Annals of Operations Research

, Volume 283, Issue 1–2, pp 1227–1258 | Cite as

Modelling the inter-relationship between factors affecting coordination in a humanitarian supply chain: a case of Chennai flood relief

  • Lijo John
  • Anand Gurumurthy
  • Gunjan Soni
  • Vipul JainEmail author
S.I.: Applications of OR in Disaster Relief Operations, Part II


The humanitarian supply chain (HSC) aims at providing relief to affected people in the wake of a disaster at the right place and at the right time to reduce their suffering. One of the major challenges faced by the HSC is the coordination between various actors. Previous studies have identified the factors affecting coordination but the literature is silent on the inter-dependence between these factors (criteria). In this study, we identify the factors affecting coordination based on the review of extant literature in HSC and interviews with multiple individuals representing various stakeholders involved with the relief activities carried out during the Chennai floods. These factors were grouped into four categories: information sharing, diversity (of the humanitarian agencies), organizational mandates and material convergence. We use a hybrid fuzzy DEMATEL-ANP methodology to identify the interdependence and develop the network relationship diagram by mapping the interdependence between the factors affecting the effective coordination between the actors in HSC. Our results indicate that information exchange between the humanitarian actors (HA) tantamount to achieve coordination in post disaster response phase. However, with the improvement in the post–disaster coordination, the HAs need to focus on pre-disaster preparedness phase through strong alignment of organizational mandates of HAs and focus on the diverse nature of HAs to align their operational strategies through standardized operations, inter-operability of activities and building trust through long term associations.


Disaster management Humanitarian supply chain Fuzzy DEMATEL ANP Coordination Floods Chennai 



The authors would like to thank the members of Tamil Nadu Water Board, Communist Party of India (Marxist), Ms. Saritha Sugunan (Pepper Corn), Prof. Gladston Xavier, and all others who shared their valuable experience and insights on their experience during the Chennai Floods.


  1. Adinolfi, C., Bassiouni, D., Lauritzsen, H. F., & Williams, H. R. (2005). Humanitarian response review: An independent report. New York: UN.Google Scholar
  2. Altay, N., & Labonte, M. (2014). Challenges in humanitarian information management and exchange: Evidence from Haiti. Disasters,38(s1), S50–S72.Google Scholar
  3. Altay, N., & Pal, R. (2014). Information diffusion among agents: Implications for humanitarian operations. Production and Operations Management,23(6), 1015–1027.Google Scholar
  4. Anaya-Arenas, A. M., Renaud, J., & Ruiz, A. (2014). Relief distribution networks: A systematic review. Annals of Operations Research,223(1), 53–79.Google Scholar
  5. Apte, A. (2009). Humanitarian logistics: A new field of research and action. Foundations and Trends ®in Technology, Information and Operations Management, 3(1), 1–100.Google Scholar
  6. Balcik, B., Beamon, B. M., Krejci, C. C., Muramatsu, K. M., & Ramirez, M. (2010). Coordination in humanitarian relief chains: Practices, challenges and opportunities. International Journal of Production Economics,126(1), 22–34.Google Scholar
  7. Banomyong, R., Varadejsatitwong, P., & Oloruntoba, R. (2017). A systematic review of humanitarian operations, humanitarian logistics and humanitarian supply chain performance literature 2005 to 2016. Annals of Operations Research.
  8. Büyüközkan, G., & Çifçi, G. (2012). A novel hybrid MCDM approach based on fuzzy DEMATEL, fuzzy ANP and fuzzy TOPSIS to evaluate green suppliers. Expert Systems with Applications,39(3), 3000–3011.Google Scholar
  9. Büyüközkan, G., & Öztürkcan, D. (2010). An integrated analytic approach for Six Sigma project selection. Expert Systems with Applications,37(8), 5835–5847.Google Scholar
  10. Chang, B., Chang, C. W., & Wu, C. H. (2011). Fuzzy DEMATEL method for developing supplier selection criteria. Expert systems with Applications, 38(3), 1850–1858.Google Scholar
  11. Chen, J. K., & Chen, I. S. (2010). Using a novel conjunctive MCDM approach based on DEMATEL, fuzzy ANP, and TOPSIS as an innovation support system for Taiwanese higher education. Expert Systems with Applications,37(3), 1981–1990.Google Scholar
  12. Chen, F. H., Hsu, T. S., & Tzeng, G. H. (2011). A balanced scorecard approach to establish a performance evaluation and relationship model for hot spring hotels based on a hybrid MCDM model combining DEMATEL and ANP. International Journal of Hospitality Management,30(4), 908–932.Google Scholar
  13. Chia, E. (2007). Engineering disaster relief. IEEE Technology and Society Magazine,26(3), 24–29.Google Scholar
  14. Comfort, L. K. (2007). Crisis management in hindsight: Cognition, communication, coordination, and control. Public Administration Review,67(s1), 189–197.Google Scholar
  15. Davis, L. B., Samanlioglu, F., Qu, X., & Root, S. (2013). Inventory planning and coordination in disaster relief efforts. International Journal of Production Economics,141(2), 561–573.Google Scholar
  16. Datta, S., Samantra, C., Sankar Mahapatra, S., Mandal, G., & Majumdar, G. (2013). Appraisement and selection of third party logistics service providers in fuzzy environment. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 20(4), 537–548.Google Scholar
  17. Day, J. M., Melnyk, S. A., Larson, P. D., Davis, E. W., & Clay Whybark, D. (2012). Humanitarian and disaster relief supply chains: A matter of life and death. Journal of Supply Chain Management,48(2), 21–36.Google Scholar
  18. Deb, S. K., Bhattacharyya, B., & Sorkhel, S. K. (2002). Material handling equipment selection by fuzzy multi-criteria decision making methods. In AFSS international conference on fuzzy systems (pp. 99–105). Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  19. Dubey, R., Altay, N., & Blome, C. (2017). Swift trust and commitment: The missing links for humanitarian supply chain coordination? Annals of Operations Research.
  20. Ergun, Ö., Gui, L., Heier Stamm, J. L., Keskinocak, P., & Swann, J. (2014). Improving humanitarian operations through technology-enabled collaboration. Production and Operations Management,23(6), 1002–1014.Google Scholar
  21. Ertem, M., Buyurgan, N., & Pohl, E. (2012). Using announcement options in the bid construction phase for disaster relief procurement. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences,46(4), 306–314.Google Scholar
  22. Fritz, C. E., & Mathewson, J. H. (1957). Convergent behavior: A disaster control problem. Special report for the committee on disaster studies. Disaster study (Vol. 9, p. 476). N. R. C. National Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar
  23. Gabus, A., & Fontela, E. (1973). Perceptions of the world problematique: Communication procedure, communicating with those bearing collective responsibility. Geneva: Battelle Geneva Research Center.Google Scholar
  24. Gölcük, İ., & Baykasoğlu, A. (2016). An analysis of DEMATEL approaches for criteria interaction handling within ANP. Expert Systems with Applications,46, 346–366.Google Scholar
  25. Gonzalez, R. A. (2010). Developing a multi-agent system of a crisis response organization. Business Process Management Journal,16(5), 847–870.Google Scholar
  26. Gupta, R., Sachdeva, A., & Bhardwaj, A. (2012). Selection of logistic service provider using fuzzy PROMETHEE for a cement industry. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 23(7), 899–921.Google Scholar
  27. Haleh, H., & Hamidi, A. (2011). A fuzzy MCDM model for allocating orders to suppliers in a supply chain under uncertainty over a multi-period time horizon. Expert Systems with Applications,38(8), 9076–9083.Google Scholar
  28. He, T., Ho, W., Lee Ka Man, C., & Xu, X. (2012). A fuzzy AHP based integer linear programming model for the multi-criteria transshipment problem. The International Journal of Logistics Management,23(1), 159–179.Google Scholar
  29. Heaslip, G., Sharif, A. M., & Althonayan, A. (2012). Employing a systems-based perspective to the identification of inter-relationships within humanitarian logistics. International Journal of Production Economics,139(2), 377–392.Google Scholar
  30. Holguín-Veras, J., Jaller, M., Van Wassenhove, L. N., Pérez, N., & Wachtendorf, T. (2012). Material convergence: Important and understudied disaster phenomenon. Natural Hazards Review,15(1), 1–12.Google Scholar
  31. Holguín-Veras, J., Pérez, N., Ukkusuri, S., Wachtendorf, T., & Brown, B. (2007). Emergency logistics issues affecting the response to Katrina: A synthesis and preliminary suggestions for improvement. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board,2022, 76–82.Google Scholar
  32. Holguín-Veras, J., Taniguchi, E., Jaller, M., Aros-Vera, F., Ferreira, F., & Thompson, R. G. (2014). The Tohoku disasters: Chief lessons concerning the post disaster humanitarian logistics response and policy implications. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice,69, 86–104.Google Scholar
  33. Hossain, L., & Uddin, S. (2012). Design patterns: Coordination in complex and dynamic environments. Disaster Prevention and Management: An International Journal,21(3), 336–350.Google Scholar
  34. Hristidis, V., Chen, S. C., Li, T., Luis, S., & Deng, Y. (2010). Survey of data management and analysis in disaster situations. Journal of Systems and Software,83(10), 1701–1714.Google Scholar
  35. Hwang, C. L., & Yoon, K. (1981). Multiple attribute decision making, methods and applications (Vol. 186). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  36. Jabbour, C. J. C., Sobreiro, V. A., de Sousa Jabbour, A. B. L., de Souza Campos, L. M., Mariano, E. B., & Renwick, D. W. S. (2017). An analysis of the literature on humanitarian logistics and supply chain management: Paving the way for future studies. Annals of Operations Research, 1–19.Google Scholar
  37. Jahre, M., & Jensen, L. (2010). Coordination in humanitarian logistics through clusters. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management,40(8/9), 657–674.Google Scholar
  38. Kamradt-Scott, A. (2016). WHO’s to blame? The World Health Organization and the 2014 Ebola outbreak in West Africa. Third World Quarterly,37(3), 401–418.Google Scholar
  39. Kayikci, Y. (2010). A conceptual model for intermodal freight logistics centre location decisions. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences,2(3), 6297–6311.Google Scholar
  40. Kent, R. C. (2004). International humanitarian crises: two decades before and two decades beyond. International Affairs, 80(5), 851–869.Google Scholar
  41. Kovács, G., & Spens, K. M. (2011). Trends and developments in humanitarian logistics-a gap analysis. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management,41(1), 32–45.Google Scholar
  42. Leiras, A., De Brito Jr, I., Queiroz Peres, E., Rejane Bertazzo, T., & Tsugunobu Yoshida Yoshizaki, H. (2014). Literature review of humanitarian logistics research: Trends and challenges. Journal of Humanitarian Logistics and Supply Chain Management,4(1), 95–130.Google Scholar
  43. Li, Y., Liu, X., & Chen, Y. (2011). Selection of logistics center location using Axiomatic Fuzzy Set and TOPSIS methodology in logistics management. Expert Systems with Applications,38(6), 7901–7908.Google Scholar
  44. Moshtari, M. (2016). Inter-organizational fit, relationship management capability, and collaborative performance within a humanitarian setting. Production and Operations Management,25(9), 1542–1557.Google Scholar
  45. Olaogbebikan, J. E., & Oloruntoba, R. (2017). Similarities between disaster supply chains and commercial supply chains: A SCM process view. Annals of Operations Research.
  46. Oloruntoba, R. (2005). A wave of destruction and the waves of relief: Issues, challenges and strategies. Disaster Prevention and Management: An International Journal,14(4), 506–521.Google Scholar
  47. Opricovic, S., & Tzeng, G. H. (2004). Compromise solution by MCDM methods: A comparative analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS. European Journal of Operational Research,156(2), 445–455.Google Scholar
  48. Paksoy, T., Pehlivan, N. Y., & Kahraman, C. (2012). Organizational strategy development in distribution channel management using fuzzy AHP and hierarchical fuzzy TOPSIS. Expert Systems with Applications,39(3), 2822–2841.Google Scholar
  49. Saaty, T. L. (1980). The analytic hierarchy process. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  50. Saaty, T. L. (1996). Multi-criteria decision making. Pittsburgh: The Analytic Hierarchy Process.Google Scholar
  51. Sawicka, H., & Zak, J. (2014). Ranking of distribution system’s redesign scenarios using stochastic MCDM/A procedure. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences,111, 186–196.Google Scholar
  52. Schulz, S. F., & Blecken, A. (2010). Horizontal cooperation in disaster relief logistics: Benefits and impediments. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management,40(8/9), 636–656.Google Scholar
  53. Seybolt, T. B. (2009). Harmonizing the humanitarian aid network: Adaptive change in a complex system. International Studies Quarterly,53(4), 1027–1050.Google Scholar
  54. Shen, Y. C., Lin, G. T., & Tzeng, G. H. (2011). Combined DEMATEL techniques with novel MCDM for the organic light emitting diode technology selection. Expert Systems with Applications,38(3), 1468–1481.Google Scholar
  55. Sheppard, A., Tatham, P., Fisher, R., & Gapp, R. (2013). Humanitarian logistics: Enhancing the engagement of local populations. Journal of Humanitarian Logistics and Supply Chain Management,3(1), 22–36.Google Scholar
  56. Stephenson, M., Jr. (2005). Making humanitarian relief networks more effective: Operational coordination, trust and sense making. Disasters,29(4), 337–350.Google Scholar
  57. Tatham, P., & Kovács, G. (2010). The application of “swift trust” to humanitarian logistics. International Journal of Production Economics,126(1), 35–45.Google Scholar
  58. Tatham, P., & Spens, K. (2011). Towards a humanitarian logistics knowledge management system. Disaster Prevention and Management: An International Journal,20(1), 6–26.Google Scholar
  59. Telford, John. (2006). Joint evaluation of the international response to the Indian Ocean tsunami: Synthesis report. London: Tsunami Evaluation Coalition.Google Scholar
  60. Tomasini, R. M., & Van Wassenhove, L. N. (2009). From preparedness to partnerships: Case study research on humanitarian logistics. International Transactions in Operational Research,16(5), 549–559.Google Scholar
  61. Tseng, M. L. (2009). Application of ANP and DEMATEL to evaluate the decision-making of municipal solid waste management in Metro Manila. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment,156(1), 181–197.Google Scholar
  62. Tseng, M. L. (2011). Using a hybrid MCDM model to evaluate firm environmental knowledge management in uncertainty. Applied Soft Computing,11(1), 1340–1352.Google Scholar
  63. Tuzkaya, G., & Gülsün, B. (2008). Evaluating centralized return centers in a reverse logistics network: An integrated fuzzy multi-criteria decision approach. International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology,5(3), 339–352.Google Scholar
  64. Van Wassenhove, L. N. (2006). Blackett Memorial Lecture -Humanitarian aid logistics: Supply chain management in high gear. Journal of the Operational Research Society,57(5), 475–489.Google Scholar
  65. Wu, W. W. (2008). Choosing knowledge management strategies by using a combined ANP and DEMATEL approach. Expert Systems with Applications,35(3), 828–835.Google Scholar
  66. Yates, D., & Paquette, S. (2011). Emergency knowledge management and social media technologies: A case study of the 2010 Haitian earthquake. International Journal of Information Management,31(1), 6–13.Google Scholar
  67. Zetter, R. (1995). Incorporation and exclusion: The life cycle of Malawi’s Refugee assistance program. World Development,23(10), 1653–1667.Google Scholar
  68. Zhou, Q., Huang, W., & Zhang, Y. (2011). Identifying critical success factors in emergency management using a fuzzy DEMATEL method. Safety Science,49(2), 243–252.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lijo John
    • 1
  • Anand Gurumurthy
    • 1
  • Gunjan Soni
    • 2
  • Vipul Jain
    • 3
    Email author
  1. 1.Quantitative Methods and Operations Management (QM and OM) AreaIndian Institute of Management Kozhikode (IIMK)KozhikodeIndia
  2. 2.Mechanical Engineering DepartmentMalaviya National Institute of Technology, JaipurJaipurIndia
  3. 3.School of Management, Victoria Business SchoolVictoria University of WellingtonWellingtonNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations