International Journal of Information Management 43 (2018) 38–51

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Information Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijinfomgt

Incorporating polarity of relationships in ISM and TISM for theory building T

in information and organization management
Sushil
Department of Management Studies, Indian Institute of Technology Delhi, Vishwakarma Bhawan, Shaheed Jeet Singh Marg, New Delhi 110016, India

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Some mapping methods are used for the conceptualization of theories in information and organization man-
Information and organization management agement which may help in modeling both feedback and hierarchical structures. Total Interpretive Structural
ISM Modelling (TISM) is an enhancement of interpretive structural modeling (ISM) to explore hierarchical models
Polarity that aid in theory building in information and organization management. It is based on pair comparison method
Problem structuring
to generate a hierarchical digraph, which is then translated into the interpretive model by interpreting both
TISM
TISM-P
nodes and links in the digraph. The relationships in both ISM and TISM could be binary or fuzzy. However, a
Theory building missing dimension of these structural models is the polarity or direction of relationships. A relationship between
a pair of elements could be having positive or negative polarity. This aspect has been widely used in the feedback
structures as causal influence diagrams (CIDs) in system dynamics methodology. This paper is using the learning
from CIDs to introduce polarity of relationships in ISM and TISM. The polarity of relationships will further refine
ISM/TISM as a more explanatory model for theory building. This enhanced model not only provides hypothesis
formulation simply as a driver-dependence relationship but also addresses whether the driving variable(s) will
influence the dependent variable positively or negatively. The paper illustrates modified TISM process in-
corporating polarity with an example in the context of information and organizational change management and
discusses the nuances of such an enhanced model.

1. Introduction whether the independent variable(s) is/are influencing the dependent

Theory building in information and organization management re-
quires mapping of mental models and hypothesized relationships. This
mapping has been aided by a range of methods such as cognitive
mapping (Eden, 1988), system dynamics (Forrester, 1968), and ISM/
TISM. Both Interpretive Structural modeling (ISM) (Warfield, 1974)
and Total Interpretive Structural Modelling (TISM) (Sushil, 2012, 2016)
are interpretive methods to crystallize ill-structured mental models into
well-articulated hierarchically structured conceptual models. Both re-
searchers and practitioners have used these as enabling aids in con-
ceptualization and theory building. The fundamental questions in
theory building such as ‘what’, ‘how’ and ‘why’, as given by Whetten
(1989), are addressed by these interpretive methods. ISM effectively
addresses the first two questions, i.e. ‘what’ and ‘how’ regarding ele-
ments and their hierarchical (driver-dependence) relationships,
whereas TISM further addresses the question ‘why’ and brings more
explanatory power in the context of theory building. There is yet an-
other dimension in theory building and formulation of a hypothesis,
i.e., the polarity of relationships. This dimension explains the direction
of the relationship between independent and dependent variables, i.e.,
variable positively or negatively (Eisenhardt, 1989). Such positive and
negative relationships are extensively used in theory building in the
context of information and organization management.
Even though the application of both ISM and TISM is in vogue, the
literature on these modeling methods is almost silent on the concept of
polarity in relationships, which is integral to the process of con-
ceptualization and theory building. This concept of polarity is ex-
tensively used in the context of System Dynamics (SD) methodology
that portrays feedback structures in the form of causal influence dia-
grams (Forrester, 1975; Sterman, 2000). The learning and significance
of polarity in system dynamics are reflected to examine and define the
polarity of relationships in ISM and TISM to make them far more
powerful by portraying the direction of relationships in a more ex-
planatory manner. Hypotheses conceptualizing positive and negative
relationships have been developed by some researchers in information
and organizational management. For example, Lane, Salk, and Lyles
(2001) hypothesized that absorptive capacity and learning relate posi-
tively to joint venture performance. Whereas Morris and Cadogan
(2001) related partners conflict with quality of joint venture marketing
strategy both positively (functional) and negatively (dysfunctional).

E-mail address: sushil@dms.iitd.ac.in.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2018.06.003
Received 14 May 2018; Received in revised form 22 June 2018; Accepted 22 June 2018
0268-4012/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Sushil
Dhir and Sushil (2017) related constructs from transaction cost and
social exchange paradigms with modification and termination flex-
ibilities of cross-border joint ventures both positively and negatively.
The main objectives of this paper are:
(i) To propose an enhanced methodology of ISM/TISM incorporating
polarity of relationships to aid theory building in information and
organization management.
(ii) To refine the classification of variables in the conceptual frame-
work as driver, linkage, autonomous and dependent variables with
a positive or negative orientation.
(iii) To identify the positive and negative paths from driver variables to
dependent variables, via linkage or intermediate variables in the
management of information and organizational change.
The paper first gives a selective review of evolution and application
of ISM/TISM methodology. It also briefly reviews system dynamics
methodology to bring out the significance of polarity of relationships.
The methodology of incorporating polarity of relationships in modified
ISM/TISM process with simultaneous transitivity checks (Sushil, 2017a)
is elaborated. It then gives an illustrative example in the context of
information and organizational change management to develop a TISM
model of criteria for evaluating change propositions with the polarity of
their relationships. Finally, it provides a discussion of its implications
and concludes with limitations and directions for further research.
2. Literature review
A selective review of evolution and application of ISM/TISM is first
provided, which is supported by an overview of SD methodology to
highlight the significance of polarity of relationships. This review has
led to the identification of a gap area of the polarity of relationships
which has not yet been effectively addressed in the ISM/TISM process.
2.1. Evolution and application of ISM/TISM
The paired comparison method for unearthing the hierarchical
structure among a set of elements/variables was introduced by Warfield
(1974). He effectively utilized the paired relationships in a directional
frame of reference using a contextual relationship to portray the hier-
archical structure among them in the form of a digraph. This abstract
digraph is interpreted regarding elements and their directional re-
lationships as Interpretive Structural Model. The paired comparisons
are used to minimize cognitive overload but require a system en-
gineering approach to synthesize them in the form of a reachability
matrix with transitivity checks. The reachability matrix indicates the
reachability of one element to the other elements in the set. The tran-
sitivity implies that if element i reaches element j and element j reaches
element k, then element i transitively reaches element k. The algorithms
for transitivity checks and hierarchical partitioning have been pre-
sented in Warfield (1990). Some early applications of ISM are reported
by Jedlicka and Meyer (1980), Malone (1975), Mandal and Deshmukh
(1994), Saxena, Sushil, and Vrat (1990, 1992), and Sharma, Gupta, and
Sushil (1995). The indirect relationships have been analyzed by using
MICMAC method by Saxena et al. (1990). A large number of applica-
tions of ISM and MICMAC have been made in the extant literature. The
applications of ISM have largely been made in the context of operations
and information management. Some recent applications of ISM are
related to IT enablers (Thakkar, Kanda, & Deshmukh, 2008), world-
class manufacturing (Haleem, Sushil, Qadri, & Kumar, 2012), supply
chain risk (Venkatesh, Rathi, & Patwa, 2015), and supply chain resi-
lience (Jain, Kumar, Soni, & Chandra, 2017). In the context of in-
formation management, it has been applied to study factors of in-
formation systems project failure (Hughes, Dwivedi, Rana, & Simintiras,
2016; Hughes, Dwivedi, & NP, 2017); hierarchy of factors related to
innovation using big open linked data (Dwivedi et al., 2017), and
39
International Journal of Information Management 43 (2018) 38–51
digital government trustworthiness (Janssen, Rana, Slade, & Dwivedi,
2018), among other applications. It has also been applied to supplier
development enablers (Dalvi & Kant, 2017), lean, green and resilient
supply chain management (Cherrafi, Elfezazi, Garza-Reyes, Benhida, &
Mokhlis, 2017; Ruiz-Benitez, López, & Real, 2017), and so on.
However, it was observed that despite extensive application of ISM
in a variety of areas these models (developed by ISM) are partly in-
terpreted. ISM is a graph-based method (a graph consists of nodes as
well as links), but it has been interpreting only nodes and partly in-
terpreting links by defining the contextual relationship. The total in-
terpretation of both nodes and links has been attempted in the form of
Total Interpretive Structural Modelling (TISM) by Sushil (2012). After
the advent of this enhancement of ISM, it has been applied in some
areas such as drug selling (Wasuja, Sagar, & Sushil, 2012), sustainable
manufacturing (Dubey, Gunasekaran, Sushil, & Singh, 2015), organi-
zational excellence (Agarwal & Vrat, 2015), and strategic performance
management (Yadav, Sushil, & Sagar, 2015). Some other areas of ap-
plication of TISM are green supply chain management (Shibin et al.,
2016), workplace flexibility (Yadav, Rangnekar, & Bamel, 2016), inland
waterborne transport (Kumar, Haleem, Qamar, & Khan, 2017), agile
performance in healthcare (Patri & Suresh, 2017), sustainable supply
chain performance (Sandeepa & Chand, 2018; Shibin, Gunasekaran, &
Dubey, 2017), and so on.
Further, it is noted that a good number of applications of both ISM
and TISM that have been published had technical errors. The correct-
ness of these models can be checked by following the guidelines pro-
vided by Sushil (2016). It has also been realized that the key challenges
in the application of both ISM and TISM are a large number of pair-
comparisons to be made by experts and cumbersome multi-order
transitivity checks are to be carried out. These challenges can be ob-
viated by a modified ISM/TISM method that has been developed to
carry out transitivity checks along with the direct pair comparisons
(Sushil, 2017a). This modified method provides a substantial reduction
in direct pair-comparisons by eliminating redundant comparisons that
can be easily derived by the transitivity logic.
Apart from the development of TISM and other recent improve-
ments in the ISM/TISM method, attempts had been made to obtain the
strength of each pair relationship using fuzzy set theory (Zadeh, 1965).
An early initiative in this direction was taken by Saxena et al. (1992) to
provide a framework of fuzzy ISM. Recently, Khatwani, Singh, Trivedi,
and Chauhan (2015) provided the methodology of fuzzy TISM, which
has been applied in some cases (Mohanty & Shankar, 2017). In addition
to methodological advancements, innovations in implementation of
ISM and TISM have been made in terms of empirical validation
(Anbarasan & Sushil, 2018; Bishwas & Sushil, 2016; Srivastava & Sushil,
2015), factor analysis to derive the elements for ISM/TISM (Chatterjee,
Kar, & Gupta, 2017), anecdotal evidence in verifying the model in real
life (Singh & Sushil, 2017), and so on. One recent advancement has
been made to use TISM as a basis for deriving weights of criteria in
MCDM methods by taking their driving power as the basis and used it in
conjunction with Interpretive Ranking Process (Sushil, 2009) in the
form of the TISM-IRP process by Sushil (2017b, 2018). Despite these
developments, it is noticed that almost none of the past works on ISM/
TISM has taken into consideration the polarity of relationships, which
has been used in developing causal influence diagrams (CIDs) as a
conceptualization tool in system dynamics methodology. A brief review
of the same is given in the next section to provide a basis and in-
spiration for considering the issue of the polarity of relationships in the
ISM/TISM process.
2.2. Polarity of relationships in system dynamics
System Dynamics (SD) methodology is a dynamic simulation
method to test the dynamic hypothesis in any system. The dynamic
hypothesis is portrayed in the form of causal influence diagrams (CIDs)
to present the feedback structure logically. The SD methodology was
Sushil
first introduced by Forrester (1958) in studying the dynamic behavior
of industrial systems in the form of Industrial Dynamics. Later this was
applied to study urban dynamics and world dynamics (Forrester, 1969,
1971). The comprehensive details of SD can be seen in some past works
(Coyle, 1983; Gottschalk, 1983; Morecroft, 1988; Richardson & Pugh,
1981; Sushil, 1993; Sterman, 2000; Wolstenholme & Coyle, 1983;
Wolstenholme, 1988). The aim here is not to review SD and its wide-
spread applications, but to highlight the issue of the polarity of re-
lationships in CIDs. The start point of any CID is the basic variables (as
taken in ISM/TISM) which may be qualitative, but need to be quantified
later as stock and flow variables in the simulation model. The next step
is to establish a causal relationship between a pair of two variables
defining its polarity, which could be either +ve or −ve in nature. By
linking together many such causal relationships a feedback loop can be
derived, which could again be +ve or −ve in nature. Senge (1990) has
effectively used the +ve or reinforcing causal loops and −ve or bal-
ancing loops to portray different generic structures to study the dy-
namic behavior of systems such as limits to growth, shifting the burden,
fixes that backfire, and so on. The +ve feedback loop exhibits ex-
ponential behavior, whereas the −ve feedback loop generates goal
seeking asymptotic behavior. A fuzzy simulation of causal loop dia-
grams is exemplified by Pankaj, Seth, and Sushil (1992). The system
dynamics methodology, incorporating +ve and –ve feedbacks, has
been effectively used in information and organization management.
Georgantzas and Katsamakas (2008) sketched the use of system dy-
namics in information system (IS) research linking the effects of IS on
people, organization, and markets. They have also given directions for
IS research with SD regarding the criteria and themes to be considered
for this kind of research. Another critical review by Tako and Robinson
(2012) captures the use of both discrete event simulation and SD as
decision support systems for logistics and supply chain management.
An SD model is developed by Nazareth and Choi (2015) to examine
information security management strategies and concludes that higher
payoff can be attributed to security detection tools in comparison to
deterrence investment. There are many more areas in information and
organization management that can be conceptualized regarding dy-
namic hypotheses and its validation using SD methodology.
The fundamental basis of the feedback structure is a causal re-
lationship with +ve or −ve polarity. This insight about the polarity of
the relationship between a pair of variables has acted as inspiration for
examining its use in ISM/TISM process. A brief review of the evolution
of ISM/TISM and polarity of relationships in SD modeling indicates a
gap in ISM/TISM methodology. Both ISM and TISM are applied as
conceptualization and theory building methods. In theory building and
hypothesis formulation in information and organization management,
the polarity of driver-dependence relationships is invariably utilized
and empirically tested, which is the main justification for the en-
hancement of methodology presented in this paper. This justification is
supported by select studies in information and organization manage-
ment reported in the extant literature. For example, Thomas and
McDaniel (1990) while interpreting the strategic issues using CEOs’
responses tested the polarity of relationships between strategy and in-
formation processing structure related with top-level teams. The impact
of IT acceptance on individual performance has been analyzed in the
context of Singapore by Igbaria and Tan (1997) using the hypotheses
that indicate the polarity of relationships. Lee, Park, and Han (2008)
investigated the effects of online customer reviews on product attitude
using polarity of relationships from an information processing per-
spective. The positive and negative relationships among factors influ-
encing information sharing and inter-organizational relationships in the
context of the supply chain have been empirically tested among the top
Taiwanese firms by Cheng (2011). Many such studies indicate the po-
larity of relationships among factors in theory building, whereas ISM
and TISM as theory building methods have not captured it in the past.
This gap area of the polarity of relationships is addressed in this paper,
and an enhanced methodology of ISM/TISM is provided and illustrated
40
International Journal of Information Management 43 (2018) 38–51
in the context of information and organizational change.
3. Enhanced TISM methodology with polarity of relationships
As TISM is an extension of ISM the enhanced methodology is pro-
vided for TISM as a more comprehensive method; the same at a reduced
level can also be applied for ISM applications as ISM-P (ISM with the
polarity of relationships). The modified ISM/TISM method with si-
multaneous transitivity checks (Sushil, 2017a) is taken as a basis to
describe the steps of this enhanced methodology with the polarity of
relationships. The major steps of this enhanced TISM methodology with
the polarity of relationships are summarized diagrammatically in Fig. 1.
It may be noted that steps II, III, IV, VI, VII, and VIII are different
than the existing process due to the introduction of polarity and steps
IX–XI are additional in the enhanced process. Only steps I and V are
similar to the existing process. All the steps of the enhanced TISM
process are elaborated as follows:
Step I: Define Elements, Contextual Relationship, and Interpretation
As per the existing TISM process, first, the elements (to be hier-
archically arranged) are identified with the contextual relationship
used to pair-compare the elements, which is also to be qualified with
the associated interpretation.
Step II: Develop Successive Comparison Questionnaire with
Transitivity Checks and Polarity of Relationships
The elements need to be pair-compared in a successive manner as
described in Sushil (2017a). Minimum first two comparisons (1, 2 and
2, 3) are to be carried out by experts to check transitivity of the re-
lationship (1, 3) further. With each pair comparison, the direction of the
relationship is to be established as forward (i–j), backward (j–i), both
ways (i = j), and no relationship (0). If there is a relationship between a
pair of elements i and j, then its polarity also need to be specified, i.e.,
+ve or −ve. While making the transitivity check, the polarity of the
transitive link(s) is to be derived. For example, if i → j is +ve and j → k
is −ve, then i → k is −ve.
Step III: Obtain Pair-Comparisons with Simultaneous Transitivity
Checks
The direct pair-comparisons in the questionnaire are to be made by
experts and transitivity checks on specified questions to be done by the
researcher/facilitator or the computerized system. If the transitivity of a
relationship is ‘No’, then expert comparison for that pair is to be made.
In both the direct and transitive comparisons, the polarity of relation-
ship (+ve or −ve) is to be specified.
Step IV: Development of Successive Comparison Digraph and
Transitive Reachability Matrix with Polarity and Convert it into
Reachability Matrix (without polarity)
The direct pair-comparisons and transitivity checks with polarity
can be visualized by successive comparison digraph and transitive
reachability matrix with polarity. All comparisons marked in the
questionnaire are marked on the digraph (in a step-by-step manner) and
entered as +1, −1 or 0 in the transitive reachability matrix with po-
larity as given below:
• i-j with +ve polarity : +1 in ij cell and 0 in ji cell
• i-j with -ve polarity : - with −ve polarity : −1 in ij cell and 0 in ji cell
• j-i with +ve polarity : +1 in ji cell and 0 in ij cell
• j-i with -ve polarity : - with −ve polarity : −1 in ji cell and 0 in ij cell
• i = j with +ve polarity : +1 in both ij and ji cells
• i = j with −ve polarity : −1 in both ij and ji cells
• 0 (no relationship) : 0 in both ij and ji cells
The reachability matrix with +1, −1 and 0 entries is to be con-
verted into binary reachability matrix with 1 and 0 entries (+1 and −1
are entered as 1) with transitive relationships marked.
Step V: Carry Out Hierarchical Partitioning of the Reachability
Matrix
The original algorithm using reachability set, antecedent set and
Sushil
Fig. 1. Broad Steps of Total Interpretive Structural Modelling with Polarity of Relationships (TISM-P).
intersection set for all the elements is used for hierarchical partitioning.
The elements having same reachability and intersection sets are taken
at the highest level, and the process is repeated after iteratively re-
moving these elements till all the elements are classified into different
levels of hierarchy.
Step VI: Prepare Hierarchical Digraph and Direct Interaction Matrix
with Polarity of Relationships
Arrange the elements in hierarchical levels and link them with di-
rect as well as select transitive links as per reachability matrix with
polarity. Specify polarity of all links in the digraph as well as in the
interaction matrix.
Step VII: Prepare Interpretive Matrix with Polarity
41
International Journal of Information Management 43 (2018) 38–51
The experts may be contacted back with the direct interaction ma-
trix to interpret the links mentioned in it. Wherever there is +1 or −1
entry in the matrix, interpretation is to be provided to get the inter-
pretive matrix (Sushil, 2005) with polarity.
Step VIII: Obtain TISM with Polarity (TISM-P)
Both the nodes and links in the digraph need to be interpreted. The
nodes are interpreted by the elements identified in Step I and inter-
pretation of respective links (from Step VII) is superimposed from the
interpretive matrix. The interpretation of both nodes and links gives
TISM with the polarity of relationships.
Step IX: Classification of Elements
The sum of rows(s) in the reachability matrix (in Step IV) gives the
Sushil
driving power, and the sum of column(s) gives the dependence of re-
spective elements. These can be mapped to a driving power v/s de-
pendence graph (as per MICMAC analysis) and classified as driver,
linkage, autonomous and dependent elements. These can be further
qualified as elements with +ve or −ve orientation based on +ve/−ve
driving power and +ve/−ve dependence as obtained through
Reachability Matrix with polarity.
Step X: Grouping of Elements on TISM Model
The driver, linkage, autonomous and dependent elements with +ve
or −ve orientation can be placed in groups on the TISM model for
better comprehension.
Step XI: Identify Paths with Polarity
The paths from driver elements to dependent elements via linkage/
intermediate elements can be identified and their polarity to be ex-
amined.
All the above steps have been illustrated with the help of an ex-
ample in the context of information and organizational change man-
agement in the next section.
4. Illustration: information and organizational change
The proposed enhanced methodology for TISM with the polarity of
relationships (as given in the previous section) is illustrated with an
example of criteria to be used for evaluation of informational change
initiatives in organizations. For example, an organizational change may
be in the form of mergers and acquisitions (M&A), which may require
integration of information systems (IS) during the post-M&A integration
process. Such business and information technology (IT) alignment has
been analyzed by Baker and Niederman (2014) using multiple case
design. The post-merger challenges in the case of IS implementation
project has been examined concerning organizational identity by Vieru
and Rivard (2014) using an interpretive approach. Another aspect of
the change management of IT implementation projects is related to
team learning (Akgün, Lynn, Keskin, & Dogan, 2014). The selection of
an information delivery model to find the best user for the information
from business analytics is taken up by Martin, Lakshmi, and Venkatesan
(2014) using fuzzy MCDM technique. The business-IT alignment re-
quires different types of models for successful change; a framework
considering different criteria has been tested on such models by El-
Mekawy, Rusu, and Perjons (2015). There are many such information
linked organizational change considerations that have been studied in
the past using empirical analysis, case research, and interpretive
methods. Usually, management first identifies multiple information
integrated change initiatives which can be subsequently ranked by
using relevant change criteria. The step-by-step development of TISM
with polarity (TISM-P) for these criteria is described in the following
steps.
Step I: By going through the literature on information and organi-
zational change management and discussion with experts, eight change
criteria have been identified. These criteria include impact created by
the information change initiative, its proliferation in other areas, the
cost to be incurred for implementing change, and level of difficulty and
complexity of the information and organizational change programme.
Further, it is important to consider the acceptability of information
change to various stakeholders (employees, partners, etc.), awareness
of change among stakeholders, level of preparedness of information
change regarding required training, etc., and required time frame for
the information change implementation project. These criteria are
summarized in Table 1. The contextual relationship is regarding “in-
fluence” (+ve or −ve), and the interpretation is about how or in what
way one criterion influences the other as given in Table 1.
Step II: A questionnaire for successive pair-comparisons with the
polarity of relationships is shown in Appendix A. In this questionnaire,
the direct successive comparisons 1,2; 2,3; 3,4; ….; 7,8 are to be ob-
tained from experts dealing with information linked organizational
change. The transitive comparisons in between have been carried out
42
International Journal of Information Management 43 (2018) 38–51
Table 1
Elements, Contextual Relationship and Interpretation.
Element No. Elements (Change Contextual Interpretation
Criteria) Relationship
1 Impact Change criterion A How or in what way
2 Proliferation will influence change criterion A
3 Cost to be incurred change criterion B will influence change
4 Difficulty and (positively or criterion B?
complexity level negatively)
5 Acceptability
6 Awareness
7 Preparedness
8 Timeframe for
implementation
by the researcher/facilitator, and in case of transitivity, polarity has
also been derived logically using the polarity of previous relationships.
If any transitivity check depicts ‘No’, then the concerned pair is subject
to expert opinion.
Step III: The pair comparisons are obtained from a select group of
experts from the organizations undergoing information and organiza-
tional change and transitivity checks are done as depicted in Appendix
A. For transitivity checks; the successive comparison digraph is pre-
pared as given in the next step.
Step IV: The successive comparison digraph is prepared along with
the answering of the questionnaire to have a visualization of the re-
lationships and facilitating transitivity checks with polarity as por-
trayed in Fig. 2. Side-by-side the relationships are entered as ‘+1’, ‘−1’
or 0 in the Reachability Matrix with polarity as shown in Fig. 3. A color
coding is done both in the digraph and reachability matrix to visualize
direct and transitive relationships with +ve or −ve polarity. The
reachability matrix with polarity is converted into reachability matrix
(without polarity) by replacing entries with ‘+1’ and ‘−1’ by ‘1’ entry
as exhibited in Fig. 4.
Step V: The reachability matrix shown in Fig. 4 is the fully transitive
reachability matrix. This matrix is used as a base for hierarchical par-
titioning; different iterations of the same are illustrated in Appendix B
(Table B1), and the level-wise placement of all the eight information
change criteria is summarized in Table 2. It can be observed from
Table 2 that the change criteria ‘Impact’ and ‘Proliferation’ are at level I
(highest level) and ‘Difficulty and complexity level’ and ‘Awareness’ are
at level V (lowest level).
Step VI: The elements (information change criteria) ‘1’ to ‘8’ are
arranged level-wise as per the hierarchical partitioning and connected
to each other with links depicting the polarity (+ve/−ve) as portrayed
in Fig. 5. Select transitive links (having distinct influence) are retained
and rest other transitive links are dropped while preparing the hier-
archical digraph. The final digraph is translated first into binary in-
teraction matrix with polarity (Fig. 6(a)). It is interesting to note that
the direct links in the successive comparison digraph may appear as
transitive links in the hierarchical digraph or vice versa, as the hier-
archy was not known while making the successive comparisons. For
example 6 → 5 is appearing as a direct link in successive comparison
digraph (Fig. 2), whereas the same is appearing as a transitive link in
the hierarchical digraph (Fig. 5). Similar is the case with link 4 → 5.
Step VII: The experts’ knowledge is used to convert all the +1/−1
entries in the binary interaction matrix into the interpretive matrix
(Fig. 6(b)) giving an interpretation of each link. For example, element 1
(Impact) creates ‘motivation in other areas’ to influence element 2
(Proliferation). Similarly, interpretation of all the links in interaction
matrix is provided.
Step VIII: The nodes in the hierarchical digraph (Fig. 5) are inter-
preted as elements (as given in Table 2) and links are interpreted from
the interpretive matrix (Fig. 6(b)). The interpretation of the nodes and
links gives the final total interpretive structural model of information
change criteria with the polarity of relationships (Fig. 7). In this case,
Sushil International Journal of Information Management 43 (2018) 38–51

Fig. 2. Successive Comparison Digraph with Direct and Transitive Links and Polarity of Links.

Fig. 3. Reachability Matrix with Polarity of Relationships.

Fig. 4. Transitive Reachability Matrix.

43
Sushil
Table 2
List of Elements (Information Change Criteria) and their Levels in TISM.
Element No. Elements (Information Change Criteria) Level in TISM
1 Impact I has higher +ve driving power (4) in comparison to −ve driving power
2 Proliferation I
3 Cost to be incurred IV
4 Difficulty and complexity level V
5 Acceptability III
6 Awareness V criteria also have higher +ve driving power and considered as +ve
7 Preparedness II
8 Timeframe for implementation IV
the ‘Awareness’ criterion negatively influences the ‘cost' and 'time
frame' of the change initiative, and it affects ‘Acceptability’ in a positive
manner. With higher ‘Acceptability’ people accept the training on new
information systems (IS), thereby increasing the ‘Preparedness’ is a
positive direction. Thus, the change initiative will have higher ‘Impact’
with better training and information infrastructure. Higher ‘Impact’
gives more motivation, and better ‘Preparedness’ gives more accept-
ability in other areas so that the 'Proliferation' of change would take
place. This TISM model with polarity (TISM-P) is more explanatory
both regarding the interpretation of relationships and their polarity
than ISM.
Step IX: The information change criteria are classified by placing
them on driving power-dependence graph. The driving power and de-
pendence are obtained from the reachability matrix (Fig. 4). In this
manner, the criteria are classified as driver criteria (high driving power
- low dependence), linkage criteria (medium driving power - medium
dependence), and dependent criteria or outcomes (low driving power-
high dependence) as depicted in Fig. 8. There are no autonomous
Fig. 5. Digraph after Hierarchical Partitioning with Polarity of Links.
44
International Journal of Information Management 43 (2018) 38–51
variables in the fourth quadrant (low driving power - low dependence)
in this case. Further, the orientation of these criteria (+ve/−ve) is
obtained by +ve/−ve driving power and +ve/−ve dependence from
reachability matrix with polarity (Fig. 3). The criterion 6 (Awareness)
(2) and thus treated as a +ve driver. Whereas, criteria 3, 4 and 8 having
higher −ve driving power (4 each) in comparison to the +ve driving
power (1, 2 and 1 respectively) considered as −ve drivers. The linkage
linkage criteria. The outcome criteria 1 and 2 have higher +ve de-
pendence (4 each) in comparison to −ve dependence (3 each) and are
treated as +ve outcomes. Further, it is observed that −ve dependence
is coming through −ve drivers, thereby indicating the +ve orientation
of the outcome variables. It may be noted from Fig. 8 that the criterion
6 (Awareness) is the only +ve driver and the other three driver criteria
3, 4 and 8 (i.e., cost, difficulty/complexity, and time frame, respec-
tively) are of −ve orientation. All the linkage criteria and dependent
criteria or outcomes are of +ve orientation in this example.
Step X: This classification, as obtained in Fig. 8, is superimposed on
TISM as shown in Fig. 9. Fig. 9 gives the classification of variables with
their +ve/−ve orientation and interrelationships with polarity in one
diagram. This kind of representation gives insight into theory building.
For example, −ve drivers influence the linkage criteria negatively,
which in turn influence the outcomes positively. Similarly, +ve driver
influences the linkage criteria positively, which further influence the
outcome positively. The TISM with polarity will thus help in the for-
mulation of both the positive and negative hypotheses, with mediation
effect through linkages.
Step XI: The four driver criteria (three −ve and one +ve) are taken
as the start point to trace the paths of their influence on outcomes
through intermediate variables directly influenced by them as shown in
Sushil International Journal of Information Management 43 (2018) 38–51

Fig. 6. Interaction Matrix (a) Binary Matrix with Polarity (b) Interpretive Matrix.

Table 3. It is interesting to observe from Table 3 that there are seven
−ve paths and three +ve paths in this case example. The sole +ve
driver criterion is ‘Awareness’ which gives a positive influence on the
outcome criteria via cost, time frame, and acceptability variables. The
+ve driver needs to be strengthened and −ve drivers need to be
controlled to improve the success of the information linked change
programme. This kind of analysis needs to be reflected in the evaluation
of any information and organizational change programme and devel-
opment of the theory of its evaluation.

45
Sushil International Journal of Information Management 43 (2018) 38–51

Fig. 7. Total Interpretive Structural Model with Polarity (TISM-P) for Information Change Criteria Relationships.

Fig. 8. Classification of Information Change Criteria.

46
Sushil International Journal of Information Management 43 (2018) 38–51

Fig. 9. Total Interpretive Structural Model with Polarity for Information Change Criteria Relationships and Classification of Variables.

Table 3 incorporate polarity of relationships from questionnaire design, data

Nature of Paths. collection, transitivity checks, reachability matrix with polarity, di-
Driver Variables Path through the Variables Polarity of Path
graph, interaction matrix and TISM with polarity. The second en-
hancement is to integrate additional steps on the classification of
Difficulty & Complexity Cost −ve variables (based on MICMAC) with +ve/−ve orientation, super-
Time Frame −ve imposing the grouping of variables on TISM, and tracing paths from
Acceptability −ve
driver variables to dependent variables with their polarity. The en-
Cost Time Frame −ve
Acceptability −ve hanced and additional steps with the polarity of relationships provide
Time Frame Cost −ve more explanatory power to TISM-P in contrast to ISM and TISM. The
Acceptability −ve additional insights by incorporating polarity of relationships (similar to
Awareness Cost +ve
SD methodology - Forrester, 1975; Sterman, 2000) would be helpful for
Time Frame +ve
Acceptability +ve enriched theory building as well as more effective practical applications
of these methods to information and organization management.
In the example of information and organizational change, there are
5. Discussion more −ve drivers, i.e., difficulty and complexity of change, and asso-
ciated cost and time. The sole +ve driver is awareness created about
The paper gives an enhanced version of TISM as TISM-P (applicable change. All the paths to outcomes from –ve drivers are –ve paths and
to ISM also as ISM-P) that incorporates polarity of relationships along the paths emanating from the +ve driver are +ve ones. The accept-
with their explanatory interpretation. It may be noted from the pro- ability of change and preparedness for change serve as mediating
posed methodology (as exhibited in Fig. 1) that the identification of variables between the drivers and outcomes. These relationships con-
elements, contextual relationship and hierarchical partitioning of the ceptualizing a theory of information and organizational change as per
reachability matrix are similar to the original ISM process as given by the TISM-P model can be validated in empirical settings.
Warfield (1974, 1990). The interpretation of elements and retaining
select transitive links (with interpretation) in digraph and TISM are
similar to the TISM methodology as given by Sushil (2012). The si- 5.1. Implications for research
multaneous transitivity checks along with the direct pair-comparisons
are similar to the modified ISM/TISM process as per Sushil (2017a). The The researchers will find this enhanced version (TISM-P) useful on
difference is created in this enhanced version on two fronts. First, to multiple fronts such as:

47
Sushil
• Developing driver-dependence relationships in hypothesis formula-
tion with positive or negative influence as used in information and
organization management research design. The TISM-P model will
facilitate in hypothesis formulation such as variables of information
technology acceptance related positively or negatively to individual
performance (Igbaria & Tan, 1997).
• Classification of variables with a +ve/−ve orientation that further
facilitate hypothesis building with mediation effects and its positive
or negative influence on the outcome variable(s). For example,
conceptualizing effect of +ve/−ve online customer reviews.
• Tracing +ve/−ve paths from the driver variables to the dependent
variables to find out in how many ways driver variables may affect
the dependent variable(s) positively or negatively to focus on crucial
paths for effective information and organization research. The im-
pact of paths can be traced by fuzzy simulation based on fuzzy rules
for all the relationships (Pankaj et al., 1992).
However, for realizing the real benefits of TISM-P, a sizeable
number of problems in information and organization management need
to be solved and compared with the original models based on ISM/
TISM.
5.2. Implications for practice
In practice, this enhanced version of interpretive modeling may be
useful in many group-based strategic level problems such as clarifying
strategic intent, policy structuring, strategic information system archi-
tecture, designing performance systems, etc. In many of these applica-
tions, the polarity of relationships plays an important role. For example,
in clarifying strategic intent, it would be meaningful to not only know
the driving objectives and the dependent ones but also their +ve/−ve
orientation. Similarly, in policy structuring and strategic IS architecture
+ve/−ve linkages will be of great value to assess the positive or ne-
gative impacts of the policy under consideration. In case of performance
management, the leading and lagging variables are to be identified in
the form of driver and dependent variables. But it gives more clarity
about the +ve/−ve orientations of these variables as well. For ex-
ample, cost and risk are variables with a negative orientation that need
to be contained. The +ve and –ve paths from the driver variables to
outcomes will give the insight to manage them effectively in practice.
In the case example taken in the context of information and orga-
nizational change management, it is noticed that there are more −ve
drivers and more −ve paths then the +ve driver and +ve paths. The
practitioners have to enhance the positive drivers and contain the ne-
gative ones for the higher success of the information change pro-
grammes.
Similarly, a large number of problem areas can be identified at the
operational as well as strategic levels that may be better managed with
a clear understanding of +ve/−ve polarity of relationships. For ex-
ample critical success factors of information systems (some +ve, some
−ve), information flexibility with +ve/−ve impacts, and so on.
Almost in all problem areas, there are both positive and negative
48
International Journal of Information Management 43 (2018) 38–51
oriented variables and relationships which can be unearthed by this
enhanced version (TISM-P) and will be valuable in practice in identi-
fying positive and negative nerve centers for enhancing organizational
performance. The proposed method needs to be examined in multiple
case situations to be refined further for its effective use in practice.
6. Conclusion
Both ISM and TISM are mixed-methods with a healthy mix of both
qualitative and quantitative components. The comparison of variables
in pairs is qualitative, whereas the transitivity check and hierarchical
partitioning are quantitative. TISM takes the qualitative component to
the next higher level by interpretations of links. The proposed enhanced
method is this paper (TISM-P) is adding another dimension of the
qualitative-quantitative mix by way of the polarity of relationships. The
expert opinion on polarity is qualitative by examining the intrinsic
nature of the relationship, whereas the polarity of transitive relation-
ship is established by quantitative logic.
Further, the +ve/−ve driving power or dependence and thereby
classification of variables with +ve /−ve orientation is again quanti-
tative. The proposed enhanced method would reflect the relationships
and their theoretical and practical implications. However, the limita-
tion of the method lies at two levels: one in data collection that requires
greater involvement of experts to define the polarity between any pair
and the other in the enhancement of computational complexity in de-
riving transitive relations with polarity. Another limitation is regarding
the polarity assumption in case of ‘both ways’ relationship, according to
which both way linkages are either +ve or −ve. This assumption needs
to be examined in some case illustrations in information and organi-
zation management to assess the validity of this assumption.
Though the paper provides a sound base for incorporating polarity
in the ISM/TISM models, it needs to be further examined on multiple
fronts. Some prominent future research areas to make the proposed
method more effective are as follows:
i To validate the assumption of the same polarity on both links of a
two-way relationship and the developing a process to incorporate
different polarity (+ve in one direction and −ve on the other) in
strongly connected elements.
ii To develop algorithms to derive polarity of multi-order transitive
relationships.
iii To Interpret multiple paths with +ve/−ve polarity.
iv To transform TISM-P into SD models as both consider polarity of
relationships.
v To make use of big-data in establishing polarity of relationships.
vi To convert TISM-P model into hypotheses indicating positive and
negative relationships for theory building in information and or-
ganization management.
vii To empirically validate the hypotheses based on TISM-P model
using structural equation modeling (SEM).
viii To cross-validate the empirically tested theory in case situations in
information and organization management.
Sushil International Journal of Information Management 43 (2018) 38–51

Appendix A

Exhibit I.1: Filled-in Questionnaire with Transitivity Checks for the Illustrative Example

49
Sushil International Journal of Information Management 43 (2018) 38–51

Appendix B

Table B1
Hierarchical Partitioning of Reachability Matrix for the Illustrative Example.
Elements (Change Reachability set Antecedent set Intersection set Level
Criteria)

Iteration-1
1 1, 2 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 1, 2 I
7, 8
2 1, 2 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 1, 2 I
7, 8
3 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8 3, 4, 6, 8 3, 8
4 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8 4 4
5 1, 2, 5, 7 3, 4, 5, 6, 8 5
6 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8 6 6
7 1, 2, 7 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 7
8 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8 3, 4, 6, 8 3, 8

Iteration-2
3 3, 5, 7, 8 3, 4, 6, 8 3, 8
4 3, 4, 5, 7, 8 4 4
5 5, 7 3, 4, 5, 6, 8 5
6 5, 6, 7, 8 6 6
7 7 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 7 II
8 3, 5, 7, 8 3, 4, 6, 8 3, 8

Iteration-3
3 3, 5, 8 3, 4, 6, 8 3, 8
4 3, 4, 5, 8 4 4
5 5 3, 4, 5, 6, 8 5 III
6 5, 6, 8 6 6
8 3, 5, 8 3, 4, 6, 8 3, 8

Iteration-4
3 3, 8 3, 4, 6, 8 3, 8 IV
4 3, 4, 8 4 4
6 6, 8 6 6
8 3, 8 3, 4, 6, 8 3, 8 IV

Iteration-5
4 4 4 4 V
6 6 6 6 V

References
Agarwal, A., & Vrat, P. (2015). A TISM based bionic model of organizational excellence.
Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, 16(4), 361–376.
Akgün, A. E., Lynn, G. S., Keskin, H., & Dogan, D. (2014). Team learning in IT im-
plementation projects: Antecedents and consequences. International Journal of
Information Management, 34(1), 37–47.
Anbarasan, P., & Sushil (2018). Stakeholder engagement in sustainable enterprise:
Evolving a conceptual framework, and a case study of ITC. Business Strategy and the
Environment, 27(3), 282–299.
Baker, E. W., & Niederman, F. (2014). Integrating the IS functions after mergers and
acquisitions: Analyzing business-IT alignment. The Journal of Strategic Information
Systems, 23(2), 112–127.
Bishwas, S. K., & Sushil (2016). LIFE: An integrated view of meta organizational process
for vitality. Journal of Management Development, 35(6), 747–764.
Chatterjee, S., Kar, A. K., & Gupta, M. P. (2017). Critical success factors to establish 5G
network in smart cities: Inputs for security and privacy. Journal of Global Information
Management, 25(2), 15–37.
Cheng, J. H. (2011). Inter-organizational relationships and information sharing in supply
chains. International Journal of Information Management, 31(4), 374–384.
Cherrafi, A., Elfezazi, S., Garza-Reyes, J. A., Benhida, K., & Mokhlis, A. (2017). Barriers in
Green lean implementation: A combined systematic literature review and interpretive
structural modelling approach. Production Planning & Control, 1–14. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1080/09537287.2017.1324184.
Coyle, R. G. (1983). The technical elements of the system dynamics approach. European
Journal of Operational Research, 14(4), 359–370.
Dalvi, M. V., & Kant, R. (2017). Modelling supplier development enablers: An integrated
ISM–FMICMAC approach. International Journal of Management Science and Engineering
Management, 1–9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17509653.2017.1312581.
Dhir, S., & Sushil (2017). Flexibility in modification and termination of cross-border joint
ventures. Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, 18(2), 139–151.
Dubey, R., Gunasekaran, A., Sushil, & Singh, T. (2015). Building theory of sustainable
manufacturing using total interpretive structural modelling. International Journal of
Systems Science: Operations & Logistic, 2(4), 231–247.
Dwivedi, Y. K., Janssen, M., Slade, E., Rana, N., Weerakkody, V., Millard, J., et al. (2017).
Driving innovation through Big Open Linked Data (BOLD): Exploring antecedents
using interpretive structural modelling. Information Systems Frontiers, 19(2), 197–212.
Eden, C. (1988). Cognitive mapping. European Journal of Operational Research, 36(1),
1–13.
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of
Management Review, 14(4), 532–550.
El-Mekawy, M., Rusu, L., & Perjons, E. (2015). An evaluation framework for comparing
business-IT alignment models: A tool for supporting collaborative learning in orga-
nizations. Computers in Human Behavior, 51, 1229–1247.
Forrester, J. W. (1958). Industrial dynamics: A major breakthrough for decision makers.
Harvard Business Review, 36(4), 37–66.
Forrester, J. W. (1968). Principles of systems: Text and workbook, Vol. 1. Cambridge,
Massachusetts: Wright-Allen Press.
Forrester, J. W. (1969). Urban dynamics. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Forrester, J. W. (1971). World dynamics. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Forrester, J. W. (1975). Collected papers of Jay W. Forrester. Cambridge, Massachusetts:
Wright-Allen Press, Inc.
Georgantzas, N. C., & Katsamakas, E. G. (2008). Information systems research with
system dynamics. System Dynamics Review, 24(3), 247–264.
Gottschalk, P. (1983). A system dynamics model for Long range planning in railroad.
European Journal of Operational Research, 14(2), 156–162.
Haleem, A., Sushil, Qadri, M. A., & Kumar, S. (2012). Analysis of critical success factors of
world-class manufacturing practices: An application of interpretative structural
modelling and interpretative ranking process. Production Planning & Control, 23(10-
11), 722–734.
Hughes, D. L., Dwivedi, Y. K., Rana, N. P., & Simintiras, A. C. (2016). Information systems
project failure–Analysis of causal links using interpretive structural modelling.
Production Planning & Control, 27(16), 1313–1333.
Hughes, D. L., Dwivedi, Y. K., & Rana, N. P. (2017). Mapping IS failure factors on
PRINCE2® stages: An application of interpretive ranking process (IRP). Production
Planning & Control, 28(9), 776–790.
Igbaria, M., & Tan, M. (1997). The consequences of information technology acceptance on
subsequent individual performance. Information & Management, 32(3), 113–121.
Jain, V., Kumar, S., Soni, U., & Chandra, C. (2017). Supply chain resilience: Model de-
velopment and empirical analysis. International Journal of Production Research, 1–22.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2017.1349947.
Janssen, M., Rana, N., Slade, E., & Dwivedi, Y. K. (2018). Trustworthiness of digital
government services: Deriving a comprehensive theory through interpretive

50
Sushil
structural modelling. Public Management Review, 20(5), 647–671.
Jedlicka, A., & Meyer, R. (1980). Interpretive structural modeling-cross-cultural uses.
IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, 10(1), 49–51.
Khatwani, G., Singh, S. P., Trivedi, A., & Chauhan, A. (2015). Fuzzy-TISM: A fuzzy ex-
tension of TISM for group decision making. Global Journal of Flexible Systems
Management, 16(1), 97–112.
Kumar, P., Haleem, A., Qamar, F., & Khan, U. (2017). Modelling inland waterborne
transport for supply chain policy planning: An Indian perspective. Global Journal of
Flexible Systems Management, 18(4), 353–366.
Lane, P. J., Salk, J. E., & Lyles, M. A. (2001). Absorptive capacity, learning, and perfor-
mance in international joint ventures. Strategic Management Journal, 22(12),
1139–1161.
Lee, J., Park, D. H., & Han, I. (2008). The effect of negative online consumer reviews on
product attitude: An information processing view. Electronic Commerce Research and
Applications, 7(3), 341–352.
Malone, D. W. (1975). An introduction to the application of interpretive structural
modeling. Proceedings of the IEEE, 63(3), 397–404.
Mandal, A., & Deshmukh, S. G. (1994). Vendor selection using interpretive structural
modelling (ISM). International Journal of Operations and Production Management,
14(6), 52–59.
Martin, A., Lakshmi, T. M., & Venkatesan, V. P. (2014). An information delivery model for
banking business. International Journal of Information Management, 34(2), 139–150.
Mohanty, M., & Shankar, R. (2017). Modelling uncertainty in sustainable integrated lo-
gistics using fuzzy-TISM. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment,
53, 471–491.
Morecroft, J. D. (1988). System dynamics and microworlds for policymakers. European
Journal of Operational Research, 35(3), 301–320.
Morris, B. G., & Cadogan, J. W. (2001). Partner symmetries, partner conflict and the
quality of joint venture marketing strategy: An empirical investigation. Journal of
Marketing Management, 17(1-2), 223–259.
Nazareth, D. L., & Choi, J. (2015). A system dynamics model for information security
management. Information & Management, 52(1), 123–134.
Pankaj, Seth, K., & Sushil (1992). A fuzzy set theoretic approach to qualitative analysis of
causal loops in system dynamics. European Journal of Operational Research, 78(3),
380–393.
Patri, R., & Suresh, M. (2017). Modelling the enablers of agile performance in healthcare
organization: A TISM approach. Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, 18(3),
251–272.
Richardson, G. P., & Pugh, A. I., III (1981). Introduction to system dynamics modeling with
DYNAMO. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.
Ruiz-Benitez, R., López, C., & Real, J. C. (2017). Environmental benefits of lean, green and
resilient supply chain management: The case of the aerospace sector. Journal of
Cleaner Production, 167, 850–862. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.07.201.
Sandeepa, S., & Chand, M. (2018). Analysis of flexibility factors in sustainable supply
chain using total interpretive structural modeling (T-ISM) technique. Uncertain Supply
Chain Management, 6(1), 1–12.
Saxena, J. P., Sushil, & Vrat, P. (1990). Impact of indirect relationships in classification of
variables: A MICMAC analysis for energy conservation. Systems Research (Now Named
as Systems Research and Behavioral Science), 7(4), 245–253.
Saxena, J. P., Sushil, & Vrat, P. (1992). ) Scenario building a critical study of energy
conservation in Indian cement industry. Technological Forecasting and Social Change,
41(2), 121–146.
Senge, P. (1990). The Fifth discipline: The art and science of the learning organization. New
York: Currency Doubleday.
Sharma, H. D., Gupta, A. D., & Sushil (1995). The objectives of waste management in
India: A futures inquiry. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 48(3), 285–309.
Shibin, K. T., Gunasekaran, A., Papadopoulos, T., Dubey, R., Singh, M., & Wamba, S. F.
(2016). Enablers and barriers of flexible green supply chain management: A total
interpretive structural modeling approach. Global Journal of Flexible Systems
Management, 17(2), 171–188.
Shibin, K. T., Gunasekaran, A., & Dubey, R. (2017). Explaining sustainable supply chain
performance using a total interpretive structural modeling approach. Sustainable
51
International Journal of Information Management 43 (2018) 38–51
Production and Consumption, 12, 104–118. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2017.06.
003.
Singh, A., & Sushil (2017). Developing a conceptual framework of waste management in
the organizational context. Management of Environmental Quality: An International
Journal, 28(6), 786–806.
Srivastava, A. K., & Sushil (2015). Modeling organizational and information systems for
effective strategy execution. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 28(4),
556–578.
Sterman, J. D. (2000). Business dynamics. New York: Irwin McGraw-Hill.
Sushil (1993). System dynamics: A practical approach for managerial problems. New Delhi:
Wiley Eastern Limited.
Sushil (2005). Interpretive matrix: A tool to aid interpretation of management and social
research. Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, 6(2), 27–30.
Sushil (2009). Interpretive ranking process. Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management,
10(4), 1–10.
Sushil (2012). Interpreting the interpretive structural model. Global Journal of Flexible
Systems Management, 13(2), 87–106.
Sushil (2016). How to check correctness of total interpretive structural models? Annals of
Operations Research. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10479-016-2312-3.
Sushil (2017a). Modified ISM/TISM process with simultaneous transitivity checks for
reducing direct pair comparisons. Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40171-017-0167-3.
Sushil (2017b). Multi-criteria valuation of flexibility initiatives using integrated TISM –
IRP with a big data framework. Production Planning & Control, 28(11–12), 999–1010.
Sushil (2018). Interpretive multi-criteria valuation of flexibility initiatives on direct value
chain. Benchmarking - An International Journal Accepted.
Tako, A. A., & Robinson, S. (2012). The application of discrete event simulation and
system dynamics in the logistics and supply chain context. Decision Support Systems,
52(4), 802–815.
Thakkar, J., Kanda, A., & Deshmukh, S. G. (2008). Interpretive structural modeling (ISM)
of IT-enablers for Indian manufacturing SMEs. Information Management & Computer
Security, 16(2), 113–136.
Thomas, J. B., & McDaniel, R. R., Jr. (1990). Interpreting strategic issues: Effects of
strategy and the information-processing structure of top management teams.
Academy of Management Journal, 33(2), 286–306.
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.
Vieru, D., & Rivard, S. (2014). Organizational identity challenges in a post-merger con-
text: A case study of an information system implementation project. International
Journal of Information Management, 34(3), 381–386.
Warfield, J. N. (1974). Toward interpretation of complex structural models. IEEE
Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, 4(5), 405–417.
Warfield, J. N. (1990). A science of generic design: Managing complexity through systems
design, Vol. I & II. U.S.A: Inter Systems Publication.
Wasuja, S., Sagar, M., & Sushil (2012). Cognitive bias in salespersons in specialty drug
selling of pharmaceutical industry. International Journal of Pharmaceutical and
Healthcare Marketing, 6(4), 310–335.
Whetten, D. A. (1989). What constitutes a theoretical contribution? Academy of
Management Review, 14(4), 490–495.
Wolstenholme, E. F. (1988). Defence operational analysis using system dynamics.
European Journal of Operational Research, 34(1), 10–18.
Wolstenholme, E. F., & Coyle, R. G. (1983). The development of system dynamics as a
methodology for system description and qualitative analysis. Journal of the
Operational Research Society, 34(7), 569–581.
Yadav, N., Sushil, & Sagar, M. (2015). Modeling strategic performance management of
automobile manufacturing enterprises: An Indian context. Journal of Modelling in
Management, 10(2), 198–225.
Yadav, M., Rangnekar, S., & Bamel, U. (2016). Workplace flexibility dimensions as en-
ablers of organizational citizenship behavior. Global Journal of Flexible Systems
Management, 17(1), 41–56.
Zadeh, L. A. (1965). Fuzzy sets. Information and Control, 8(3), 338–353.