Journal Pre-proofs

The information technology barriers in supply chain of Sugarcane in Khuze-

stan province, Iran: A combined ANP-DEMATEL approach

Reza Salehi, Mohammad Ali Asaadi, Mahmood Haji Rahimi, Ali Mehrabi

PII: S2214-3173(20)30205-5
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.inpa.2020.09.005
Reference: INPA 273

To appear in: Information Processing in Agriculture

Received Date: 2 April 2020

Revised Date: 23 September 2020
Accepted Date: 24 September 2020

Please cite this article as: R. Salehi, M. Ali Asaadi, M. Haji Rahimi, A. Mehrabi, The information technology
barriers in supply chain of Sugarcane in Khuzestan province, Iran: A combined ANP-DEMATEL approach,
Information Processing in Agriculture (2020), doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.inpa.2020.09.005

This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition of a cover
page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of record. This version
will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published in its final form, but we are
providing this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that, during the production process, errors
may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

© 2020 China Agricultural University. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of KeAi.
The information technology barriers in supply chain of Sugarcane
in Khuzestan province, Iran: A combined ANP-DEMATEL
approach

Reza Salehia*, Mohammad Ali Asaadib, Mahmood Haji Rahimic and Ali Mehrabia

a Department of Business Management, Shahid Chamran university, Ahvaz, Iran

Modares b Department of Agricultural Economics Engineering, Faculty of Agriculture, Tarbiat
University, Tehran, Iran.
c Department of Agricultural Economics Engineering, Faculty of Agriculture, University of
Kurdistan, Kurdistan, Iran.

*Corresponding author:
Reza Salehi
E-mail address: Rez4salehi@gmail.com
Tel: +98-935-7060547
 The information technology barriers in supply chain of Sugarcane

in Khuzestan province, Iran: A combined ANP-DEMATEL

approach

Abstract

The present study aims at identifying and also prioritizing information technology barriers in supply chain

of sugarcane in Khuzestan province. The statistical population of the study consisted of all senior managers

of sugarcane industries in the province. Of four large relevant companies in the field, 34 senior managers

were selected. The required data was collected through two stages hiring questionnaires. In order to evaluate

information technology barriers at the supply chain level, six main dimensions were considered including

technological, supply chain management, strategic, organizational, individual and customer barriers.

DEMATEL technique was also used to identify the relationship between indicators, and the ANP method

was also employed to prioritize the before mentioned barriers. The results of DEMATEL showed that

strategic barrier indicator acts as the most influential, and the supply chain management barrier indicator

as the most impotent one. The results of ANP method showed that of all research indicators, customer

barrier indicator (weight 0.00127) was the most important indicator. Next, organizational and supply chain

management barrier indicators are ranked second and third, respectively. Also, among the 28 research

components (sub-criteria), the "lack of financial support" component with the weight of 0.04821 ranked

first, followed by "poor outsourcing management" and "high investment and installation costs" as second

and third respectively, which also had the most impact on the sugarcane supply chain.

Keywords: Information technology; Supply chain management; Sugarcane; ANP; DEMATEL

1. Introduction
Nowadays, companies encountered the challenges and pressure of a competitive market, including

globalization, competition and collaboration [1], diversification of customer needs [2], and short product

life cycles [3]; and supply chain has been brought to the spotlight of corporate executives as a key principle.

In other words, in addition to focusing on the activities within the company, senior executives are paying

close attention to appropriate and timely communications and interactions with their suppliers and

customers, and striving to efficiently manage their product supply chain [4], [5]. Supply chain management

involves the management of an interconnected business network that encompasses the products and services

needed for target customers. Therefore, it encompasses all raw material transportation and storage,

inventory during manufacturing and products from production to consumption phases [6]. Supply chain

management is one of the most powerful operating paradigms for improving the competitive advantage of

manufacturing and service organizations [7]. Giving the current trend, nowadays organizations are not

individually important regarding maximizing value added because it occurs throughout the supply chain

and its management process. On the other hand, with increasing globalization and competition at the

international level and the introduction of new technologies such as information technology, many of the

past policies and experiences are no longer of great use. It can be said that, nowadays, organizations are

exposed to some form of information technology developments and the effects of information and

communication technology application in all areas of supply chain - from supplier to production and

customer- are easily visible. Therefore, the application of information technology is of high saliency for

improving supply chain management [8], [9].

Information and communication technology (ICT) is a key driver of economic growth with respect to the

supply chain business [10], [11]. Such an industry has undoubtedly led to widespread expansion in all social

and economic spheres of humanity, and its impact on human societies is such that the world today is rapidly

becoming an information society [12]. The use of ICT considering business as well as other ICT

applications reduces cost and therefore increases efficiency in the field [13]. Sellers faced lower costs and

greater profits, and consumers experienced more information, better choice, and cheaper shopping [14].
In recent years, agriculture has become increasingly dependent on technology, knowledge and information,

so it requires a great deal of technical and scientific information to make appropriate decisions [15].

Applying information technology to agricultural sectors improves competitiveness across different sectors

of the agricultural supply chain [16], [17]. Lack of access to agricultural supply chain information is one of

the problems farmers faced with in so-called developing countries [18]. To this end, ICT has been used in

most, if not all of these countries to disseminate extension services and improve agricultural practices and

technologies. The importance of this has forced governments to put in place a structure and system for

faster and less costly distribution of innovation [19].

Sugarcane in Iran is one of the industries that has the most connection with the before and after cycles in

the production chain of the national economy. It contributes to the growth of the national income of the

country. The sugarcane supply chain comprises sugar industry inputs for agriculture (sugar beet raw

materials, sugarcane), industry (capital equipment), oil (energy supply) and transportation and commerce

(shipping services) sectors. The supply chain of the sugarcane industry includes various entities from

suppliers (e.g. beet growers, sugarcane and raw sugar importers), manufacturers (sugar beet factories,

sugarcane and sugar beet refineries), distributors (white sugar importers, sugar packaging industries and

distributing companies) and customers (such as direct and industrial consumers and foreign customers, etc.)

[20]. In order to improve the integration of this chain, employing information technology is of great

significance. In Iran, sugarcane with cultivation area of 110,000 hectares is one of the greatest agricultural-

industrial crops in the country. It is also one of the most important agricultural products that supplies 70%

of the country's sugar [21]. Khuzestan province has long been a favorable area for sugarcane cultivation

due to climatic conditions and historical background. In the past, sugarcane has been widely cultivated in

the region, which has been associated with the success of sugarcane industry’s development. Effective

supply chain management is critical to achieving business objectives within the sugarcane industry in the

province.

Information technology and also barriers to its use have generally been studied in various sectors, however,

particularly the barriers to the sugarcane industry have not been thoroughly studied so far. In a study Kumar
and Kansara [22], information technology barriers in the sugar supply chain in India were considered using

a hierarchical analysis process under fuzzy conditions. The results showed that components were evaluated

on the basis of AHP of each factor so that the barriers to the business environment and the lack of

organization of the active economic sectors in the chain were ranked first and second respectively.

Jimenez-Jimenez et al. [23] have shown that supply chain collaboration posits a positive impact on the

relationship between information technology and technological innovation, so that enhancing collaboration

with external factors strengthens the relationship between information technology and innovation. Bramble

et al. [24] identified barriers to IT adoption in hospitals and provided guidelines for health care managers.

Patil and Kant [25] suggested a framework for assessing communication barriers and knowledge sharing

as well as providing solutions to these barriers by employing the AHP_TOPSIS method. It was a case study

in an industrial city in India. The framework presented acts well for achieving the objectives of industrial

supply chain companies. According to Govindan et al. [26], the barriers to information technology

implementation with supply chain management are divided into project, individual, technological, supply

chain, and strategic barriers. The results showed that inadequate knowledge and lack of necessary education

are the most important sub-indicators of the current study. The body of literature shows that many

companies have faced extensive challenges in successful implementation of information technology in the

supply chain. Lacking clear and accurate market information, unwillingness to change, limited use of

information technology by active factories and institutions, incompatibility between supply chain partners,

low levels of maintenance support, lower perceived benefits, and high cost of capital and installation can

be cited as barriers to information technology in the sugarcane supply chain; which on the whole indicating

that evaluation of these factors is of great importance in the sugarcane industry [26]. However, reviewing

the literature indicates that there is a huge gap in this area and there are still insufficient work to identify

the barriers to information technology in the supply chain of sugarcane industries, that requires the scientific

necessity of carrying out this study. Findings imply that the current study intends to identify and rank

information technology barriers in the supply chain of sugarcane industry in Khuzestan province, Iran. So,

the key question here is as following:

What are the barriers to information technology in the supply chain of the sugar cane industry and what is

the ranking of these factors?

2. Methodology

The statistical population of the study consisted of all senior managers of sugarcane industries in Khuzestan

province (Dobal Khazai Sugar Cultivation Company, Dehkhoda Sugar Cultivation Company, Haft Tapeh

Sugar Cultivation Company and Khuzestan Sugar Company), qualified with respect to experience and

competence in IT. Data collection was performed using questionnaires. The questionnaires were distributed

twice among thirty-four managers participated in the study. The first questionnaire was about the Decision-

Making Trial and Evaluation Laboratory (DEMATEL) method with 5-degree scale from zero (no effect) to

4 (very high effect). The second questionnaire, the Saaty Pairwise Comparison, was used to analyze the

Analytic Network Process (ANP) method. In this study, MS Excel 2016 and Supper Decision 2.6.0-RC1

were also used for data analysis in DEMATEL and for ANP analysis, respectively.

2.1. Classification of indicators

Reviewing prior literature, six important and influential benchmarks were identified regarding the barriers

to information technology in the sugar supply chain. Table 1 illustrates the categories of identified

indicators along with the sources used. According to the opinion of experts, some components have been

added to the model based on Delphi method.

Table 1. Classification and identification of research indicators and components

Criteria Code Define of Sub-Criteria Ref.

SB1 Lack of proper orientation and planning [27]
SB2 Improper performance evaluation systems [28]
Strategic Barriers
(SB) Lack of awareness attached to IT approach
SB3 [29], [30]
in the agricultural industry environment
SB4 Lack of managers’ involvement [31]
Supply Chain SC1 Lack of financial support [27]
Management Inconsistency between supply chain
Barriers (SC) SC2 [14], [32], [33]
structure and information systems
 Large number of intermediates
SC3 (speculators) at the level of sugar cane [22], [34], [18], [35]
supply chain
SC4 Lack of IT flexibility at Chain-level [36]
TB1 There was no technical infrastructure for IT [32], [37]
TB2 Lack of internet and electricity access [34], [38], [29]
Technological Security and privacy concerns and
TB3 [39]
Barriers (TB) disclosure of information
TB4 Lack of certain standards [40]
TB5 High cost of investment and installation [22], [41], [42]
IB1 Resistance to changing farmers [41], [18]
Individual
IB2 Lack of adequate education and knowledge [43], [44], [45]
Barriers (IB)
IB3 Less computer skills among farmers [46], [47],[38], [48], [29]
Lack of reengineering of business
OB1 Delphi Expert Decision
processes
OB2 Lack of e-learning [44]
OB3 Lack of management support [49]
Organizational
Barriers (OB) Lack of development of quality
OB4 Delphi Expert Decision
performance
Lack of adequate support for educational
OB5 Delphi Expert Decision
plans
OB6 Low labor productivity [50]
CB1 Failure to receive customer complaints [51]
CB2 Lack of customer awareness Delphi Expert Decision
Customer Barriers CB3 Poor outsourcing management [52]
(CB) CB4 Poor marketing management [27]
CB5 Lack of Decision Support Systems [46], [38]
CB6 Lack of team collaboration in marketing [53]

2.2. DEMATEL Technique

The DEMATEL technique was introduced by Battle Memorial Institute between 1972 and 1976. This

method was used to solve complex and intertwined problems [54]. By showing the cause-effect

relationships between the system components and elements via diagrams, it can be easily achievable to

separate the components into two groups of cause and effect. The causal graph was obtained by plotting

even pairs by which the horizontal axis indicates the severity of the impact and the vertical axis represents

the agent’s cause or effect status, such that whether an indicator is placed above the horizontal axis, it
belongs to cause group or falls into the category of effect group if it drops below the horizontal axis [55].

The relevant steps of the DEMATEL method can be summarized as follows.

Step 1. Generating the direct-relation matrix, normalizing and attaining the total-relation matrix

In order to form a direct relation matrix for each expert, one must determine the effect of criterion i on

criterion j by considering quantities equivalent to the verbal concepts of the primary matrix in DEMATEL

method. The effect of the criterion i on the criterion j, determined by the expert k is represented as 𝑋𝑘𝑖𝑗 (Eq.

1) [56].

𝑋𝑘 = [𝑋𝑘𝑖𝑗]𝑛 × 𝑛, 𝑖 = 1.….𝑛, 𝑗 = 1.….𝑛, 𝑘 = 1.….𝐻 (1)

Likewise, X 1.X 2 .X 3. … .X H matrixes will be available for H expert in a way that all elements of the

original diameter of these matrices are of zero value. The arithmetic mean of all matrices of Eq. 1 obtained

from H expert response which is calculated for establishing the direct relation matrix. Matrix 𝐴 = [𝑎𝑖𝑗]𝑛 × 𝑛

represents the mean of H respondent (expert) for each element and demonstrates the extent of the initial

direct impact that a criterion has on itself and the other criteria (Eq. 2) [56].

{∑
0 𝑖=𝑗
𝐻
𝑎𝑖𝑗 = 1 . 𝑖.𝑗 = 1, 2, ….,𝑛
𝑋𝐾
𝑖𝑗 𝑖 ≠ 𝑗 (2)
𝐻
𝑘= 1

By recruiting Eq. 3 and 4, the direct relation matrix A can be transformed into the normal direct relation

matrix X [56].

𝑋=𝑆×𝐴 (3)

𝑆 = 𝑀𝑖𝑛 { 1
𝑛
𝑀𝑎𝑥1 ≤ 𝑖 ≤ 𝑛∑𝑗 = 1𝑎𝑖𝑗 ,
1
𝑛
𝑀𝑎𝑥1 ≤ 𝑗 ≤ 𝑛∑𝑖 = 1𝑎𝑖𝑗 } (4)

In Eq. 4, the sum of the elements of each row i in the matrix A denotes the overall direct effect that factor
𝑛
i has on other elements. 𝑀𝑎𝑥1 ≤ 𝑖 ≤ 𝑛∑𝑗 = 1𝑎𝑖𝑗 illustrates the direct effects of the agent along the great direct
effect on other factors. Also, the sum of the elements of each column j in matrix A represents the direct
𝑛
overall effect that factor j accepts from other factors. 𝑀𝑎𝑥1 ≤ 𝑗 ≤ 𝑛∑𝑖 = 1𝑎𝑖𝑗 signifies the most important

overall direct effect that a particular agent receives from other factors. S represents the maximum value of

the two statements mentioned, and is obtained by multiplying each of the elements of matrix A by the value

of matrix X such that the 𝑥𝑖𝑗 element of the matrix X will take a value between zero and less than one. The

general relations matrix (T) is calculated using Eq. 5 and 6 where the "I" is an Identity matrix [57].

𝑇 = 𝐷(𝐼 ― 𝐷) ―1 (5)

𝑇 = [𝑡𝑐𝑖𝑗]𝑛 × 𝑛 . 𝑖.𝑗 = 1, 2,…,𝑛 (6)

Step 2. Set a threshold value

Determining the threshold is one of the measures being taken to reduce the structural relationship between

dimensions and components to keep the complexity of the system at an acceptable level. Elements above

the threshold are assigned the same values, while those less than or equal to the threshold are assigned zero

[55].

Step 3. Obtaining the causal diagram

In this diagram, which established upon the results of the general relations matrix, R + C shows the

horizontal axis, which conveys the importance of the indicator and is obtained by adding C to R. C is the

sum of the columns of the general relations matrix and indicates how much one indicator is affected by the

other indicators (Eq. 7). R represents the sum of the rows of the matrix of general relations showing how

one indicator affects the other indicator (Eq. 8) [57].

[∑ ]
𝑛

𝐶= [𝑐𝑖𝑗]′𝑛 × 1 = 𝑡𝑐𝑖𝑗 (7)

𝑖=1
1×𝑛

[∑ ]
𝑛
(8)
𝑅 = [𝑟𝑖𝑗]1 × 𝑛 = 𝑡𝑐𝑖𝑗
𝑗=1
𝑛×1
2.3. Analytic Network Process (ANP)

The three major steps of ANP are briefly introduced as follows:

Step 1. Model construction (Forming the network structure)

According to the comprehensive set of criteria specified by the experts, the first step was to identify the

relationship between the criteria, sub-criteria and alternatives that are displayed in a graphical network

structure. The relationship identified at this step can be both between and within clusters [58].

Step2. Pairwise comparison matrices and local priority estimation

To calculate the aggregation of opinions, the geometric mean of the respondents' opinions was first

calculated by the Eq. 9. l is the number of decision makers, k is the number of decision makers, and i and j

are about to be compared indicators or alternatives [58].

𝑘
∏𝑘 i , j = 1, 2, …, n ‫ ﻭ‬i ≠ j , l= 1, 2, …, k
𝑙 = 1 𝑖𝑗𝑙,
𝑥𝑖𝑗 = 𝑥 (9)

According to the network structure formed, pairwise comparison conducted and the local priority value for

each factor was calculated in the network structure and then after, the special vector was calculated (Eq.

10). In order to check the inconsistency rate, λmax was calculated using Eq.10, CI, the consistency indicator

(Eq. 11), RI, the random indicator, and CR, the consistency rate calculated according to (Eq. 12). The

random indicator is extracted from the standard random indicator table. Also, the consistency rate was set

at an amount less than 0.1 [58].

[]
𝑤′1
𝑤′2

.
1
𝑊′=AW= . , and λ max = 𝑛 ( 𝑤′1
𝑤1
𝑤′2
+ 𝑤2 + … + 𝑤𝑛)
𝑤′𝑛
(10)
.
𝑤′𝑛
 λmax ― n
𝐶𝐼 = (11)
𝑛―1

CI
𝐶𝑅 = (12)
𝑅𝐼

Step3. Super matrix formation and selection of the best alternatives

The unweighted super matrix was constructed by replacing the internal priority vectors (relative weights),

the elements and clusters. Then, there was an obligation to standardize the unweighted super matrix to sum

up each column and construct a weighted super matrix. To calculate the limited super matrix, according to

Eq. 13, the weighted super matrix has to be raised enough to a larger power in order to produce convergence,

that is, all elements of each row are needed to be identical [59].

lim 𝑊𝑧𝑊 (13)

𝑧→∞

2.4. The computational steps of integrated DEMATEL and ANP framework

An overview of the combination of the two approaches DEMATEL and ANP was shown in Fig. 1. As can

be seen, the research flowchart consists of four main steps. In the first step, through reviving the literature

and using Delphi method, indicators and components related to information technology barriers are

identified and extracted in sugarcane supply chain. In the second step, the respondents filled the basic

DEMATEL questionnaires designed on the basis of the research indicators, and the primary matrix of direct

relationships was developed in the DEMATEL method. Then the matrix was normalized, and the general

relations matrix was constructed. In this way, a cause-effect diagram was constructed which was the

network structure of the research in the first step of the ANP method. In the third step, the paired comparison

matrix was computed according to the results of the paired comparison questionnaires and the relative

importance of each factor. In this step, the consistency rate indicator was also controlled, then the structure

of the primary super matrix was constructed and the unweighted matrix, the weighted matrix and the limited

super matrix were calculated later. In the fourth step, according to the calculated limited weight, each of

the sub-indicators of information technology barrier ranked in the supply chain of the sugarcane industry.
 Start Delphi Technique

Literature Step 1- Define criteria and sub-Criteria to build

Expert Opinion
Survey framework

Step 2- Construct initial direct relation Step 3- Construct network structure

matrix within Criteria using of ANP
DEMATEL

Step 3.1- Construct pairwise comparison

matrixes using ANP
Step 2.1- Normalize direct relation matrix

Step 3.2- Calculate relative important

weights of matrixes
Step 2.2- Construct total relation matrix

Step 2.3- Obtain inner dependence matrix Step 3.3- Check consistency of matrixes
and observe causal relationship
No
CR ≤ 0.10
Yes

Step 3.4-Form a super-matrix by entering

evaluations of DMs

Step 3.4- Normalize unweighted super-

matrix and raise it to the power 2n+1

Step 4- Prioritize the IT Barriers in

Finish
Sugarcane SCM

Fig. 1. A general view of IT barriers evaluation framework.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Forming the direct-relation matrix

The average effect of indicators on each other as specified by managers is shown in Table 2. The numbers

in this table are the result of the mean of DMs’ opinions, ranging from zero (no effect) to 4 (very high

effect).
 Table 2. The initial direct relation matrix for main criteria.

Criteria SB SC TB IB OB CB
SB 0 3.21 2.62 2.75 2.45 3.10
SC 3.15 0 3.10 2.89 3.25 1.67
TB 2.49 2.59 0 2.15 2.89 2.84
IB 1.85 2.19 3.25 0 2.81 2.35
OB 1.26 3.10 2.75 2.89 0 2.30
CB 2.32 2.85 3.25 1.89 2.15 0

3.2. Producing a causal diagram and constructing the inner dependence matrix

In Table 3, obtained from the results of the overall cause-related matrix, R + C shows the horizontal axis,

representing the importance of indicator. The vertical axis (R-C) can split indicators into two cause and

effect groups. Positive value puts the indicator into the cause group and, otherwise, into the effect group.

Table 3. Total effects and net effects for each indicator.

Criteria R C R+C R-C

SB 6.34 0.00 6.34 6.34
SC 3.89 3.71 7.59 0.18
TB 2.41 6.51 8.92 -4.10
IB 1.26 2.41 3.67 -1.15
OB 1.23 3.77 5.00 -2.54
CB 2.46 1.19 3.65 1.27

In Fig. 2, the cause-effect diagram is plotted according to the regular pairs Ri - Cj, Ri + Cj.
 8.00
Strategic Barriers

6.00

4.00

Organizatinal Barriers
2.00 Technological Barriers

0.00
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 10.00

-2.00
Individual Barriers

-4.00 Customer Barriers

Supply Chain
Management Barrires
-6.00

Fig. 2. The cause-effect diagram of the total relations.

As shown in Fig. 2, strategic, organizational and technological barriers are among the cause indicators and

those of supply chain management, customer and individual barriers, among the effect indicators. The

model in Fig. 2 illustrates the inter-relationship between the indicators, which was marked as the first step

in the ANP method. The weighting and ranking of indicators and components through the network analysis

will be discussed in the succeeding sections.

The first step in the network analysis process is to form the general structure of the primary super-matrix.

Fig. 3 illustrates the structure of the interconnection between the indicators and research components in the

software environment.
 Fig. 3. Network structure of evaluation model in Supper Decision.

As shown in Fig. 3, the back arrow in the indicator cluster shows that the horizontal relationship between

the indicators has also been examined according to the results of the DEMATEL model; changed the

structure from a hierarchy to a network. In step 2, the pairwise comparison matrices were formed, and the

relative weight vectors were calculated subsequently. The decision elements in each cluster compared

binarily in terms of their importance in relation to the control indicators. For the purpose of calculating the

cumulative number of opinions, the geometric mean of the opinions of all 34 respondents was calculated

via Eq. 9. For example, 𝑥13 represents 1.66, which was obtained from the geometric mean of the sum of the

opinions of all 34 respondents. The corresponding calculations are shown in Eq.14.

𝑥13 = 34
𝑥131 × 𝑥132 × … × 𝑥1334 = 34
1 × 3 × 2 × 1 × … × 1 × 3 = 1.66 (14)

Similarly, for the other entries, the geometric mean of the respondents' opinions was calculated and placed

in the pairwise comparison matrix. For instance, the pairwise comparison matrix of indicators is reported

in Table 4 according to the strategic barriers’ indicator.

Table 4. Pairwise comparison matrix based on Strategic Barriers.

Strategic Barriers CB IB OB SC TB Weight

 CB 1 1.40 1.66 1.44 1.79 0.271
IB 0.71 1 0.35 0.84 0.89 0.142
OB 0.60 2.81 1 0.58 0.73 0.192
SC 0.69 1.18 1.72 1 1.53 0.223
TB 0.56 1.12 1.36 0.65 1 0.169

As the results of Table 4 show, the relative weight of each indicator was calculated according to the strategic

barrier indicator. The consistency rate indicator was calculated 0.05 in the software environment. Given

that the value is less than 0.1, the consistency of pairwise comparisons was well established and is

acceptable. Likewise, the weight of the indicators and components was calculated for the other pairwise

comparison matrices and placed in the basic structure of the unweighted supper matrix. Then, for

calculating the weighted supper matrix, the values of each column were divided by the sum of that column.

In the weighted super matrix structure, the sum of the numbers of each column was equal to one, indicating

the initial super matrix weighting process. In order to calculate the limited supper matrix, the weighted

super matrix should be raised to a larger power to produce convergence (that is, all arrays of each row are

identical). A summary of results was presented in Table 5.

Table 5. Priorities of IT Barriers based on Limited Supper Matrix results.

Criteria Limited Weight Sub-Criteria Limited Weight Local Rank Final Rank
SB1 0.03104 3 22
Strategic SB2 0.03676 2 11
0.00061
Barriers (SB) SB3 0.02664 4 25
SB4 0.04198 1 6
SC1 0.04821 1 1
Supply Chain
SC2 0.03454 2 16
Management 0.00086
SC3 0.02927 3 24
Barriers (SC)
SC4 0.02461 4 27
TB1 0.04360 2 5
TB2 0.03286 4 18
Technological
0.00076 TB3 0.02420 5 28
Barriers (TB)
TB4 0.03469 3 15
TB5 0.04517 1 3
IB1 0.03489 2 13
Individual
0.00056 IB2 0.03995 1 8
Barriers (IB)
IB3 0.02983 3 23
OB1 0.03489 3 13
Organizational OB2 0.03210 5 20
0.00096
Barriers (OB) OB3 0.03990 2 9
OB4 0.03266 4 19
 OB5 0.03140 6 21
OB6 0.04112 1 7
CB1 0.02593 6 26
CB2 0.04512 2 4
Customer CB3 0.04679 1 2
0.00127
Barriers (CB) CB4 0.03595 4 12
CB5 0.03398 5 17
CB6 0.03692 3 10

As the results of Table 5 show, among all indicators, the "Customer Barrier" (CB) indicator with the weight

of 0.00127 is the most important one. After that, organizational and supply chain management barriers are

ranked second and third, respectively. In Opata et al. [46], concerning agro-based enterprises, it has been

pointed out the importance of barriers related to customers, including the failure of decision support

systems, and their findings are consistent with the results of this study. Also, in da Luz Peralta et al. [60],

the importance of customer value has been pointed out in the field of sustainable agricultural products and

the results are in concert with the findings of the current study. Barbu and Militaru [61] also emphasizes

that manufacturing companies in order to improve the performance of information and communication

technology must maintain relations with customers and address the challenges in this area, which

subsequently, the results are consistent with what being discovered in this study. In the strategic barriers

group, the SB4 component, with a weight of 0.041, ranked first. Also, in the supply chain management,

technological, individual, organizational and consumer group, the components SC1, TB5, IB2, OB6 and

CB3 ranked first respectively. In general, the SC1 with a weight of 0.04821 is considered as the most

important component. Subsequently, the components of CB3, TB5, CB2 and TB1 respectively, were

marked as the most important barriers related to information technology which have been identified at the

sugarcane supply chain level in Khuzestan province.

The study Ferdiana and Sulistyo [62] highlighted the importance of the financial management dimension

in improving the effectiveness of start-ups. Also, in Patil and Kant [25], authors have studied the

significance of financial management in obstacles to overcoming the knowledge management and

improving the information acquisition process. In Hafner et al. [63], there has also been a strong emphasis
on the financial aspect of improving information technology and the costs associated with the setting up

information and communication systems, which is largely consistent with the results of this study. In Kumar

and Kansara [22], the importance of high cost of investment and installation, lack of adequate education

and knowledge and low labor productivity has also been highlighted in the field of information technology

barriers in the sugarcane industry, which the results are in line with the present study findings on the Iran's

sugarcane industry in Khuzestan province.

A study by Rahman et al. [64] was aimed at stressing the significance of some IT infrastructure requirements

for farmers, including computers, laptops, printers and webcams. Bilali and Allahyari [65] pointed out the

importance of information and communication technology infrastructure in agriculture and Zhang et al.

[66] pinpointed the importance of financial support for ICT-related projects among farmers, which the

findings are in line with the results of the current study.

4. Conclusions

The purpose of this study was to identify and rank the barriers to the adoption and application of information

technology in the supply chain of sugarcane industries in Khuzestan province of Iran. In the present work,

the barriers to using information technology were classified and also surveyed in the form of supply chain

management, strategic, organizational, technological, individual and customer barriers. These factors were

also subdivided further to twenty-eight factors. DEMATEL method was used to identify the causal

relationships between indicators. Then, the ANP method was employed to weight and rank the indicators

and sub-indicators of the research. The results showed that among the identified barriers, customer barrier

indicator with the weight of 0.00127 had the most significance and individual barrier with the weight of

0.00056 was of the least impact with regard to supply chain management in this industry. Also, of the

components (28 components), the "lack of financial support" component with the final weight of 0.04821

ranked first. Subsequently, "poor outsourcing management", "high cost of investment and installation",

"lack of customer awareness" and "lack of technical infrastructure on IT" were ranked two to five,

correspondingly. They left the most impact on the sugarcane industry chain in Khuzestan province.

Jimenez-Jimenez et al. [23] highlighted the importance of financial support and Lagzian and Dehghani [67]
pointed out the significance of the poor outsourcing management component, which both were also of great

significance in the current study.

As the results of the study imply, the following suggestions can be made to improve the value chain of

sugarcane industries in Khuzestan province. Since the sugarcane industry is one of those industries with no

waste products, financial support and development of complementary sugarcane industries as

intermediaries of market segments and primary suppliers does seem to be essential for the government.

Thus, there too does seem to be an urgency to solve the potential problems of these manufacturing units,

especially in the field of information technology, in addition to improving supply chain performance on the

employment issue as well as on self-sufficiency regarding sugar production. On the other hand, most of the

technologies needed for sugarcane production in rural areas are of high costs, which in addition to the

participation of most villagers requires government financial support; which in turn necessitates either the

participation of most villagers and the government’s financial support. The adoption of information

technology starting from the farmer level to the product marketing stage is necessary to improve the entire

supply chain using information technology. Therefore, decision makers of sugar cane industries in

Khuzestan province should encourage farmers and producers to follow necessary instructions employing

incentive policies.

Declaration of Competing Interest

The authors declare they have no conflict of interest

References

[1] Wang Z, Wang M, Liu W. To introduce competition or not to introduce competition: An analysis

of corporate social responsibility investment collaboration in a two-echelon supply chain.

Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review 2020;133:101812.

[2] Statsenko L, de Zubielqui GC. Customer collaboration, service firms' diversification and innovation

performance. Industrial Marketing Management 2020;85:180-96.

[3] Chen CC, Louie S, Shi HN, Walker WA. Preinoculation with the probiotic Lactobacillus

acidophilus early in life effectively inhibits murine Citrobacter rodentium colitis. Pediatric research.

2005;58(6):1185-91.

[4] Ales G. Current issues and challenges of supply chain management. International conference on

Automation & information. World Scientific and Engineering Academy and Society (WSEAS) ISSN

2009: 1790-5117.

[5] Tang R, Yang L. Financing strategy in fresh product supply chains under e-commerce environment.

Electronic Commerce Research and Applications 2020;39:100911.

[6] Tripathy S, Aich S, Chakraborty A, Lee GM. Information technology is an enabling factor affecting

supply chain performance in Indian SMEs. Journal of Modelling in Management. 2016; 11(1): 269-

287.

[7] Alomar M, Pasek ZJ. Linking supply chain strategy and processes to performance improvement.

Procedia CIRP 2014;17:628-34.

[8] Sinkovics RR, Jean RJ, Roath AS, Cavusgil ST. Does IT integration really enhance supplier

responsiveness in global supply chains?. Management International Review 2011;51(2):193-212.

[9] Chardine-Baumann E, Botta-Genoulaz V. A framework for sustainable performance assessment of

supply chain management practices. Computers & Industrial Engineering 2014;76:138-47.

[10] Bavarsad B, Rezai B, Rahimi FO, Sinaei HA. Investigating the Supply Chain Strategies and

Information System Strategies Alignment and its Effects on Supply Chain Management Performance

(Case Study: Manufacturing Firms in Khuzestan Province, Iran). Journal of Information Technology

Management 2016;8(4):681-710.

[11] Michaels G, Natraj A, Van Reenen J. Has ICT polarized skill demand? Evidence from eleven

countries over twenty-five years. Review of Economics and Statistics 2014;96(1):60-77.

[12] Bilal D, Jopeck V. Young Girls’ Affective Responses to Access and Use of Information and

Communication Technology (ICT) in Information-Poor Societies', New Directions in Children’s and

Adolescents’ Information Behavior Research (Library and Information Science, Volume 10) 2014:

107-133.

[13] Ye F, Wang Z. Effects of information technology alignment and information sharing on supply

chain operational performance. Computers & Industrial Engineering 2013;65(3):370-7.

[14] Kumar R, Agrawal R, Sharma V. Barriers to e-application in agrifood supply chain.

InEncyclopedia of Business Analytics and Optimization 2014 (pp. 227-240). IGI Global.

[15] Cash DW. “In order to aid in diffusing useful and practical information”: Agricultural extension

and boundary organizations. Science, Technology, & Human Values 2001;26(4):431-53.

[16] Kizilaslan N. Agricultural information systems: a national case study. Library Review. 2006;55.

[17] Shikuku KM. Information exchange links, knowledge exposure, and adoption of agricultural

technologies in northern Uganda. World Development 2019;115:94-106.

[18] Gollakota K. ICT use by businesses in rural India: The case of EID Parry's Indiagriline.

International Journal of Information Management 2008;28(4):336-41.

[19] Dinar A. Extension commercialization: how much to charge for extension services. American

Journal of agricultural economics 1996;78(1):1-2.

[20] Mathiyazhagan K, Datta U, Singla A, Krishnamoorthi S. Identification and prioritization of

motivational factors for the green supply chain management adoption: case from Indian construction

industries. Opsearch 2018;55(1):202-19.

[21] Ministry of Agriculture Jihad. Annual Reports. 2018. Available from: https://www.maj.ir/

[22] Kumar R, Kansara S. Information technology barriers in Indian sugar supply chain: an AHP and

fuzzy AHP approach. Benchmarking: An International Journal. 2018;25 (7):1978-1991.

[23] Jimenez-Jimenez D, Martínez-Costa M, Rodriguez CS. The mediating role of supply chain

collaboration on the relationship between information technology and innovation. Journal of

Knowledge Management 2019; 3.

[24] Bramble JD, Siracuse MV, Galt KA, Rule AM, Clark BE, Paschal KA. Examining barriers to

health information technology adoption. Patient Safety and Health Care Management 2008:191-209.
[25] Patil SK, Kant R. A fuzzy AHP-TOPSIS framework for ranking the solutions of Knowledge

Management adoption in Supply Chain to overcome its barriers. Expert systems with applications

2014;41(2):679-93.

[26] Govindan K, Kaliyan M, Kannan D, Haq AN. Barriers analysis for green supply chain

management implementation in Indian industries using analytic hierarchy process. International Journal

of Production Economics 2014;147:555-68.

[27] Zeng Y. Risk management for enterprise resource planning system implementations in project-

based firms (Doctoral dissertation) 2010.

[28] Koh SL, Gunasekaran A, Goodman T. Drivers, barriers and critical success factors for ERPII

implementation in supply chains: A critical analysis. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems

2011;20(4):385-402.

[29] Malhan IV, Rao S. Impact of globalization and emerging information communication technologies

on agricultural knowledge transfer to small farmers in India. InWorld Liberary and Information

Congress 2007:1-20.

[30] Dash DP, Iunglei M. E–governance: an initiative to public development in india with special

reference to Odisha. Chief patron chief patron 2011.

[31] Tusubira F, Mulira N. Integration of ICT in organizations: Challenges and best practice

recommendations based on the experience of Makerere University and other organizations.

InInternational ICT Conference Held at Hotel Africana, Kampala, Uganda. 5th to 8th September 2004.

[32] Toktaş-Palut P, Baylav E, Teoman S, Altunbey M. The impact of barriers and benefits of e-

procurement on its adoption decision: An empirical analysis. International Journal of Production

Economics 2014;158:77-90.

[33] Basoglu N, Daim T, Kerimoglu O. Organizational adoption of enterprise resource planning

systems: A conceptual framework. The Journal of High Technology Management Research

2007;18(1):73-97.
[34] Jang W, Klein CM. Supply chain models for small agricultural enterprises. Annals of Operations

Research 2011;190(1):359-74.

[35] Shah N. Opportunities and challenges in agro-based industries: Food processing. Journal of Rural

Development-Hyderabad 1998;17:565-72.

[36] Torre T, Sarti D. Work Flexibility And ICT Use For Professional Purposes. First Evidence From

The European Context. InMediterranean Conference on Information Systems (MCIS) 2017.

[37] Gunasekaran A, Ngai EW. Adoption of e-procurement in Hong Kong: an empirical research.

International Journal of Production Economics 2008;113(1):159-75.

[38] Lawrence JE, Tar UA. Barriers to e-commerce in developing countries. Information, society and

justice journal 2010;3(1):23-35.

[39] Denolf JM, Trienekens JH, Wognum PN, van der Vorst JG, Omta SO. Towards a framework of

critical success factors for implementing supply chain information systems. Computers in industry

2015;68:16-26.

[40] Reyes PM, Li S, Visich JK. Accessing antecedents and outcomes of RFID implementation in

health care. International Journal of Production Economics 2012;136(1):137-50.

[41] Shanthy TR. Strategies for effective dissemination of appropriate technologies to sugarcane

growers in India. Sugar Tech 2011;13(4):354-9.

[42] Wever M, Wognum N, Trienekens J, Omta O. Alignment between chain quality management and

chain governance in EU pork supply chains: A Transaction-Cost-Economics perspective. Meat science

2010;84(2):228-37.

[43] Suryani A. ICT in education: Its benefits, difficulties, and organizational development issues.

Jurnal Sosial Humaniora (JSH) 2010;3(1):13-33.

[44] Rice D. Using ICTs to promote education and job training for persons with disabilities; 2009.

[45] Botta-Genoulaz V, Millet PA. An investigation into the use of ERP systems in the service sector.

International Journal Of Production Economics 2006;99(1-2):202-21.

[46] Opata P, Nweze J, Rahman M. The place of information and communication technology in

promoting agro-based enterprises in third world countries. Journal of Agricultural Technology

2011;7(2):207-14.

[47] Torero M. A framework for Linking Small Farmers to Markets ‘, paper presented at the IFAD

Conference on New Directions for Smallholder Agriculture, Rome, 24-25 January 2011.

[48] Thadaboina V. ICT and rural development: a study of Warana Wired Village Project in India.

Transition Studies Review 2009;16(2):560-70.

[49] Islam N. The Use of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) and Business

Management: Contemporary Issues and Challenges. Available at SSRN 2856262 2016.

[50] Vogiatzi M. The use of ICT technologies enhances employees’ performance in the Greek hotel

industry. International Journal of Economics, Finance and Management Sciences 2015;3(1):43.

[51] Kabanda G. The impact of ICTs on customer service excellence in Zimbabwe. International

Journal of Emerging Technology and Advanced Engineering 2014;4(5):312-24.

[52] Lacity MC, Willcocks L. Global information technology outsourcing: In search of business

advantage. John Wiley & Sons, Inc 2000.

[53] Dávideková M, Hvorecky J. ICT collaboration tools for virtual teams in terms of the SECI model:

iJEP; 2017.

[54] Shieh JI, Wu HH, Huang KK. A DEMATEL method in identifying key success factors of hospital

service quality. Knowledge-Based Systems 2010;23(3):277-82.

[55] Lin CL, Tzeng GH. A value-created system of science (technology) park by using DEMATEL.

Expert Systems With Applications 2009;36(6):9683-97.

[56] Yang JL, Tzeng GH. An integrated MCDM technique combined with DEMATEL for a novel

cluster-weighted with ANP method. Expert Systems with Applications 2011;38(3):1417-24.

[57] Zhou X, Shi Y, Deng X, Deng Y. D-DEMATEL: A new method to identify critical success factors

in emergency management. Safety Science 2017;91:93-104.

[58] Kilic HS, Zaim S, Delen D. Selecting “The Best” ERP system for SMEs using a combination of

ANP and PROMETHEE methods. Expert Systems with Applications 2015;42(5):2343-52.

[59] Sevkli M, Oztekin A, Uysal O, Torlak G, Turkyilmaz A, Delen D. Development of a fuzzy ANP

based SWOT analysis for the airline industry in Turkey. Expert Systems With Applications

2012;39(1):14-24.

[60] da Luz Peralta CB, Echeveste ME, Martins VL, Lermen FH. Applying the framework to identify

customer value: A case of sustainable product in agriculture. Journal of Cleaner Production

2020:122384.

[61] Barbu A, Militaru G. Value co-creation between manufacturing companies and customers. The

role of information technology competency. Procedia Manufacturing 2019;32:1069-76.

[62] Ferdiana R, Sulistyo S. The role of information technology usage on startup financial management

and taxation. Procedia Computer Science 2019;161:1308-15.

[63] Hafner R, Elmes D, Read D, White MP. Exploring the role of normative, financial and

environmental information in promoting uptake of energy efficient technologies. Journal of

Environmental Psychology 2019;63:26-35.

[64] Rahman MS, Barau AA, Noman MR. Service delivery effectiveness of Farmers’ Information and

Advice Centres in Dinajpur Sadar Upazila of Bangladesh. Information Processing in Agriculture

2019;6(4):462-70.

[65] El Bilali H, Allahyari MS. Transition towards sustainability in agriculture and food systems: Role

of information and communication technologies. Information Processing in Agriculture 2018;5(4):456-

64.

[66] Zhang Y, Wang L, Duan Y. Agricultural information dissemination using ICTs: A review and

analysis of information dissemination models in China. Information processing in agriculture

2016;3(1):17-29.
[67] Lagzian M, Dehghani J. An Empirical Study on the Factors Influencing Information Technology

Utilization in Supply Chain Management: The case of Yazd's Tile Industry. Knowledge and

Technology Journal 2010;1(2):29-59 (In Persian, with English Abstract).