A.R., van Amstel, M.J.P., van Amstel, W.P.: Trends in supply chain management. In: European distribution and supply chain logistics, pp. 45–75. Routledge (2019)

Zhang, G.: Supply chain opportunities in industry 4.0. In: The 6th international Asia Conference on Industrial Engineering and Management Innovation (2015)

Militello, M., Camperlingo, L., Bortoleto, W.C.: Supply Chain 4.0 Results: A Systematic Literature Review. Presented at the Online Platform October 14 (2020)

Lee, S.J.: Review pf Literature and Curricula in Smart Supply Chain & Transportation, p. 26 (2018)

Shao, X.-F., Liu, W., Li, Y., Chaudhry, H.R., Yue, X.-G.: Multistage implementation framework for smart supply chain management under industry 4.0. Technol. Forecasting  Social Change 162 , 120354 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120354

Abdirad, M., Krishnan, K.: Industry 4.0 in logistics and supply chain management: a systematic literature review. Eng. Manag. J. 33 , 187–201 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1080/10429247.2020.1783935

Elkazini, R., Hadini, M., Ali, M.B., Sahaf, K., Rifai, S.: Impacts of adopting Industry 4.0 technologies on supply chain management:  Literat. Rev. 31 , 7 (2021)

Witkowski, K.: Internet of Things, Big Data, Industry 4.0 – Innovative solutions in logistics and supply chains management. elsevier. Proc. Eng., 763–769 (2017)

Büyüközkan, G., Göçer, F.: Digital Supply Chain: Literature review and a proposed framework for future research. Comput. Ind. 97 , 157–177 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compind.2018.02.010

Zekhnini, K., Cherrafi, A., Bouhaddou, I., Benghabrit, Y., Garza-Reyes, J.A.: Supply chain management 4.0: a literature review and research framework. BIJ 28 , 465–501 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1108/BIJ-04-2020-0156

Tamym, L., Benyoucef, L., Moh, A.N.S.: Big data for supply chain management in industry 4.0 context : A comprehensive survey. In: 3th International Conference on Modeling, Optimization and Simuation - MOSIM 2020, p. 11 (2020)

Awwad, M., Kulkarni, P., Bapna, R., Marathe, A.: Big data analytics in supply chain: A Literat. Rev., 9 (2018)

Nguyen, T., Zhou, L., Spiegler, V., Ieromonachou, P., Lin, Y.: Big data analytics in supply chain management: A state-of-the-art literature review. Comput. Oper. Res. 98 , 254–264 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cor.2017.07.004

Wang, G., Gunasekaran, A., Ngai, E.W.T., Papadopoulos, T.: Big data analytics in logistics and supply chain management: Certain investigations for research and applications. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 176 , 98–110 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2016.03.014

Tachizawa, E.M., Alvarez-Gil, M.J., Montes-Sancho, M.J.: How “smart cities” will change supply chain management. Supply Chain Manag. Int. J. 20 , 237–248 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1108/SCM-03-2014-0108

Min, H.: Artificial intelligence in supply chain management: theory and applications. Int J Log Res Appl 13 , 13–39 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1080/13675560902736537

Gunduz, M.A., Demir, S., Paksoy, T.: Matching functions of supply chain management with smart and sustainable Tools: A novel hybrid BWM-QFD based method. Comput. Ind. Eng. 162 , 107676 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2021.107676

Valan, J.A., Raj, Dr.E.B: Machine learning and big data analytics in iot based blood bank supply chain management system. IJAEMS 4 , 805–811 (2019). https://doi.org/10.22161/ijaems.4.12.4

Bhaveshkumar Pasi, Rane, S.B.: Smart supply chain management: a perspective of industry 4.0. Int. J. Adv. Sci. Technol. 29 , 3016–3030 (2020). https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.29012.01920

Frazzon, E.M., Rodriguez, C.M.T., Pereira, M.M., Pires, M.C., Uhlmann, I.: Towards supply chain management 4.0. BJO&PM 16 , 180–191 (2019). https://doi.org/10.14488/BJOPM.2019.v16.n2.a2

Fernández-Caramés, T.M., Blanco-Novoa, O., Froiz-Míguez, I., Fraga-Lamas, P.: towards an autonomous industry 4.0 Warehouse: A UAV and blockchain-based system for inventory and traceability applications in big data-driven supply chain management. Sensors 19 , 2394 (2019). https://doi.org/10.3390/s19102394

Issaoui, Y., Khiat, A., Bahnasse, A., Ouajji, H.: Smart logistics: study of the application of blockchain technology. Proc. Comput. Sci. 160 , 266–271 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2019.09.467

Wu, Y., Zhang, Y.: An integrated framework for blockchain-enabled supply chain trust management towards smart manufacturing. Adv. Eng. Inform. 51  (2022)

Nguyen, T.H., Nguyen, H.D., Tran, K.D., Nguyen, D.D.K., Tran, K.P.: Enabling smart supply chain management with artificial intelligence. In: Machine Learning and Probabilistic Graphical Models for Decision Support Systems, pp.  294–310. CRC Press, Boca Raton (2022)

Sardar, S.K., Sarkar, B., Kim, B.: Integrating machine learning, radio frequency identification, and consignment policy for reducing unreliability in smart supply chain management. Processes 9 , 247 (2021). https://doi.org/10.3390/pr9020247

Tirkolaee, E.B., Sadeghi, S., Mooseloo, F.M., Vandchali, H.R., Aeini, S.: Application of machine learning in supply chain management: a comprehensive overview of the main areas. Math. Probl. Eng. 2021 , 1–14 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/1476043

Wisetsri, W., Donthu, S., Mehbodniya, A., Vyas, S., Quiñonez-Choquecota, J., Neware, R.: An investigation on the impact of digital revolution and machine learning in supply chain management. Materials Today: Proceedings. 56 , 3207–3210 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2021.09.367

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

IA Laboratory, FS Meknes, Moulay Ismail University of Meknes, Meknes, Morocco

Nabila Bouti

IA Laboratory, FLSH Meknes, Moulay Ismail University of Meknes, Meknes, Morocco

Fatima El Khoukhi

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nabila Bouti .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Ecole Nationale des Sciences Appliquées, Fez, Morocco

Saad Motahhir

Faculty of Sciences, Sidi Mohamed Ben Abdellah University, Fez, Morocco

Badre Bossoufi

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Cite this paper.

Bouti, N., El Khoukhi, F. (2023). Smart Supply Chain Management: A Literature Review. In: Motahhir, S., Bossoufi, B. (eds) Digital Technologies and Applications. ICDTA 2023. Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems, vol 668. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-29857-8_89

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-29857-8_89

Published : 29 April 2023

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-031-29856-1

Online ISBN : 978-3-031-29857-8

eBook Packages : Intelligent Technologies and Robotics Intelligent Technologies and Robotics (R0)

Share this paper

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Santiago Karam Padilla

• View  PDF
• Download full issue

Computers & Industrial Engineering

How does environmental policy affect operations and supply chain management: a literature review.

• • Present a systematic review of operations and supply chain management in the context of environmental policy.
• • Utilize descriptive statistics to examine 137 articles collectively.
• • Categorize research into eight distinct clusters through an established analytical framework.
• • Unveil cluster-specific attributes and identifies areas of research lacunae.
• • Provide valuable insights into potential avenues for future research.
• Previous article in issue
• Next article in issue

Data availability

Cited by (0).