This article is an attempt to model the attributes of human body organization using interpretive structural modeling (ISM) and analytic hierarchy process (AHP) approach. The parameters used for modeling are derived from the comparisons between principles and processes followed in a human and a corporate body by Agarwal and Vrat (2014, Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, 15(4), 345–361). It is presumed that human body is the nature’s best creation and is a perfectly designed and managed system. Based on this model, few managerial insights are also proposed. These insights can be referred by managers during policy formulation to significantly improve the structure and operating procedures of organizations, which in turn will enhance the performance of individuals as well as organization as a whole.
AgarwalA., & VratP. (2014). Bio-inspired managerial insights for a flexible and efficient organization: A sap-lap analysis. Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, 15(4), 345–361.
2.
AgarwalA., & VratP. (2015a). A TISM based bionic model of organizational excellence. Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, 16(4), 361–376.
3.
AgarwalA., & VratP. (2015b). Line and staff functions in organizations revisited: A bionic system analogy using ISM. Vision, 19(2), 1–15.
4.
AlawamlehM., & PopplewellK. (2011). Interpretive structural modeling of risk sources in virtual organisation. International Journal of Production Research, 49(20), 6041–6063.
5.
AnsariS. (2004). Systems theory and management control. Retrieved March1, 2013, from http://faculty.darden.virginia.edu/ansaris/Systems%20Theory%20and%20MCS-TN.pdf
6.
AttriR., DevN., & SharmaV. (2012). Interpretive structural modelling (ISM) approach: An overview. Research Journal of Management Sciences, 2(2), 3–8.
7.
FaisalM. N. (2010). Sustainable supply chains: A study of interaction among the enablers. Business Process Management Journal, 10(3), 508–529.
8.
FaisalT., RahmanZ., & QureshiM. N. (2011). Analysis of interaction among the barriers to total quality management implementation using interpretive structural modeling approach. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 18(4), 563–587.
9.
GrzybowskaK. (2012). Sustainability in the supply chain: Analysing the enablers. Environemntal issues in supply chain management. Retrieved April20, 2014, from http://fem.put.poznan.pl/poli-admin/publications/1176505Grzybowska.pdf
10.
HaleemA., Sushil, QuadriM. A., & KumarS. (2012). Analysis of critical success factors of world class manufacturing practices: An application of interpretive structural modeling and interpretive ranking process. Production Planning and Control: The Management of Operations, 23(10–11), 722–734.
11.
IlyasR. M., ShankarR., & BanwetD. K. (2008). Creating flex-lean-agile value chain by outsourcing: An ISM-based interventional roadmap. Business Process Management Journal, 14(3), 338–389.
12.
JyotiBanwet, D. K., & DeshmukhS. G. (2010). Modeling the success factors for national R&D organizations: A case of India. Journal of Modelling in Management, 5(2), 158–175.
13.
KediaP. K, & Sushil. (2013). Total interpretive structural modelling of strategic technology management in automobile industry. Proceedings of PICMET ’13: Technology Management for Emerging Technologies.
14.
KumarS., KhanJ., & HaleemA. (2012). Enablers of technology management: An ISM approach. Proceedings of the National Conference on Trends & Advances in Mechanizal Engineering (pp. 801–180). Haryana: YMCA University of Sc. & Tech.
15.
MandalA., & DeshmukhS. G. (1994). Vendor selection using interpretive structural modeling (ISM). International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 14(6), 52–59.
16.
ParikshitC., ShankarR., & BaisyaR. K. (2008). Analysis of interactions among the variables of supply chain performance measurement system implementation. Business Process Management Journal, 14(4), 512–529.
17.
PrasadU. C., & SuriR. K. (2011). Modeling of continuity and change forces in private higher technical education using total interpretive structural modeling (TISM). Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, 12(3–4), 31–40.
18.
PravinK., ShankarR., & YadavS. S. (2008). Flexibility in global supply chain: Modeling the enablers. Journal of Modelling in Management, 3(3), 277–297.
19.
QureshiM. N., KumarD., & KumarP. (2007). Modeling the logistics outsourcing relationship variables to enhance shippers’ productivity and competitiveness in logistical supply chain. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 56(8), 689–714.
20.
QureshiM. N., KumarD., & KumarP. (2008). An integrated model to identify and classify the key criteria and their role in the assessment of 3PL services providers. Asia Pacific and Logistics, 20(2), 227–249.
21.
RameshA., BanwetD. K., & ShankarR. (2010). Modeling the barriers of supply chain collaboration. Journal of Modelling in Management, 5(2), 176–193.
22.
RaviV., & ShankarR. (2005). Analysis of interactions among the barriers of reverse logistics. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 72(8), 1011–1029.
23.
SaatyT. L. (1990). How to make a decision: The analytic hierarchy process. European Journal of Operational Research, 48(1), 9–26.
24.
SaatyT. L. (2008). Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. International Journal of Services Sciences, 1(1), 83–98.
25.
SageA. P. (1977). Interpretive structural modeling: Methodology for large-scale systems (pp. 91–164). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
26.
SahneyS., BanwetD. K., & KarunesS. (2010). Quality framework in education through the application of interpretive structural modeling: An administrative staff perspective in the Indian context. TQM Journal, 22(1), 56–71.
27.
SanghaniP. B. (2012). Human anatomy and physiology (pp. 7–8). New Delhi: Tata McGraw-Hill Education.
28.
SanjayJ., & ShankarR. (2004). IT enablement of supply chains: Modeling the enablers. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 53(8), 700–712.
29.
SharmaB. P., SinghM. D. & KumarA. (2012). Knowledge sharing barriers: An integrated approach of ism. Singapore: AHP.
30.
SinghR. K. (2011). Developing the framework for coordination in supply chain of SMEs. Business Process Management Journal, 17(4), 619–638.
31.
SinghM. D. & KantR. (2008). Knowledge management barriers: An interpretive structural modeling approach. International Journal of Management Science and Engineering Management, 3(2), 141–150.
32.
SotiA., ShankarR., & KaushalO. P. (2010). Modeling the enablers of six sigma using interpretive structural modeling. Journal of Modelling in Management, 5(2), 124–141.
33.
Sushil. (2005a). Interpretive matrix: A tool to aid interpretation of management and social research. Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, 6(2), 27–30.
34.
Sushil. (2005b). A flexible strategy framework for managing community and change. International Journal of Global Business and Competitiveness, 1(1), 22–32.
35.
Sushil. (2009). Interpretive ranking process. Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, 10(4), 1–10.
36.
Sushil. (2012). Interpreting the interpretive structural model. Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, 13(2), 87–106.
37.
VittalS. A. (2007). Linking KM effectiveness attributes to organizational performance. Journal of Information and Knowledge Management Systems, 37(2), 133–149.
38.
VittalS. A., & KanungoS. (2010). Modeling enablers for successful KM implementation. Journal of Knowledge Management, 14(1), 101–113.
39.
WarfieldJ. W. (1974). Developing interconnected matrices in structural modeling. IEEE Transactions on System Men and Cybernatics, 4(1), 51–81.
