Document Type : Research Paper


1 Master's student, Department of Industrial Management, Gilan University

2 Associate Professor, Management Department, University of Guilan

3 Associate Professor Management Department University of Guilan


In light of the continuous and rapid changes in global competition, companies face the imperative of consistently introducing new products or expanding their existing product lines to maintain their competitive edge. Recognizing that numerous factors within the supply chain influence the production, design, distribution, and introduction of new products, understanding supply chain risks is crucial, spanning from the procurement of raw materials to the delivery of products to the market. Consequently, risk management stands as one of the most critical challenges within the supply chain, significantly impacting New Product Development (NPD) performance. This research seeks to answer the primary question: "How and to what extent do various supply chain risks affect newly developed products?" While prior research has employed various methods to evaluate and manage supply chain risks, few models have explored the interplay of these risks on each other and their influence on performance dimensions. In this study, based on a review of theoretical foundations and prior research within the clothing manufacturing sector, we identified dimensions of newly developed products and supply chain risks. We employed the Delphi technique through interviews to identify the most significant risks. Subsequently, we employed the Cross-Impact Analysis method to elucidate relationships between these factors. Finally, we utilized Bayesian networks to analyze the impact of identified risks on the performance of the selected new product, conducting sensitivity and scenario analyses. The findings indicate that environmental and supply risks are more likely to manifest than other risks, with three operational, distribution, and demand risks, influenced by environmental and supply risks, exerting the most direct impact on new product performance, particularly in the dimension of quality.
Modern organizations recognize that traditional competitive strategies, such as improving quality and reducing costs, no longer suffice to remain competitive. Research has demonstrated that numerous new product development NPD projects face failure for various reasons. Effective risk identification and management, particularly concerning supply chain risks in NPD projects marked by a high degree of uncertainty, emerge as pivotal factors for NPD success. In this context, the clothing sector, characterized by a complex supply chain structure, has been extensively studied. However, prior research has predominantly examined existing risks individually, overlooking the interactions between risk components and their simultaneous effects on one or more project objectives. In this research, we not only assess the simultaneous impact of risks on product performance using the Bayesian network method, an effective approach in supply chain risk analysis, but also investigate the severity of risk impacts under different scenarios. This research addresses three primary objectives:

Identification of supply chain risks in the clothing industry based on background research and case studies.
Determination of interdependencies among variables using conditional modeling.
Evaluation of the influence of supply chain risks on new product performance using the Bayesian network method under varying scenarios.

Literature review
Numerous researchers have investigated supply chain risks and their repercussions on product and organizational performance. Asgharenjad Nouri et al. (2021), in their article titled "The Effect of Risk Management on New Product Development in the Banking Industry," explored the impact of various risk indicators on new product development. Their results underscore the significant positive influence of managing all risk indicators, including technology, market, environment, finance, organizational resources, and commercialization, on new product development. Qazi et al. (2017), in their article titled “Supply Chain Risk Network Management,” prioritized risks and corresponding strategies through a case study involving semi-structured interviews. They initially identified organizational performance criteria and then linked them to relevant risks, using a matrix of expected profit to investigate the impact of risks on specified performance criteria. Subsequently, they employed the "weighted net evaluation" method to assess practical strategies.
In conducting this research, we initially extracted supply chain risks and product performance dimensions from the existing literature. Subsequently, we employed the Delphi technique to select the most significant supply chain risks, providing indicators to participating experts through questionnaires with a 5-point Likert scale. We then used the Content Validity Ratio (CVR) index to confirm or reject the components derived from the questionnaires. In the next step, we used the Cross-Impact Analysis method, employing pairwise comparisons via questionnaires, to reveal relationships between the key risk criteria. Finally, we investigated the impact of identified risks on the performance of the selected new product within the supply chain of Happy Land factory using the Bayesian network method under various scenarios.
Discussion and Results
The results from the Bayesian network analysis in this research demonstrate that environmental risk, as an external risk within Happy Land’s supply chain, exerts the most significant influence at the highest level of the Bayesian map. Subsequently, other risks, including economic risks, supplier risks, distribution risks, operational risks, and demand risks, are categorized in subsequent levels. Additionally, sensitivity analysis scenarios, depicted in the Tornado chart, reveal that supply chain risks have a substantial impact on performance criteria. According to this scenario analysis, the primary risk affecting quality and cost target nodes is operational risk, while the major risk affecting the product delivery time node is distribution risk, and the primary risk influencing profitability is demand risk. Results from both pessimistic and optimistic scenario analyses under the second scenario of the research indicate that in the pessimistic state, the presence of a high percentage of these risks significantly negatively impacts quality performance. Conversely, in optimistic scenarios, where these risk factors are not present, improvements in quality's functional dimension exhibit the most substantial impact.
When introducing a new product to the market, evaluating and managing supply chain uncertainties is essential due to the mutual influence of new product development and the supply chain. Supply chain risk management, which commences with the accurate identification and assessment of risks and proceeds with appropriate responses, is crucial for providing efficient and effective new products to the market. In addition to employing the Bayesian network method, a highly effective tool in supply chain risk analysis, we have endeavored to evaluate the simultaneous impact of risks on product performance and assess the severity of risk impacts under various scenarios, including optimistic, pessimistic, and sensitivity analyses. Scenario building proves to be an effective method for validating a developed model to measure the impact of risks under different conditions on target criteria.


Main Subjects

  1. Acur, N., Kandemir, D. & Boer, H. (2012). Strategic alignment and new product development: drivers and performance effects, Journal of Product Innovation Management, 29(2), 304–318.
  2. Arjmand, M., Mohamad Taghvaee,V.,& Safari,H. (2017). Risk Evolution of Strategic Decision of New Product Development using FMECA method and Marmier technique, International Conference on Opportunities and Challenges in Management, Economics and Accounting, 1-18.
  3. Badea, A., Prostean, G., Goncalves, G., & Allaoui, H. (2014). Assessing risk factors in collaborative supply chain with the analytic hierarchy process (AHP). Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 124, 114-123.
  4. Bahrami, M. & Shokouhyar, S., )2022(. The role of big data analytics capabilities in bolstering supply chain resilience and firm performance: a dynamic capability view. Information Technology & People,35(5), 1621-1651.
  5. Bello-Pintado, A., Bianchi, C., & Merino-Diaz-de-Cerio, J. (2023). The Effects of Integrative Strategies Along the Supply Chain on NPD Success. International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management, 20(03), 1-24.
  6. Chowdhury, N.A., Ali, S.M., Mahtab, Z., Rahman, T., Kabir, G. & Paul, S.K., )2019(. A structural model for investigating the driving and dependence power of supply chain risks in the readymade garment industry. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 51, 102-113.
  7. Chaudhuri, A., & Boer, H. (2016). The impact of product-process complexity and new product development order winners on new product development performance: The mediating role of collaborative competence. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management,42, 65-80.
  8. Crippa, R., Larghi, L., Pero, M., & Sianesi, A. (2010). The impact of new product introduction on supply chain ability to match supply and demand. International Journal of Engineering, Science and Technology, 2(9), 83-93.
  9. Cooper, R. G. (1990). Stage-gate systems: a new tool for managing new products. Business horizons, 33(3), 44-54.
  10. Chopra, S., & Sodhi, M. S. (2004). Supply-chain breakdown. MIT Sloan management review, 46(1), 53-61.
  11. Christopher, M., Peck, H., (2004). Building the resilient supply chain. The International Journal of Logistics Management. 15 (2), 277–287.
  12. Chen, C. C., Yeh, T. M., & Yang, C. C. (2006). Performance measurement for new product development: a model based on total costs. International journal of production research, 44(21), 4631-4648.
  13. Dohale, V., Verma, P., Gunasekaran, A. and Ambilkar, P., )2023(. COVID-19 and supply chain risk mitigation: a case study from India. The International Journal of Logistics Management, 34(2), 417-442.
  14. Dong, Q., & Cooper, O. (2016). An orders-of-magnitude AHP supply chain risk assessment framework. International Journal of Production Economics,182, 144-156.
  15. Driva, H., Pawar, K.S. and Menon, U. (2000), “Measuring product development performance in manufacturing organizations”, International Journal of Production Economics, 63(1), 147-159.
  16. Faisal, M. N. (2009). Prioritization of risks in supply chains. Managing Supply Chain Risk and Vulnerability: Tools and Methods for Supply Chain Decision Makers, 41-66.
  17. Ghadge, A., Dani, S. (2012). Supply chain risk management: present and future scope, The International Journal of Logistics Management, 23(3), 313-339.
  18. Habibi, A., Sarafrazi, A., & Izadyar, S. (2014). Delphi technique theoretical framework in qualitative research. The International Journal of Engineering and Science, 3(4), 8-13.
  19. Jüttner, U. (2005). Supply chain risk management: Understanding the business requirements from a practitioner perspective. The international journal of logistics management,16(1), 120-141.
  20. Hosseini, S. and Ivanov, D. )2020(. Bayesian networks for supply chain risk, resilience and ripple effect analysis: A literature review. Expert systems with applications, 161, 113649.
  21. Kumar, Sharma,.S.,& Sharma,S. (2015). Developing a Bayesian Network Model for Supply Chain Risk Assessment, Supply Chain Forum: An International Journal, 16(4), 50-72.
  22. Park, Y. H. (2010). A study of risk management and performance measures on new product development. Asian Journal on Quality, 11(1), 39-48.
  23. Lavastre, O., Gunasekaran, A., & Spalanzani, A. (2014). Effect of firm characteristics, supplier relationships and techniques used on supply chain risk management (SCRM): an empirical investigation on French industrial firms. International Journal of Production Research, 52(11), 3381-3403.
  24. Lawshe, C.H., 1975. A quantitative approach to content validity. Personnel psychology, 28(4), 563-575
  25. Mu, J., Peng, G., & MacLachlan, D. L. (2009). Effect of risk management strategy on NPD performance. Technovation, 29(3), 170-180.
  26. Mansor,N., Yahaya,S.N., & Okazaki,K. (2016). Risk Factor Affecting New Product Development (NPD) Performance in Small Medium Enerprises (SMES), International Journal of Review in Applied and Social Sciences, 27(1),18-25.
  27. Oke, A., & Gopalakrishnan, M. (2009). Managing disruptions in supply chains: A case study of a retail supply chain. International journal of production economics, 118(1), 168-174.
  28. Oliver, N., Dostaler, I., & Dewberry, E. (2004). New product development benchmarks: The Japanese, North American, and UK consumer electronics industries. The Journal of High Technology Management Research, 15(2), 249-265.
  29. Pfohl, H. C., Gallus, P., & Thomas, D. (2011). Interpretive structural modeling of supply chain risks. International Journal of physical distribution & logistics management, 41(9), 839-859.
  30. Prakash, A., Agarwal, A., & Kumar, A. (2018). Risk assessment in automobile supply chain. Materials today: proceedings, 5(2), 3571-3580.
  31. Qazi, A., Dickson, A., Quigley, J.,& Gaudenzi, B. (2017). Supply chain risk network management: A Bayesian Belief Network and expected utility based approach for managing supply chain risks, International Journal of Production Economics, 196,  24-42.
  32. Qazi, A., Simsekler, M.C.E. and Formaneck, S. )2023(. Supply chain risk network value at risk assessment using Bayesian belief networks and Monte Carlo simulation. Annals of Operations Research, 322(1), 241-272.
  33. Truong Quang, H., & Hara, Y. (2018). Risks and performance in supply chain: the push effect. International Journal of Production Research, 56(4), 1369-1388.
  34. Tuncel, G., & Alpan, G. (2010). Risk assessment and management for supply chain networks: A case study.Computers in industry, 61(3), 250-259.
  35. Thun, J. H., & Hoenig, D. (2011). An empirical analysis of supply chain risk management in the German automotive industry. International journal of production economics,131(1), 242-249.
  36. Venkatesh, V. G., Rathi, S., & Patwa, S. (2015). Analysis on supply chain risks in Indian apparel retail chains and proposal of risk prioritization model using Interpretive structural modeling. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 26, 153-167.
  37. Waters, D. (2011). Supply chain risk management: vulnerability and resilience in logistics. Kogan Page Publishers.
  38. Wang, T.F.D. (2013). Supply chain involvement for better product development performance. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 113(2), 190 – 206.
  39. Zhang, Q., & Doll, W. J. (2001). The fuzzy front end and success of new product development: a causal model. European Journal of Innovation Management,4(2), 95-112.
  40. Azizi Youssef Vand, R., Nahanvandi, N., Alvandi, G (2017). Investigating the effect of supply chain risk management on the efficiency of drug distribution companies, International Journal of Industrial Engineering and Production Management, 1(28), 119-137. [In Persian]
  41. Asgarnejad Nouri, B., Zarei, Q & Begi Firouzi, A. (2021). The Effect of Risk Management on the New Products Development in the Banking Industry. Journal of Public Management Research, 58(15). 292-314. [In Persian]
  42. Baharestani, P., & Rezaei Nik, E. (2017). Presenting a model for evaluating and ranking supply chain risk responses using DEMATEL-ANP hybrid method in fuzzy environment, First International Conference on Systems Optimization and Business Management, 1-9. [In Persian]
  43. Dehnavi, M., Aghaei, A & Setak, M (2013). Supply risk management using value-at-risk tool based on Frein's value theory, Commercial Research Quarterly, 66(17), 161-194. [In Persian]
  44. Dehghani Podeh, H., Akhwan, P & Hosseini Sarkhosh, S (2013). Enhancing New Product Development Success Based on Open Innovation Approach: A Case Study of a Research Organization), Scientific Research Journal of Innovation Management, 2(2), 45-68. [In Persian]
  45. Hosseini, H. (2013) identification and assessment of risk in the supply chain. Industrial Management Master's Thesis, University of Guilan. [In Persian]
  46. Hayati, M., Atai, M., Khalukakaei, Reza & Sayadi, A (2014). Presenting a model for assessing supply chain risks using multi-criteria decision-making techniques, Scientific-Research Quarterly of Industrial Management Studies, 34(12), 19-40. [In Persian]
  47. Jilan Boroujen, A., & Amoozad Mahdiraji, H (2014). Modeling Inventory Policies in Multi Echelon Supply Chain by Beysian Networks. Industrial Management Perspective, 15(4), 61-84. [In Persian]
  48. Karbasian, M., Nadali Jelokhani, A., Seyyed Rasool Agha, D & Abdul Baghi, A (2021). The Effect of Risk Dimensions on the Objectives of Construction Projects in Isfahan Municipality: An Integrated SEM and BBN Analysis. Journal of Productivity Management, 3 (15), 245-275. [In Persian]
  49. Karimi, R., Etebarian, A. & Soltani, I. (2020). Presentation of Human Resources Risk Patternt. Journal of Public Administration Perspective, 11(1), 99-119. [In Persian]
  50. Mazaheri, A., Karbasian, M & Shirouyezad, H. (2011). Identifying and prioritizing supply chain risks in manufacturing organizations using the hierarchical analysis process. Supply Chain Management Quarterly, 34(13), 28-37. [In Persian]
  51. Naimi, K & Pourmohammadi, M (2016). Identifying the key factors influencing the future status of urban slums regarding future study approach: the case study of Sanandaj. Quarterly Journal of Urban Studies, 20(5), 53-64. [In Persian]
  52. Pilehvari, N., Radfar, R4., & Abbasi, P (2014). The composed pattern explanation of the process of new product development (NPD) in the field of nanotechnology, Industrial Technology Development Quarterly, 24(12), 45-60. [In Persian]
  53. Pourmojib, L., & Fadai Ashkiki, M. (2014). Investigating and prioritizing supply chain risks in companies located in Anzali Free Zone, International Conference on Management and Industrial Engineering, 12-1. [In Persian]
  54. Rajabi Monavar, P (2015). The impact of information technology capabilities on new product development performance; Examining the mediating role of organizational entrepreneurship, industrial management master's thesis, University of Guilan. [In Persian]
  55. Ranjbar-hydari, V., Ghorbani, A., Simbar, R & Hajiani, I. (2016). Recognition and Explanation of Effective Factors and Propulsions on Iran and Persian Gulf Cooperation Council (PGCC) Relations in Next Ten Years Overlook by Utilizing MICMAC Method, Defense Research Quarterly, 2(1), 7-37. [In Persian]
  56. Ramezanian, M., Nasir, A., Abdi, A (2012). Risk Analysis of New Product Development Using Bayesian Networks, scientific-research quarterly of modern marketing research, 1(2), 185-202. [In Persian]
  57. Sarmad Saidi, S., Mamaqani, A (2009). Executive models in the new product development process, Scientific Research Journal of Tadbir, 214, 54-59. [In Persian]