A heuristic for the selection of appropriate diagnostic tools in largescale sugarcane supply systems

Mduduzi Innocent Shongwe; Carel Nicolaas Bezuidenhout; Mduduzi Innocent Shongwe; Carel Nicolaas Bezuidenhout

doi:10.3934/agrfood.2019.1.1

AIMS Agriculture and Food

2019, Volume 4, Issue 1: 1-26. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2019.1.1

Previous Article Next Article

Research article

A heuristic for the selection of appropriate diagnostic tools in largescale sugarcane supply systems

Department of Bioresources Engineering, School of Engineering, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Pietermaritzburg, Republic of South Africa

Received: 13 September 2018 Accepted: 23 December 2018 Published: 03 January 2019

Holistic diagnostic sugarcane supply chain studies are critical and have in the past identified several system-scale opportunities. Such studies are multidisciplinary and employ a range of methodologies. Most of these methodologies nonetheless, are only tailored to surface a few facets of problem complexity. A comprehensive view is therefore, more possible only through a combination of various methodological approaches. The large number of methodologies available, however, makes it difficult to choose the right method or a combination thereof. A heuristic for the selection of diagnostic tools in integrated sugarcane supply and processing systems (ISSPS) was therefore, developed in this research. Diagnostic criteria were developed through comprehensive literature review to serve as a foundation for tool comparison. The performance of various diagnostic tools on the criteria was thereafter determined. The performance matrix served as an input into the Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) to prioritise and select preferred tool(s). Each tool's suitability to diagnose any of the many ISSPS domains was further established. Causal loop diagrams, stock and flow diagrams, network approaches and fuzzy cognitive maps were the only tools in the heuristic that captured feedback. Rich pictures and current reality trees were the most accessible and interactive, respectively. All the tools in the heuristic could be applied across all the ISSPS domains except for fuzzy cognitive maps which should be applied with caution within the biophysical domain as these tools are explicitly subjective. Sensitivity analysis of the TOPSIS model indicated that SFDs were the most sensitive to criteria weights whilst network approaches were the least sensitive. It is recommended that the heuristic be demonstrated in an actual ISSPS. It is further recommended that the heuristic should be continuously updated with criteria and other diagnostic tools.
- complexity,
- criteria,
- diagnosis,
- multimethodology,
- sugarcane supply systems
Citation: Mduduzi Innocent Shongwe, Carel Nicolaas Bezuidenhout. A heuristic for the selection of appropriate diagnostic tools in largescale sugarcane supply systems[J]. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2019, 4(1): 1-26. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2019.1.1

Related Papers:

Abstract

Holistic diagnostic sugarcane supply chain studies are critical and have in the past identified several system-scale opportunities. Such studies are multidisciplinary and employ a range of methodologies. Most of these methodologies nonetheless, are only tailored to surface a few facets of problem complexity. A comprehensive view is therefore, more possible only through a combination of various methodological approaches. The large number of methodologies available, however, makes it difficult to choose the right method or a combination thereof. A heuristic for the selection of diagnostic tools in integrated sugarcane supply and processing systems (ISSPS) was therefore, developed in this research. Diagnostic criteria were developed through comprehensive literature review to serve as a foundation for tool comparison. The performance of various diagnostic tools on the criteria was thereafter determined. The performance matrix served as an input into the Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) to prioritise and select preferred tool(s). Each tool's suitability to diagnose any of the many ISSPS domains was further established. Causal loop diagrams, stock and flow diagrams, network approaches and fuzzy cognitive maps were the only tools in the heuristic that captured feedback. Rich pictures and current reality trees were the most accessible and interactive, respectively. All the tools in the heuristic could be applied across all the ISSPS domains except for fuzzy cognitive maps which should be applied with caution within the biophysical domain as these tools are explicitly subjective. Sensitivity analysis of the TOPSIS model indicated that SFDs were the most sensitive to criteria weights whilst network approaches were the least sensitive. It is recommended that the heuristic be demonstrated in an actual ISSPS. It is further recommended that the heuristic should be continuously updated with criteria and other diagnostic tools.

References

[1]	Shongwe MI (2018) A systems thinking approach to investigating complex sugarcane supply and processing systems: Integrating rich pictures and Bayesian networks. Syst Pract Action Res 31: 75–85.
[2]	Bezuidenhout CN, Kadwa M, Sibomana MS (2013) Using theme and domain networking approaches to understand complex agriindustrial systems: A demonstration from the south african sugar industry. Outlook Agric 42: 9–16.
[3]	Bezuidenhout CN, Bodhanya S, Sanjika T, et al. (2011) Network-analysis approaches to deal with causal complexity in a supply network. Int J Prod Res 50: 1840–1849.
[4]	Giles RC, Bezuidenhout CN, Lyne PWL (2008) Evaluating the feasibility of a sugarcane vehicle delivery scheduling system-A theoretical study. Int Sugar J 110: 242–247.
[5]	Bezuidenhout, CN (2008) A Farmers market at the local sugar mill: Lean versus agile. In: Proceedings of the South African Sugar Technologists Association, Durban, 81: 68–71.
[6]	Kadwa M, Bezuidenhout CN, Ferrer SRD (2012) Cane supply benefits associated with the mitigation of labour absenteeism in the Eston sugarcane supply chain. In: Proceedings of the South African Sugar Technologists Association, Durban, 85: 47–49.
[7]	Bezuidenhout CN, Baier TJA (2011) An evaluation of the literature on integrated sugarcane production systems: A scientometrical approach. Outlook Agric 40: 79–88.
[8]	Ashby WR (1958) Requisite variety and its implications for the control of complex systems. Cybernetica 1: 83–99.
[9]	Goldratt EM (1990) What Is This Thing Called Theory Of Constraints And How Should It Be Implemented? Great Barrington: North River Press.
[10]	Lichtenstein BB, Plowman DA (2009) The leadership of emergence: A complex systems leadership theory of emergence at successive organizational levels. Leadersh Q 20: 617–630.
[11]	Helbing D (2013) Globally networked risks and how to respond. Nature 497: 51–59.
[12]	Gigerenzer G, Gaissmaier W (2011) Heuristic decision making. Annu Rev Psychol 62: 451–482.
[13]	Dietrich C (2010) Decision making: Factors that influence decision making, heuristics used, and decision outcomes. Inq J Stud Pulse 2: 1–3.
[14]	Gerwel CN, Hildbrand S, Bodhanya SA, et al. (2011) Systemic approaches to understand the complexities at the Umfolozi and Felixton mill areas. In Proceedings of the 84^th South African Sugar Technologists' Association, 177–181.
[15]	Childerhouse P, Towill DR (2011) Effective supply chain research via the quick scan audit methodology. Supply Chain Manag An Int J 16: 5–10.
[16]	Singh J, Singh H (2015) Continuous improvement philosophy–literature review and directions. Benchmarking An Int J 22: 75–119.
[17]	Yatskovskaya E, Srai JS, Kumar M (2018) Integrated supply network maturity model: Water scarcity perspective. Sustain 10: 896–921.
[18]	Schut M, Rodenburg J, Klerkx L, et al. (2015) RAAIS: Rapid Appraisal of Agricultural Innovation Systems (Part Ⅱ). Integrated analysis of parasitic weed problems in rice in Tanzania. Agric Syst 132: 12–24.
[19]	Higgins AJ, Miller CJ, Archer AA, et al. (2010) Challenges of operations research practice in agricultural value chains. J Oper Res Soc 61: 964–973.
[20]	Mingers J (2003) A classification of the philosophical assumptions of management science methods. J Oper Res Soc 54: 559–570.
[21]	Zawedde A, Lubega J, Kidde S, et al. (2010) Methodological pluralism: An emerging paradigmatic approach to information systems research. In: Strengthening the Role of ICT in Development, Kizza MJ, Lynch K, Aisbett J, et al., Ed., Kampala, 99–128.
[22]	Wilding R, Humphries A (2009) Building relationships that create value. In: Dynamic Supply Chain Alignment: A New Business Model for Peak Performance in Enterprise Supply Chains Across All Geographies; Gattorna JL, Ed., London, 67–80.
[23]	Schein EH (2010) Organizational Culture and Leadership, John Wiley & Sons: San Francisco.
[24]	Koumparoulis DN (2013) PEST Analysis: The case of E-shop. Int J Econ Manag Soc Sci 2: 31–36.
[25]	Green P, Hardman S (2013) A conceptual framework for evaluating an academic department: A systems approach. Int Bus Econ Res J 12: 1535–1546.
[26]	Mingers J (1997) Multi-paradigm multimethodology. In: Multimethodology: The Theory and Practice of Combining Management Science Methodologies, Mingers J, Gill A, Ed., Wiley & Sons: Chichester, 1–22.
[27]	Mingers J, Brocklesby J (1997) Multimethodology: Towards a framework for mixing methodologies. Omega 25: 489–509.
[28]	Westwood R, Clegg S (2009) The discourse of organisation studies: dissensus, politics, and paradigms. In: Debating Organisation: Point-Counterpoint in Organisation Studies, Westwood R, Clegg S, Ed., Blackwell: Oxford, 1–42.
[29]	Pollack J (2009) Multimethodology in series and parallel: Strategic planning using hard and soft OR. J Oper Res Soc 60: 156–167.
[30]	Creswell JW, Miller DL (2000) Determining validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory Pract 39: 124–130.
[31]	Kivunja C, Kuyini AB (2017) Understanding and applying research paradigms in educational contexts. Int J High Educ 6: 26–41.
[32]	Habermas J (1984) The Theory of Communicative Action: Reason and the Rationalization of Society. Beacon Press, Boston.
[33]	Midgley G (2011) Theoretical pluralism in systemic action research. Syst Pract Action Res 24: 1–15.
[34]	Ferreira JS (2013) Multimethodology in Metaheuristics. J Oper Res Soc 64: 876–883.
[35]	Bekhet AK, Zauszniewski JA (2012) Methodological triangulation: An approach to understanding data. Nurse Res 20: 40–43.
[36]	Bhaskar R (1981) The Possibility of Naturalism. Harvester Press, Sussex.
[37]	Checkland P, Poulter J (2006) Learning For Action: A Short Definitive Account of Soft Systems Methodology, and its use Practitioners, Teachers and Students. Wiley & Sons: Chichester.
[38]	Zhu Z (2011) After paradim: Why mixing-methodology theorising fails and how to make it work again. J Oper Res Soc 62: 784–798.
[39]	Kuhn TS (1962) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. University of Chicago Press: Chicago.
[40]	Harwood SA (2011) Mixing methodologies and paradigmatic commensurability. J Oper Res Soc 62: 806–809.
[41]	Callaghan CW (2016) Critical theory and contemporary paradigm differentiation. Acta Commer 16: 59–99.
[42]	Habermas J (1972) Knowledge and Human Interests. Heinemann, London.
[43]	Jackson MC (2013) Systems Methodology for the Management Sciences. Springer, New York.
[44]	Mingers J (2001) Combining IS research methods: Towards a pluralist methodology. Inf Syst Res 12: 240–259.
[45]	Midgley G (1997) Mixing methods: Developing systemic intervention. In: Multimethodology: The Theory and Practice of Integrating OR and Systems Methodologies; Mingers J, Gill A, Ed., Wiley, Chichester, 249–290.
[46]	Jackson MC (1991) Systems Methodology for the Management Sciences. Plenum, New York.
[47]	Angelis A, Kanavos P (2017) Multiple criteria decision analysis (MCDA) for evaluating new medicines in health technology assessment and beyond: The advance value framework. Soc Sci Med 188: 137–156.
[48]	Behzadian M, Otaghsara SK, Yazdani M, et al. (2012) A state-of the-art survey of TOPSIS applications. Expert Syst Appl 39: 13051–13069.
[49]	Kelemenis A, Askounis D (2010) A new TOPSIS-based multi-criteria approach to personnel selection. Expert Syst Appl 37: 4999–5008.
[50]	Gaucher S, Le Gal PY, Soler LG (2004) Modelling supply chain management in the sugar industry. Sugar Cane Int 22: 8–16.
[51]	Wynne AT, Murray TJ, Gabriel AB (2009) Relative cane payment: realigning grower incentives to optimise sugar recoveries. In Proceedings of the 82nd Annual Congress-South African Sugar Technologists' Association : Durban, 50–57.
[52]	Horn RE, Weber RP (2007) New Tools for Resolving Wicked Problems: Mess Mapping and Resolution Mapping Processes; Strategy Kinetics LLC: Watertown.
[53]	Wexler MN (2009) Exploring the moral dimension of wicked problems. Int J Sociol Soc Policy 29: 531–542.
[54]	Ackoff RL (1978) The Art of Problem Solving. Wiley, New York.
[55]	Mintzberg H, Raisinghani D, Thérêt A (1976) The structure of "unstructured" decision processes. Adm Sci Q 21: 246–275.
[56]	Nelson GH, Stolterman E (2012) The Design Way: Intentional Change in an Unpredictable World. MIT Press, Cambridge.
[57]	Simon HA, Dantzig GB, Hogarth R, et al. (1987) Decision making and problem solving. Interfaces (Providence)17: 11–31.
[58]	Davies J, Mabin VJ, Balderstone SJ (2005) The theory of constraints: A methodology apart? — A comparison with selected OR/MS methodologies. Omega 55: 506–524.
[59]	Houghton L, Tuffley D (2015) Towards a methodology of wicked problem exploration through concept shifting and tension point analysis. Syst Res Behav Sci 32: 283–297.
[60]	Camillus JC (2008) Strategy as a wicked problem. Harv Bus Rev 86: 98–106.
[61]	Yanow D, Schwartz-Shea P (2015) Interpretive Approaches to Research Design: Concepts and Processes. Routledge, New York.
[62]	Zlatanovic D (2017) A multi-methodological approach to complex problem solving: The case of Serbian enterprise. Systems 5: 40–55.
[63]	Small A, Wainwright D (2014) SSM and technology management: Developing multimethodology through practice. Eur J Oper Res 233: 660–673.
[64]	Mingers J, Rosenhead J (2004) Problem structuring methods in action. Eur J Oper Res 152: 530–554.
[65]	Von Korff Y, Daniell KA, Moellenkamp S, et al. (2012) Implementing participatory water management: Recent advances in theory, practice, and evaluation. Ecol Soc 17: 30–44.
[66]	Belton V, Stewart T (2010) Problem structuring and multiple criteria decision analysis. In: Trends in Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis, Greco S, Ehrgott M, Figueira JR, Ed.; Springer Science & Business Media, New York, 209–239.
[67]	Franco LA, Montibeller G (2010) Facilitated modelling in operational research. Eur J Oper Res 205: 489–500.
[68]	Rosenhead J (1996) What's the problem? An introduction to problem structuring methods. Interfaces (Providence) 26: 117–131.
[69]	Sibbesen LK, Leleur S (2006) Decision support and multimethodology: Diffrent strategies for combination of OR methods Available from: http://www.feg.unesp.br/~fmarins/seminarios/MaterialdeLeitura/artigosm%E9todos/Sibbesen&amp_Leleur-Multimethodology.pdf (accessed on Mar 15, 2016).
[70]	Rosenhead J (1992) Into the swamp: The analysis of social issues. J Oper Res Soc 43: 293–305.
[71]	Myllyviita T, Hujala T, Kangas A, et al. (2014) Mixing methods–assessment of potential benefits for natural resources planning. Scand J For Res 29: 20–29.
[72]	Raia F (2008) Causality in complex dynamic systems : A challenge in earth systems science education. J Geosci Educ 56: 81–94.
[73]	Wiener N (1966) I Am a Mathematician: The Later Life of a Prodigy. MIT Press, Massachusettts.
[74]	Razak AF, Jensen HJ (2014) Quantifying "causality" in complex systems: Understanding transfer entropy. PLoS One 9: 1–14.
[75]	Doggett AM (2005) Root cause analysis: A framework for tool selection. Qual Manag J 12: 34–45.
[76]	Sterman JD (2000) Business Dynamics: Systems Thinking and Modeling for a Complex World. McGraw-Hill, Boston.
[77]	Schaffernicht M, Groesser SN (2011) A comprehensive method for comparing mental models of dynamic systems. Eur J Oper Res 210: 57–67.
[78]	Goldratt EM (1992) The Jonah Program. The Goldratt Institute, New Hampshire.
[79]	Cook TD, Campbell DT, Shadish W (2002) Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Generalized Causal Inference. Houghton Mifflin, Boston.
[80]	Dettmer HW (2007) The Logical Thinking Process: A Systems Approach to Complex Problem Solving. ASQ Quality Press, Milwaukee.
[81]	Burns JR, Musa P (2001) Structural validation of causal loop diagrams. Proc 19th Int Conf Syst Dyn Soc, 1–13.
[82]	Siriram R (2012) A soft and hard systems approach to business process management. Syst Res Behav Sci 29: 87–100.
[83]	Oglethorpe D, Heron G (2013) Testing the theory of constraints in UK local food supply chains. Int J Oper Prod Manag 33: 1346–1367.
[84]	Kim S, Mabin VJ, Davies J (2008) The theory of constraints thinking processes: Retrospect and prospect. Int J Oper Prod Manag 28: 155–184.
[85]	Machado RL (2015) An analysis of the Brazilian ethanol supply chain. In Proceedings of 26^th POMS Annual Conference.
[86]	Mena C, Adenso-Diaz B, Yurt O (2011) The causes of food waste in the supplier-retailer interface: Evidences from the UK and Spain. Resour Conserv Recycl 55: 648–658.
[87]	Taylor LJ, Esan TO (2012) Goldratt's theory applied to the problems associated with the mode of transportation, storage and sale of fresh fruits and vegetables in Nigeria. J African Re Bus Technol 2012: 1–16.
[88]	Gupta A, Bhardwaj A, Kanda A (2010) Fundamental concepts of theory of constraints: An emerging philosophy. World Acad Sci Eng Technol 46: 686–692.
[89]	Kosko B (1986) Fuzzy cognitive maps. Int J Man–Mach Stud 24: 65–75.
[90]	Lopolito A, Prosperi M (2009) Socio-economic implications of the development of a bio-refinery: An analysis with fuzzy cognitive maps. Landscape 1: 2–27.
[91]	Fairweather J (2010) Farmer models of socio-ecologic systems: Application of causal mapping across multiple locations. Ecol Modell 221: 555–562.
[92]	Buyukozkan G, Vardaloglu Z (2009) Analyzing of collaborative planning, forecasting and replenishment approach using fuzzy cognitive map. In Proceedings of the 2009 International Conference on Computers & Industrial Engineering; Kacem I, Ed., Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers Inc, New York, 1763–1768.
[93]	Abbas NH (2014) The impact of trust relationships on environmental management in north Lebanon. University of Twente.
[94]	Al Shayji S, El Kadhi NEZ, Wang Z (2011) Fuzzy cognitive map theory for the political domain. In Proceedings of the Federated Conference on Computer Science and Information Systems; Ganzha M, Maciaszek L, Paprzycki M, Ed.; IEEE, 179–186.
[95]	Ruan D, Mkrtchyan L (2012) Using belief degree-distributed fuzzy cognitive maps for safety culture assessment. Adv Intell Soft Comput 124: 501–510.
[96]	Cheah WP, Kim YS, Kim KY, et al. (2011) Systematic causal knowledge acquisition using FCM constructor for product design decision support. Expert Syst Appl 38: 15316–15331.
[97]	Papageorgiou EI, Salmeron JL (2013) A review of fuzzy cognitive maps research during the last decade. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 21: 66–79.
[98]	Hanafizadeh P, Aliehyaei R (2011) The application of fuzzy cognitive map in soft system methodology. Syst Pract Action Res 24: 325–354.
[99]	Bellamy MA, Basole RC (2013) Network analysis of supply chain systems: A systematic review and future research. Syst Eng 16: 235–249.
[100]	Kadwa M, Bezuidenhout CN, Ortmann GF (2014) Quantifying and modelling disruptions in the Eston sugarcane supply chain. In Proceedings of the South African Sugarcane Technologists Association 87, Durban, 474–477.
[101]	Sanjika TM, Bezuidenhout CN, Bodhanya S, et al. (2012) A network analysis approach to identify problems in integrated sugarcane production and processing systems. In Proceedings of the 85^th South African Sugar Technologists Association, 50–53.
[102]	Borg R, Toikka A, Primmer E (2015) Social capital and governance: A social network analysis of forest biodiversity collaboration in Central Finland. For Policy Econ 50: 90–97.
[103]	Zagenczyk TJ, Scott KD, Gibney R, et al. (2010) Social influence and perceived organizational support: A social networks analysis. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 111: 127–138.
[104]	Capo-Vicedo J, Mula J, Capo J (2011) A social network-based organizational model for improving knowledge management in supply chains. Supply Chain Manag Int J, 16: 379–388.
[105]	Baruah D, Bharali A (2017) A comparative study of vertex deleted centrality measures. Ann Pure Appl Math 14: 199–205.
[106]	Martinez-Lopez B, Perez AM, Sanchez-Vizcaino JM (2009) Social network analysis-review of general concepts and use in preventive veterinary medicine. Transbound Emerg Dis 56: 109–120.
[107]	Gerwel-Proches CN, Bodhanya S (2015) An application of Soft Systems Methodology in the sugar industry. Int J Qual Methods 14: 1–15.
[108]	Mishra MK, Khare N, Agrawal AB (2004) Bagasse cogeneration in India: Status, barriers. IOSR J Mech Civ Eng 11: 69–78.
[109]	Ibarra-Vega DW (2016) Modeling waste management in a bioethanol supply chain: A system dynamics approach. Dyna 83: 99–104.
[110]	Lourenzani AEB, Silva AL (2010) Systematic model of collective actions: Evidences from Brazilian agribusiness. In: 5th Research Workshop On Institutions And Organizations. Concalves, Brazil.
[111]	Mathew AO, Rodrigues LLR, Vittaleswar A (2012) Human factors & knowledge management : A system dynamics based analysis. J Knowl Manag Pract 13: 1–21.
[112]	bitrus Goyol A, Dala BG. Causal loop diagrams (CLD) as an instrument for strategic planning process. Int J Bus Manag 9: 77–89.
[113]	Schaffernicht M (2010) Causal loop diagrams between structure and behaviour: A critical analysis of the relationship between polarity, behaviour and events. Syst Res Behav Sci 27: 653–666.
[114]	Rendon-Sagardi MA, Sanchez-Ramirez C, Cortes-Robles G, et al. (2014) Dynamic analysis of feasibility in ethanol supply chain for biofuel production in Mexico. Appl Energy 123: 358–367.
[115]	Sandvik S, Moxnes E (2009) Peak oil, biofuels, and long-term food security. In: Proceedings of the 27th International Conference of the System Dynamics Society; Ford A, Ford DN, Anderson EG, Ed.; System Dynamics Society: New York, 1–19.
[116]	Zlatanovic D (2012) System dynamics models in management problems solving. Econ Horiz 14: 25–38.
[117]	Lambert SD, Loiselle CG (2008) Combining individual interviews and focus groups to enhance data richness. J Adv Nurs 62: 228–237.
[118]	Kumar S, Nigmatullin A (2011) A system dynamics analysis of food supply chains-Case study with non-perishable products. Simul Model Pract Theory 19: 2151–2168.
[119]	Trybus E, Johnson G (2010) The role of supply chain product safety: A study on food safety regulations. Calif J Oper Manag 8: 93–99.
[120]	Mariajayaprakash A, Senthilvelan T (2013) Failure detection and optimization of sugar mill boiler using FMEA and Taguchi method. Eng Fail Anal 30: 17–26.
[121]	Andersen B, Fagerhaug T (2006) Root Cause Analysis: Simplified Tools and Techniques; ASQ Quality Press: Milwaukee.
[122]	Jayswal A, Li X, Zanwar A, et al. (2011) A sustainability root cause analysis methodology and its application. Comput Chem Eng 35: 2786–2798.
[123]	Jun GT, Morris Z, Eldabi T, et al (2011) Development of modelling method selection tool for health services management: From problem structuring methods to modelling and simulation methods. BMC Health Serv Res 11: 108–119.
[124]	Mohammadi H, Ghazanfari M, Nozari H, et al. (2015) Combining the theory of constraints with system dynamics: A general model (case study of the subsidized milk industry). Int J Manag Sci Eng Manag 10: 102–108.
[125]	Ahmad N, Zulkepli J, Ramli R, et al. (2017) Understanding the dynamic effects of returning patients toward emergency department density. In: Proceedings of the AIP Conference; Ibrahim H, Aziz N, Zulkepli J, et al., Ed., AIP Publishing: USA.
[126]	Setianto NA, Cameron D, Gaughan JB (2014) Identifying archetypes of an enhanced system dynamics causal loop diagram in pursuit of strategies to improve smallholder beef farming in Java, Indonesia, Syst Res Behav Sci 31: 642–654.
[127]	Duryan M, Nikolik D, van Merode G, et al. (2014) Using cognitive mapping and qualitative system dynamics to support decision making in intellectual disability care. J Policy Pract Intellect Disabil 11: 245–254.
[128]	Wee YY, Cheah WP, Tan SC, et al. (2015) A method for root cause analysis with a Bayesian belief network and fuzzy cognitive map. Expert Syst Appl 42: 468–487.
[129]	Doggett AM (2004) A statistical comparison of three root cause analysis tools. J Ind Technol 20: 20–28.
[130]	McNally R (2011) Thinking with Flying Logic; Sciral: Glendora.
[131]	Youngman KJA (2016) A guide to implementing the Theory of Constraints (TOC) Available from: http://www.dbrmfg.co.nz/ThinkingProcessCRT.htm (accessed on Mar 15, 2016).
[132]	Park KS, Kim HS (1995) Fuzzy cognitive maps considering time relationships. Int J Hum Comput Stud 42: 157–168.
[133]	Mingers J (2006) Philosophical foundations: Critical realism. In Realising Systems Thinking: Knowledge and Action in Management Science; Mingers J, Ed.; Springer: New Jersey, 11–31.
[134]	Alinezhad A, Amini A, Alinezhad A (2011) Sensitivity analysis of TOPSIS technique: The result of change in the weight of one attribute on the final ranking of alternatives. J Ind Eng 7: 23–28.
[135]	Hanine M, Boutkhoum O, Tikniouine A, et al. (2016) Application of an integrated multi-criteria decision making AHP-TOPSIS methodology for ETL software selection. Springerplus 5: 263–279.

Reader Comments

Your name:*

Email:*
© 2019 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)