Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 Department of Operations Management and Information Technology, Faculty of Management, Kharazmi University, Tehran, Iran

2 Department of Operations Management and Information Technology, Faculty of Management, Kharazmi University, Tehran, Iran.

Abstract

With the rapid expansion of technologies like the Internet of Things and Artificial Intelligence, the digital supply chain has become a core pillar of value creation. Despite its importance, Iranian industries remain in the early stages of digital transformation. This study employs Fuzzy Cognitive Mapping (FCM) supported by Active Hebbian Learning (AHL) and Nonlinear Hebbian Learning (NHL) algorithms to analyze causal relationships among barriers, requirements, and outcomes of supply chain digitalization. Data were collected through expert interviews and questionnaires. Findings reveal that while AHL and NHL differ in estimating causal intensity, their structural patterns remain consistent. Scenario-based analysis demonstrates that coordinated strategies encompassing managerial and technological initiatives significantly improve performance indicators. By proposing an integrated framework, this study supports the transition toward digital supply chains and provides actionable insights for policymakers. This research fills the gap in expert-based cognitive modeling for digital transformation in developing economies, offering a robust tool for strategic decision-making.
Introduction
Accordingly, this study seeks to answer the following research question: How do managers and analysts cognitively interpret the causal relationships among barriers, strategic actions, and outcomes of supply chain digitalization, and which actions can most effectively improve digital supply chain performance? The transformations brought about by the Fourth Industrial Revolution—driven by technologies such as the Internet of Things, Artificial Intelligence, Blockchain, and Big Data—have profoundly reshaped organizational processes. These technologies have enabled the emergence of intelligent, data-driven ecosystems where decisions are made with greater speed and precision. In such environments, organizations are increasingly compelled to move toward digital integration. Among all organizational domains, the supply chain has been significantly influenced, giving rise to the concept of the digital supply chain, which seeks to enhance agility and transparency in complex environments. Despite these advantages, industries in developing countries such as Iran remain in the early stages of digitalization. Challenges, including technological limitations, infrastructure deficiencies, and lack of digital culture have hindered progress. While previous research primarily focused on technological dimensions, limited attention has been paid to the subjective perceptions of managers. Strategic decisions are strongly influenced by managers’ cognitive perceptions of barriers and requirements. Analyzing these causal relationships can provide valuable insights for designing effective managerial strategies. FCM, as a soft modeling technique, enables the analysis of complex causal structures in uncertain environments. By integrating fuzzy logic with network structures, this approach facilitates modeling human perceptions. Despite the expanding literature, several research gaps remain. First, prior studies often examined barriers and outcomes separately, ignoring feedback-driven relationships. Second, limited research has explicitly modeled expert cognition in this field. Third, the use of advanced learning mechanisms like AHL and NHL for optimizing causal weights has received limited attention in supply chain digitalization research. To address these gaps, this study develops an integrated FCM model to analyze the causal relationships among digitalization components in Iranian industries. The main contributions include developing an integrated causal framework, modeling expert cognition, and comparing AHL and NHL algorithms to improve model robustness.
Methodology
This study employs a mixed-method approach to model digitalization components. In the qualitative phase, key concepts were extracted via content analysis of expert insights. In the quantitative phase, these concepts were modeled using FCM, and causal relationships were optimized through NHL algorithms implemented in Python. The FCMPy toolkit was used to simulate and refine the model, enabling parameter estimation and scenario-based analysis. Initial weight matrices were constructed from expert evaluations using fuzzy linguistic scales. Defuzzification was performed via the center of gravity method, and NHL was applied to enhance accuracy and stability. Intervention scenarios were then analyzed, leading to the final stabilization of the cognitive model structure.
Findings
Simulation results identified seven key influential factors with the highest impact on digital performance: connectivity, lack of R&D capabilities, scalability, technological inaccessibility, sustainability, insufficient employee competence, and supply chain resilience. In contrast, political instability showed the least influence on performance outcomes. Scenario-based analysis revealed that scenarios focusing on organizational agility, digital skills, and organizational security had the strongest impact on flexibility and competitiveness. Conversely, scenarios targeting only policy and infrastructure barriers showed weaker performance, highlighting that policy interventions alone are insufficient without integration with operational components. These findings offer a practical framework for prioritizing digital transformation initiatives, emphasizing the need to focus on high-impact enablers to achieve measurable improvements in key performance indicators.
Discussion and conclusion
This study utilized an FCM framework to model the relationships among digitalization enablers and outcomes. The application of the NHL algorithm proved effective in balancing accuracy and stability, making it a powerful tool for analyzing nonlinear systems. Theoretically, the findings demonstrate that FCM offers a robust alternative to linear models, enabling nuanced exploration of interdependencies. Practically, results highlight that successful transformation depends on high-impact enablers such as connectivity, R&D capabilities, and employee competence. Scenario analysis revealed that interventions targeting agility and decision-making processes were more effective than those focused solely on infrastructure, emphasizing the need for multidimensional strategies. Future research is encouraged to develop localized frameworks for implementing digital supply chains in the Iranian context. Special attention to managerial perceptions and cultural resistance will be essential for shaping effective policies. Finally, decision-support tools based on FCM and intelligent learning algorithms can assist managers in evaluating intervention scenarios and selecting optimal transformation pathways.

Keywords

Main Subjects

  1. Ammar, S. B., Mosbahi, H., & Aissaoui, T. (2024). Smart supply chain: A lever for strategic excellence. In 2024 International Conference on Control, Automation and Diagnosis (ICCAD) (pp. 1–8). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICCAD61701.2024
  2. Alhalalmeh, M. (2022). The impact of supply chain 4.0 technologies on its strategic outcomes. Uncertain Supply Chain Management, 10(4), 1203–1210. https://doi.org/10.5267/j.uscm.2022.8.003
  3. Al Tera, A., Alzubi, A., & Iyiola, K. (2023). Supply chain digitalization and performance: A moderated mediation of supply chain visibility and supply chain survivability. Heliyon, 10(4). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e25234
  4. Annosi, M. C., Brunetta, F., Bimbo, F., & Kostoula, M. (2021). Digitalization within food supply chains to prevent food waste: Drivers, barriers and collaboration practices. Industrial Marketing Management, 93, 208–220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2020.12.008
  5. Ada, E., Sagnak, M., Uzel, R. A., & Balcıoğlu, İ. (2022). Analysis of barriers to circularity for agricultural cooperatives in the digitalization era. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 71(3), 932–951. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPPM-06-2020-0312
  6. Brandtner, P. (2024). Digital transformation of supply chain management: Challenges and strategies for successfully implementing data analytics in practice. In Proceedings of the 2024 8th International Conference on E‑Commerce, E‑Business, and E‑Government (pp. 36–42). https://doi.org/10.1145/3663058.3663070
  7. Brown, P., Lloyd, C., & Souto‑Otero, M. (2018). The prospects for skills and employment in an age of digital disruption: A cautionary note. SKOPE Research Paper, 127.
  8. Chen, Y., Li, J., & Zhang, J. (2024). Digitalisation, data‑driven dynamic capabilities and responsible innovation: An empirical study of SMEs in China. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 41(3), 1211–1251. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10490-023-09870-2
  9. Dadsena, K. K., Pant, P., Paul, S. K., & Pratap, S. (2024). Overcoming strategies for supply chain digitization barriers: Implications for sustainable development goals. Business Strategy and the Environment, 33(5), 3887–3910. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.3658
  10. Dutta, G., Kumar, R., Sindhwani, R., & Singh, R. K. (2021). Digitalization priorities of quality control processes for SMEs. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, 32(6), 1679–1698. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10845-020-01620-9
  11. Frederico, G. F., Kumar, V., Garza‑Reyes, J. A., Kumar, A., & Agrawal, R. (2023). Impact of Industry 4.0 technologies on supply chain resilience. The International Journal of Logistics Management, 34(4), 1020–1049. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJLM-01-2022-0030
  12. Chilicaus, G. C., Licapa‑Redolfo, G. S., Arbulú Ballesteros, M. A., et al. (2024). Digital transformation and sustainability in post‑pandemic supply chains. Sustainability, 17(7), 3009. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17073009
  13. Ghobakhloo, M., Iranmanesh, M., Vilkas, M., Grybauskas, A., & Amran, A. (2022). Drivers and barriers of Industry 4.0 technology adoption among SMEs. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 33(6), 1029–1058. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMTM-12-2020-0498
  14. Gupta, H., Yadav, A. K., Kusi‑Sarpong, S., Khan, S. A., & Sharma, S. C. (2022). Strategies to overcome barriers to innovative digitalisation technologies. Technology in Society, 69, 101970. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2022.101970
  15. Ghadge, A., Kara, M. E., Moradlou, H., & Goswami, M. (2020). The impact of Industry 4.0 implementation on supply chains. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 31(4), 669–686. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMTM-10-2019-0368
  16. Gkrimpizi, T., Peristeras, V., & Magnisalis, I. (2023). Classification of barriers to digital transformation in higher education institutions. Education Sciences, 13(7), 746. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13070746
  17. Habibi, A., Sofyan, S., & Mukminin, A. (2023). Factors affecting digital technology access in vocational education. Scientific Reports, 13, 5682. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-32645-1
  18. Ivanov, D. (2022). Viable supply chain model. Annals of Operations Research, 319(1), 1411–1431. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-020-03640-7
  19. Jankovic‑Zugic, A., Medic, N., Pavlovic, M., Todorovic, T., & Rakic, S. (2023). Servitization 4.0 as a trigger for sustainable business. Sustainability, 15(3), 2217. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15032217
  20. Khan, S. A., Ahmad, Z., Sheikh, A. A., & Yu, Z. (2022). Digital transformation and eco‑innovation toward sustainable supply chains. Science Progress, 105(4). https://doi.org/10.1177/00368504221145648
  21. Khanan, A., Abdullah, S., Mohamed, A. H. H., Mehmood, A., & Ariffin, K. A. Z. (2019). Big data security and privacy concerns: A review. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-01659-3_7
  22. Kumar Dadsena, K., & Pant, P. (2023). Analyzing the barriers in supply chain digitization. Operations Management Research, 16(4), 1684–1697. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12063-022-00303-3
  23. Kohli, A., & Malik, O. P. (2025). Digital transformation in SMEs: A literature review. Journal of Data, Information and Management. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42488-025-00145-6
  24. Kosko, B. (1986). Fuzzy cognitive maps. International Journal of Man‑Machine Studies, 24(1), 65–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0020-7373(86)80040-2
  25. Kosko, B. (1993). Adaptive inference in fuzzy knowledge networks. In Readings in Fuzzy Sets for Intelligent Systems. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-1-55860-539-8.50052-1
  26. Linzalone, R., Schiuma, G., & Ammirato, S. (2020). Connecting universities with entrepreneurship through digital learning platforms. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 26(7), 1525–1545. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEBR-07-2019-0452
  27. Li, L., Tong, Y., Wei, L., & Yang, S. (2022). Digital technology‑enabled dynamic capabilities. Information & Management, 59(8), 103689. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2022.103689
  28. Mir‑Ashrafi, M., & Nematizadeh, S. (2021). Assessing Iran’s customs in terms of Industry 4.0 components. Political Organizing of Space, 3(4), 232–243.
  29. Martin, N. (2025). Interval‑valued plithogenic cognitive maps for sustainable supply chain strategy selection. International Journal of Research in Industrial Engineering. https://doi.org/10.22105/riej.2025.227663
  30. Muzamil, A. Z. A., Pyeman, J., Mutalib, S., et al. (2025). Enabling retail food supply chain viability and resilience by digitalization. International Journal of Industrial Engineering and Operations Management, 7(2), 175–203.
  31. Marion, T. J., & Fixson, S. K. (2021). The transformation of the innovation process. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 38(1), 192–215. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12547
  32. Mpelogianni, A. S., Kokkinos, K., Papageorgiou, E. I., & Połap, D. (2022). FCMpy: A Python module for constructing fuzzy cognitive maps. PeerJ Computer Science, 8, e1078. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj-cs.1078
  33. Netshakhuma, N. S. (2021). Volunteerism and digitisation projects. Collection and Curation, 40(1), 15–23. https://doi.org/10.1108/CC-09-2020-0027
  34. Ning, L., & Yao, D. (2023). The impact of digital transformation on supply chain capabilities. Sustainability, 15(13), 10107. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151310107
  35. Oubrahim, I., & Sefiani, N. (2023). Drivers and barriers to digital transformation adoption. Acta Logistica, 10(2). https://doi.org/10.22306/al.v10i2.365
  36. Piprani, A. Z., Nazir, S., Najmi, A., Watabe, M., & Jaafar, N. I. (2025). Digital capabilities and supply chain resilience. Business Strategy & Development. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsd2.70148
  37. Papageorgiou, E. I., & Salmeron, J. L. (2022). A review of fuzzy cognitive maps research. IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems. https://doi.org/10.1109/TFUZZ.2021.3061079
  38. Papageorgiou, E. I., Stylios, C., & Groumpos, P. P. (2006). Unsupervised learning techniques for fuzzy cognitive maps. International Journal of Human‑Computer Studies, 64(8), 727–743. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2006.02.004
  39. Roy, V. (2021). Contrasting supply chain traceability and visibility. The International Journal of Logistics Management, 32(3), 942–972. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJLM-05-2020-0210
  40. Rane, S. B., Abhyankar, G. J., Kirkire, M. S., & Agrawal, R. (2025). Modeling barriers to adoption of digitization in supply chains. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 32(1), 332–368. https://doi.org/10.1108/BIJ-08-2023-0514
  41. Rakgoale, T. I., Bag, S., & Pretorius, J. H. C. (2024). Barriers to digitalization implementation in South Africa. Global Business Review. https://doi.org/10.1177/09721509241246253
  42. Sezer, İ. C. (2020). The impact of Industry 4.0 on logistics human resources (Master’s thesis). İzmir University of Economics.
  43. Sarmiento, I., Cockcroft, A., Dion, A., et al. (2024). Fuzzy cognitive mapping in participatory research. Archives of Public Health, 82(1), 76. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13690-024-01256-7
  44. Silva, J., Matos de Oliveira, A., Veríssimo de Oliveira, J., & Bouzon, M. (2025). Barriers to digital transformation in fruit and vegetable supply chains. OPSEARCH, 62(1), 460–482. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12597-024-00749-2
  45. Subramanian, J., Karmegam, A., Papageorgiou, E., Papandrianos, N., & Vasukie, A. (2015). Breast cancer risk assessment model based on FCM. Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine, 118(3), 280–297. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmpb.2014.12.001
  46. Surucu‑Balci, E., Iris, Ç., & Balci, G. (2024). Digital information in maritime supply chains with blockchain. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 198, 122978. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2023.122978
  47. Salamah, E., Alzubi, A., & Yinal, A. (2023). Impact of digitalization on supply chain performance. Sustainability, 16(1), 304. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16010304
  48. Stach, W., et al. (2021). Learning fuzzy cognitive maps with optimization techniques. Expert Systems with Applications. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2020.113483
  49. Tsadiras, A. K. (2008). Comparing inference capabilities of fuzzy cognitive maps. Information Sciences, 178(20), 3880–3894. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2008.06.015
  50. Tsvuura, G., & Ngulube, P. (2021). Digitisation of records and archives in Zimbabwe universities. South African Journal of Information Management, 23(1). https://doi.org/10.4102/sajim.v23i1.1240
  51. Viegas, C. V., Bond, A., Vaz, C. R., & Bertolo, R. J. (2019). Reverse flows within the pharmaceutical supply chain. Journal of Cleaner Production, 238, 117719. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.117719
  52. Wang, S., & Li, J. (2024). Carbon emission trading and supply chain digitization. Journal of Cleaner Production, 452, 142164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2024.142164
  53. Wang, L., Deng, T., Shen, Z. J. M., Hu, H., & Qi, Y. (2022). Digital twin‑driven smart supply chain. Frontiers of Engineering Management, 9(1), 56–70. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42524-021-0175-3
  54. Yang, M., Fu, M., & Zhang, Z. (2021). The adoption of digital technologies in supply chains. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 169, 120795. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.120795
  55. Zhao, N., Hong, J., & Lau, K. H. (2023). Impact of supply chain digitalization on supply chain resilience. International Journal of Production Economics, 259, 108817. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2023.108817
  56. Zhu, J., Baker, J. S., Song, Z., Yue, X. G., & Li, W. (2023). Government regulatory policies for digital transformation in SMEs. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 10(1). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-01762 1
  57.  Hedayati, Z., Zinalnejad, S., & Samieeallah, S. (2024). Identification and ranking of barriers to the use of blockchain technology in the sustainable food supply chain.