# Evaluating and Ranking SCPMS Enablers Using ISM and SWARA
## 4 Results
### Phase 2
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Enablers** & **SCPMS Enablers** & **E5** & **E3** & **E4** & **E13** & **E14** & **E6** & **E11** & **E12** & **E8** & **E1** & **E2** & **E10** & **E9** & **E7** & **DP** \\ \hline E12 & Employee readiness & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 4 \\ \hline E8 & \begin{tabular}{c} Supply chain \\ admonition \\ \end{tabular} & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 5 \\ \hline E1 & Leagility & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 6 \\ \hline E2 & Visibility & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 6 \\ \hline E10 & Green sourcing & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 6 \\ \hline E9 & \
\begin{tabular}{c} Top management \\ support \\ \end{tabular} & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 7 \\ \hline E7 &
\begin{tabular}{c} SC 4.0 performance \\ measurement awareness \\ \end{tabular} & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 8 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 8: _Cont._  
Figure 2: ISM for SCPMS enablers. The accuracy of the developed ISM model needed to be verified; hence, the current study used systematic validation. As discussed in the research methodology, the expert group opinion was translated into FRM and sent to Delphi for validation. The Delphi method shown in Figure 4 was used. In addition to the expert group, three Delphi members (industry specialists in SCM) were contacted. The Delphi members had a graduate degree in engineering with SCM; moreover, they had more than 5 years of experience. They accepted the invitations and agreed to participate anonymously. Three rounds of the Delphi technique were carried out. During the first round of Delphi, members were approached to confirm the SCPM enablers. In the second round, Delphi members validated the contextual relationship matrix. Lastly, during the third round, Delphi members validated the ISM and MICMAC results. Figure 4: Validation process. Figure 3: Driving power and dependence diagram using MICMAC. The SCPMS variables were again subjected to opinions from the same group of DMs engaged in ISM contextual relationships. Table 9 provides the percentage opinion and calculates a ranking of SCPM enablers. Considering the importance of SCPMS enabler E9 as 1, the importance of the remaining SCPMS enablers was calculated. Considering, \(q_{\text{j}}=1\) and \(K_{2}=1.10\), the values of \(q_{2}=1/1.1=0.91\) and similarly \(q_{3}=0.91/1.03=0.88\) were calculated. All values of \(q_{j}\) are given in Table 11. The weight could further be calculated as \(q_{1}/\sum_{i=1}^{14}W_{i}\), \(W_{1}=1/10.32=0.10\). Table 11 shows the values of \(q_{j}\) and \(W_{j}\) for all SCPMS enablers. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline
**SCPMS Enablers** & **E9** & **E7** & **E6** & **E12** & **E13** & **E11** & **E14** & **E3** & **E4** & **E5** & **E10** & **E2** & **E1** & **E8** \\ \hline Opinion percentage & 0.83 & 0.73 & 0.70 & 0.67 & 0.63 & 0.60 & 0.50 & 0.47 & 0.43 & 0.37 & 0.33 & 0.30 & 0.27 & 0.17 \\ \hline \(S_{j}\) & & 0.10 & 0.03 & 0.03 & 0.03 & 0.03 & 0.10 & 0.03 & 0.03 & 0.07 & 0.03 & 0.03 & 0.03 & 0.10 \\ \hline \(K_{j}\) & 1 & 1.10 & 1.03 & 1.03 & 1.03 & 1.10 & 1.03 & 1.03 & 1.07 & 1.03 & 1.03 & 1.03 & 1.10 \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 10: SCPMS enablers with \(S_{j}\) and \(K_{j}\).