## 4 Results
### Step 2: Interpretive Structure Modeling (ISM) and MICMAC Results  
The identified LBs may have different degrees of contextual relationships. Such relationships may be identified by employing ISM, and thus a relationship model may be derived. The ISM model development considers the feedback from the expert group. Following the ISM methodological steps, a contextual relationship among LBs yields SSIM. The contextual relationship is prepared, based on the influence of each barrier on another using feedback from experts. For LB01, \"lack of resources to invest\", when compared with lean barrier LB05, \"top management resistance\", it was found that LB01 influences LB05; hence, \"V' is placed in a contextual relationship. Thus, the \"lack of resources to invest\" influences the \"top management resistance\", while implementing lean. Similarly, other contextual relationships may be derived when comparing lean implementation barriers LB01-LB13 to each other, and a subsequent matrix can be completed. Table 4 shows the structural self-interaction matrix (SSIM). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline
**LBs Code** & **LBs** & **Mean** & **Standard Deviation (\(\sigma\))** \\ \hline LB01 & Lack of resources to invest & 4.8 & 0.42 \\ LB02 & Slow response to market & 4.7 & 0.48 \\ LB03 & Lack of awareness & 4.6 & 0.52 \\ LB04 & Lack of formal training for workers & 4.2 & 0.63 \\ LB05 & Top management resistance & 4.1 & 0.57 \\ LB06 & Lack of empowerment of employees & 4.0 & 0.47 \\ LB07 & Lack of perseverance & 4.0 & 0.80 \\ LB08 & Worker resistance & 3.9 & 0.74 \\ LB09 & Lack of strong quality policy & 3.9 & 0.74 \\ LB10 & Lack of cooperation and mutual trust between & 3.8 & 0.92 \\ LB11 & management and employees & 3.7 & 0.95 \\ LB12 & Insufficient information system & 3.6 & 0.97 \\ LB13 & Risk of sustainable practice implementation & 3.3 & 0.67 \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: LBs identified for the present studies. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline
**LBs** & **LB01** & **LB02** & **LB03** & **LB04** & **LB05** & **LB06** & **LB07** & **LB08** & **LB09** & **LB10** & **LB11** & **LB12** & **LB13** \\ \hline LB01 & 1 & 0.636\({}^{**}\) & 0.716\({}^{**}\) & 0.627\({}^{**}\) & 0.385 \({}^{**}\) & 0.394 \({}^{**}\) & 0.359\({}^{**}\) & 0.383\({}^{**}\) & 0.399\({}^{**}\) & 0.420\({}^{**}\) & 0.352\({}^{**}\) & 0.367\({}^{**}\) & 0.275\({}^{**}\) \\ LB02 & 0.636\({}^{**}\) & 1 & 0.693\({}^{**}\) & 0.626\({}^{**}\) & 0.514\({}^{**}\) & 0.519\({}^{**}\) & 0.433\({}^{**}\) & 0.530\({}^{**}\) & 0.454\({}^{**}\) & 0.515\({}^{**}\) & 0.283\({}^{**}\) & 0.409\({}^{**}\) & 0.319\({}^{**}\) \\ LB02 & 0.000 & 0.000 & 0.000 & 0.000 & 0.000 & 0.000 & 0.000 & 0.000 & 0.000 & 0.000 & 0.000 & 0.000 \\ LB03 & 0.716\({}^{**}\) & 0.693\({}^{**}\) & 1 & 0.681\({}^{**}\) & 0.411\({}^{**}\) & 0.385\({}^{**}\) & 0.403\({}^{**}\) & 0.415\({}^{**}\) & 0.460\({}^{**}\) & 0.454\({}^{**}\) & 0.321\({}^{**}\) & 0.376\({}^{**}\) & 0.334\({}^{**}\) \\ LB03 & 0.000 & 0.000 & 0.000 & 0.000 & 0.000 & 0.000 & 0.000 & 0.000 & 0.000 & 0.000 & 0.000 & 0.000 \\ LB04 & 0.627\({}^{**}\) & 0.626\({}^{**}\) & 0.681\({}^{**}\) & 1 & 0.446\({}^{**}\) & 0.446\({}^{**}\) & 0.365\({}^{**}\) & 0.364\({}^{**}\) & 0.444\({}^{**}\) & 0.445\({}^{**}\) & 0.472\({}^{**}\) & 0.295\({}^{**}\) & 0.333\({}^{**}\)The formation of the initial reachability matrix (IRM) and final reachability matrix (FRM) was carried out using binary digits '1' and '0'. Various symbols ('V', 'A', 'X', and 'O') used to represent contextual relationships may be replaced with 1 and 0, as per the rules discussed earlier. IRM may be transformed to FRM by considering the transitivity among the LBs as explained in Step 2. The difference between IRM and FRM is the additional transitivity (represented by an asterisk in Table 5). To avoid duplication of the matrix, IRM is not shown. Table 5 shows the FRM. The matrix for FRM shows the driving power (row-wise total) and dependence (column-wise total) of each lean barrier.