Evaluating Barriers to Supply Chain Resilience in Vietnamese SMEs: The Fuzzy VIKOR Approach

Abstract

This study aimed to determine and prioritize the critical barriers to supply chain resilience (SCR) in Vietnamese small and medium-size enterprises (SMEs), which play a crucial role in the global supply chain. Through a systematic literature review and expert consultation, 15 barriers to SCR were identified and evaluated by using the fuzzy VIKOR (ViseKriterijumska Optimizacija I Kompromisno Resenje) method. The findings provide novel insights into the challenges of enhancing resilience in the Vietnamese supply chain and categorize the barriers into three main categories: the resilience phase, strategy resilience, and the competencies required. The results indicated that a lack of financial resources and alternative sources of supply are the most pressing barriers related to the resilience phase group. In terms of strategy resilience, the lack of a skilled and competent workforce was found to be the most critical obstacle. Furthermore, government delays in supporting and enacting appropriate policies were found to be the most pressing issue related to the competencies required. These findings offer valuable recommendations for managers seeking to address these barriers and enhance the resilience of the Vietnamese supply chain after COVID-19. By prioritizing and solving these critical obstacles, Vietnamese SMEs can better prepare for and recover from potential challenges in the future.

1. Introduction

Supply chain resilience (SCR) is a study topic of increasing importance, particularly in developing countries [1,2], and it is a crucial aspect of operational strategy with far-reaching implications for supply chain performance [3,4]. In the real world, the COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in significant disruptions to supply chains, forcing many enterprises to temporarily halt operations and to face difficulties in restarting their operations [5,6]. As a result, the heightened interest in understanding and improving supply chain resilience stems from the highly unpredictable business landscape [7]. Meanwhile, one area that has received relatively little attention in the SCR discussions is small and medium-size enterprises (SMEs) [8,9] even though they play critical roles in the national economy. SMEs are often vulnerable and face challenges in managing risks and adapting to changing supply chain requirements [8,10,11]. Aman and Seuring (2021) stressed that the tipping points for resilience ideas in recent years were the financial crisis and the COVID-19 pandemic [1].

Notably, SMEs struggle to be resilient in the supply chain, and two main factors require attention: enterprise capacity and collaborative resources to help firms connect to the supply chain [8]. Consequently, SCR research is receiving the attention of academics and industry professionals. Managers can anticipate difficulties and disruptions by lifting obstacles and immediately restoring business operations [12]. However, they were concerned about future threats and forced to consider alternate approaches to prevent and manage multiple disruptions [8,13]. Disruptions to the flow of materials or information caused by such issues can negatively affect enterprises’ financial, production, and operational performance [14,15]. Hence, Naghshineh and Carvalho (2021) have suggested that future research trends may include investigating adoption barriers and supply chain vulnerabilities [16]. Identifying barriers to supply chain resilience enables managers to anticipate potential problems and interruptions, and they could adopt appropriate solutions early on [13,16]. Moreover, the growth of any organization depends on its managing ability and overcoming a crisis [17,18]. Recent studies have revealed that SMEs struggle with response problems regarding human, material, and financial resources because they lack the capacity for operational contingencies [10]. More importantly, SMEs face challenges involving external and internal stakeholders. Some barriers have been found: a lack of policy, guidance, and support from the government [19]; a lack of financial resources to obtain urgent loans [20]; and a lack of noncommitment from senior management, who plays a crucial role in guiding the organization’s direction [21,22,23]. Therefore, to survive in an uncertain environment, enterprises must eliminate these barriers to supply chain resilience; in addition, it could help SMEs quickly adapt to crises [4,24].

In the context of a transitional economy, the Vietnamese supply chain is attempting to integrate with the global chain thanks to the significant contributions of SMEs, which play vital roles in this economy’s integrated global supply chain process [25,26]. However, some barriers could restrict firms from quickly exploiting the benefits of resilience in the face of increased uncertainty and risk [27]. Thus, the research and the analysis of potential obstacles affecting the resilience of Vietnamese SMEs become crucial. Nonetheless, the authors found a few articles on SMEs in the Vietnamese supply chain, though also a lack of studies that have considered resilience barriers, which can help SMEs quickly improvise and deal with challenges after recent disruptions. Hence, the main objective of this study attempts to answer related research questions:

• RQ1: What are the critical barriers to the supply chain resilience of SMEs in Vietnam?
• RQ2: What is the ranking of these SCR barriers in the context of Vietnamese SMEs?

To formulate flexible long-term decision-making strategies, it is imperative to identify the most significant barriers to supply chain resilience, which will inform recommendations on the effective deployment of stability [3,28,29]. Therefore, the following section includes a literature review, which provides a deeper understanding of the SCR, the research technique that will be conducted, a discussion and interpretation of study results, and strategies for SMEs to build sustainable supply chains.

2. Literature Review

The definitions of SCR remain controversial among scholars [21]. According to Hohenstein et al., (2015), SCR definitions include four phases: preparedness, response, restoration, and development [30]. Several authors have defined “resilience” as the capacity of a system to recover, either completely or partially, to its original state or a better state after being subjected to a disturbance [31,32]. While many existing definitions cover the reaction and recovery stages, only a minority of research includes the adaptation and growth stages [32]. However, most of them agree that SCR refers to an organization’s ability to deal with unforeseen disruptions in the supply chain [21,28,33], and the SCR is no longer regarded in terms of stability but rather in terms of adaptation and transformation [34]. Moreover, some scholars have identified three primary constructs that contribute to SCR, including the stages of resilience, strategies for resilience, and the competencies required to be resilient [35,36]. Hence, SCR can provide an advantage by decreasing the effect of supply chain disruptions or enabling quick recovery [37,38,39].

The reaction of the supply chain to environmental instability can be examined in terms of SMEs. The vast majority of SMEs around the globe are struggling to identify vulnerabilities in their supply chains [18,19]. According to various studies, SMEs are among more-vulnerable entities in the supply chain, compared with big firms, when it comes to unexpected adverse events [8,40]. The dependence on the requirements and orientation of large enterprises and a few suppliers has significantly impacted the sustainability of SMEs [8]. Notably, they have been unprepared to deal with COVID-19 disruptions in recent years [5]. The COVID-19 epidemic has extraordinarily impacted global supply chains in the real world [41]. As a result, while some enterprises have remained resilient, others have lagged [42]. Therefore, SMEs should focus on stability to overcome resource limitations and enhance competitiveness [9]. In addition, the complicated resilience process requires SMEs to evaluate operation strategies and to identify and remove different obstacles that impede their limited capacity [9,40].

According to Ali et al., (2017), three major SCR hurdles for SMEs include a lack of management autonomy; limited IT adoption ability; and insufficient R&D spending. In addition, they emphasized the necessity for large firms to assist SMEs in promptly resuming normal business operations [8]. Agarwal et al., (2022) mentioned that agile capabilities, collaborative capabilities, a lack of top management support, and a lack of empowerment are the barriers that can impede resilience [21]. Banerjee et al., (2022) determined that a lack of agile capabilities is one of the causal barriers to resilient operations; in addition, a lack of financial capabilities and government support is a barrier to the operation management of SMEs [20]. Bak et al., (2020) argued that SMEs need the help of both scholars and specialists to precisely identify barriers and evaluate the critical elements contributing to the supply chain resilience process. Moreover, the supply chain resilience in SMEs is determined by internal elements such as resources, finances, and organization and external factors such as political institutions, geopolitical and supply chain interrelationships, and information flow [43]. Hence, some authors have suggested that supply chain resilience in SMEs should focus on the following three clusters: resilience phases, strategies, and competencies [35,36]. Much literature on supply chain resilience has evolved, but many academics in various sectors still believe it is in its infancy, particularly in SMEs [10,33,44]. Overall, the existing literature makes it amply clear that SCR is still receiving attention and needs deeper understanding in both theoretical and real-world contexts; thus, this work attempts to bridge some of the following research gaps.

First, the existing literature on supply chain resilience barriers has shown that SMEs pay exceptional attention to approaches, which some practical evidence from various countries has demonstrated, such as India [12,20,45], Brazil [46], Australia [8,36], and Bangladesh [40]. In addition, some scholars have suggested ranking barriers and suggested that the most effective solutions are for senior managers to understand the problems [43,47]. However, we have found that no research has reported resilience barriers to the Vietnamese supply chain context; meanwhile, Vietnam is an emerging economy trying to recover after the COVID-19 pandemic. Therefore, this is the first study on the Vietnam supply chain to determine what prevents SMEs from recovering after the pandemic.

Second, Vietnamese SMEs substantially impact the stability and sustainability of the supply chain [15], but they struggle to remove barriers to the resilient processes, particularly struggling to identify the critical factors. Hence, the findings from research on such topics would provide some worthy novel insights for Vietnamese SMEs managers and other scholars into supply chain resilience and related barriers.

Finally, in terms of research technique, the authors have noticed that several approaches have been used to determine the importance of elements, such as AHP, TOPSIS [26,48,49], VIKOR [12,50], and DEMATEL [20,40,51]. Moreover, some authors have even suggested to conduct fuzzy set theories to evaluate the best option from experts’ perspectives [52,53]. Hence, this work applies the fuzzy VIKOR approach, which helps increase the understanding of the multicriteria decision-making (MCDM) method in ranking the crucial factors.

3. Research Methodology

3.1. The VIKOR Approach

The MCDM methodology includes various approaches that can address the same dilemmas [54]. However, each technique has particular advantages and can provide different results [15]. Among these, the VIKOR method was developed to rank alternatives and may determine the best solution [50,53,55]. In addition, the VIKOR technique emphasizes rating and selecting from a range of alternatives that can support decision makers in reaching a final decision [54,56]. In addition, the relative relevance of attributes and the performance of each alternative on these traits play crucial roles in the VIKOR approach [54]. According to rating by compromise, the VIKOR technique is most applicable thanks to its considering contradictory criteria and no equivalents [12,54]. Therefore, it is commonly used on the assumption that decision makers require the optimal option, and some authors have documented it as better than other techniques [50,53].

After that, some scholars developed this technique by integrating fuzzy theory, called the fuzzy VIKOR, to prioritize criteria that affect expert selection [21,53,55]. Some evidence has claimed that the fuzzy VIKOR technique has value. For example, Rahman (2020) employed the fuzzy VIKOR approach to discuss green supply chain management and challenges in the Bangladesh context [57]. In detail, this method’s computing process is relatively straightforward and provides a systematic and logical approach to make the optimal decision [53,57]. Hence, agreeing with the recommendations of Rahman et al., (2020) and Mishra et al., (2022), the authors decided to use the fuzzy VIKOR method in this study and believe that the fuzzy VIKOR approach could produce the most accurate ranking results [53,57].

There are multiple interpretations of the supply chain resilience evaluation criteria. Hence, Figure 1 illustrates the procedure of the fuzzy VIKOR technique, which comprises the stages mentioned below.

• Step 1: Identify criteria—various barriers have been identified on the basis of the evaluation of supply chain professionals.

• Step 2: Normalized value formula—${\tilde{x}}_{ij}$ refers to the original value of $i^{th}$ alternatives and the $j^{th}$ dimension.

Assume this evaluation group has $k$ evaluators. By using the average method, this technique aggregates the opinions of the various decision makers with the fuzzy importance weight $\left({\tilde{w}}_{ij}\right)$ and the aggregated fuzzy ratings $\left({\tilde{x}}_{ij}\right)$ of criteria $C_i$. In detail,

$$\begin{gathered} {\tilde{w}}_{ij}=\frac{1}{k}\left[{\tilde{w}}_{ij}^1+{\tilde{w}}_{ij}^2+\dots +{\tilde{w}}_{ij}^k\right] \\ {\tilde{x}}_{ij}=\frac{1}{k}\left[{\tilde{x}}_{ij}^1+{\tilde{x}}_{ij}^2+\dots +{\tilde{x}}_{ij}^k\right] \end{gathered}$$

where $k^{th}$ is the number of SCM experts in this work and $A_j$ is the rating of alternative in relation to criteria $C_i$. Furthermore, ${\tilde{w}}_i^k=\left(l_{i,}^k,m_{i,}^k,u_{i }^k\right)$ and ${\tilde{x}}_{ij}^k=\left(l_{ij}^k,m_{ij,}^k,u_{ij }^k\right)$ [58].

• Step 3: Determine the best $f^{*}$ and the worst $f^{-}$ for each criterion. From the problem’s decision matrix, determine the best $f^{*}$ and the worst $f^{-}$ values for all criterion functions, where $f^{*}$ is the positive ideal solution and $f^{-}$ is the negative ideal solution for the $j^{th}$ criteria.

The following phases make up the fuzzy VIKOR method’s compromised ranking algorithm. The fuzzy best value $f_i^{*}=\left(l_i^{*},m_i^{*},u_i^{*}\right)$ and the fuzzy worst value $f_i^{-}=\left(l_i^{-},m_i^{-},u_i^{-}\right)$ are respectively determined as follows:

$$\begin{gathered} {\tilde{f}}_i^{*}=ma{x}_j\left({\tilde{x}}_{ij}\right) {\tilde{f}}_i^{-}=mi{n}_j\left({\tilde{x}}_{ij}\right)for i\in A \\ {\tilde{f}}_i^{*}=mi{n}_j\left({\tilde{x}}_{ij}\right) {\tilde{f}}_i^{-}=ma{x}_j \left({\tilde{x}}_{ij}\right)for i\in C \end{gathered}$$

where A is associated with the alternatives and C is related to determine the criteria [58,59].

• Step 4: Evaluate $S_i \mathrm{and} R_i ;i=1, 2, \dots m$.

Calculate group utility values as follows:

$$S_i={\displaystyle \sum }_{j=1}^n{w}_j\left[\frac{f_j^{*}-f_{ij }}{f_j^{*}-f_j^{-}}\right]$$

where $w_j$ comprises the weights of the criteria and expresses their relevant importance.

Calculate the individual regret values as follows:

$$R_i=\max \left[w_{ij}\left(\frac{f_j^{*}-f_{ij }}{f_j^{*}-f_j^{-}}\right)\right]$$

• Step 5: The $Q_i$ values could be calculated to determine the ranking of criteria.

(a)

The fuzzy VIKOR technique considers the alternative that has the least amount of $Q_i$ as the best alternative, and this is the alternative that could be selected as the compromise solution.

Compute the values $Q_i ;i=1, 2, \dots m$ by using the following equation:

$$Q_i=v\frac{\left(S_i-S^{*}\right)}{\left(S^{-}-S^{*}\right)}+\left(1-v\right)\frac{(R_i-R^{*})}{(R^{-}-R^{*})}$$

where $v$ is the weight of the approach of “the majority of criteria” (or maximal group utility); in this case, suppose $v=0.5$.

(b)

The alternatives can be prioritized by increasing $S, R, \mathrm{and} Q$, which is proposed as a compromise solution of alternative ${\mathrm{A}}^{\prime }$, which is best ranked by $Q \left(\mathrm{minimum}\right)$ if two conditions are satisfied:

• In T1, acceptable advantage—${\mathrm{Q}}^{*}\left({\mathrm{A}}^{″}\right)-{\mathrm{Q}}^{*}\left({\mathrm{A}}^{\prime }\right)\ge {\mathrm{DQ}}^{*} \mathrm{with} {\mathrm{A}}^{″}$ is the second-best alternative, according to ${\mathrm{Q}}^{*}; {\mathrm{DQ}}^{*}=1/\left(m-1\right)$, where m is the number of alternatives.
• In T2, acceptable consistency in making decisions—$S \mathrm{or} R$ must also rank option A as the best.

In this work, the authors used the following as the threshold value: (v = 0.5) [57,60]. Thus, this compromise solution is stable in a decision-making process that can include “vote by majority rule” (when $v>0.5$), “by consensus” (when $v~0.5$), or “with veto” (when $v<0.5$) [53]. If the T1 requirement could not be met, compromise solutions are offered, such as: alternatives ${\mathrm{A}}^{\prime } \mathrm{and} {\mathrm{A}}^{″}$ are proposed if only condition A2 has not been met, or alternatives ${\mathrm{A}}^{\prime },{\mathrm{A}}^{″},\dots ,{ \mathrm{A}}^{\left(\mathrm{M}\right)}$ are proposed if condition T1 has not been met; ${\mathrm{A}}^{\left(\mathrm{M}\right)}$ is decided by ${\mathrm{Q}}^{*}\left({\mathrm{A}}^{\left(\mathrm{M}\right)}-{\mathrm{Q}}^{*}\left({\mathrm{A}}^{″}\right)\right)<{\mathrm{DQ}}^{*}$ for the maximum M (the alternatives are “closeness”).

The Q* rating determines the best option with a minimum value of ${\mathrm{Q}}^{*}$. The main ranking result is a compromise list of alternatives and an “average rate” solution. The obtained compromise solution could be acceptable according to the decision makers because it delivers the maximum “group utility” (represented by min S) of the “majority” and the minimum “individual regret” (represented by min R) of the “opponent”. Compromise solutions are the foundation of the decision maker’s evaluation criteria.

3.2. Data Collection

The most common types of research are surveys, interviews, and direct discussions, all of which point to the importance of discovering the effects of either the individual components of supply chain resilience or variances in the context of Vietnamese SMEs. Meanwhile, Vietnamese SMEs have acknowledged that they need to adapt their operations management to maintain business while decreasing the risk of interruption [15]. Additionally, different interrelationships exist among these internal barriers, which may hinder the resilience capacity of SMEs [10].

This article attempted semi-structured interviews, which were carried out with experts to acquire its data. To merge theoretical and practical insights related to the SCR and SMEs topic, 15 experts have been invited, including academic (five senior professors from Vietnamese universities) and industrial (10 top managers from Vietnamese industries) experts, and they engaged in this study for us to reach the highest dependability and diversity feasible. Notable is the fact that the respondents had extensive knowledge of the supply chain or work related to the supply chain in Vietnam. Importantly, each individual has at least 10 years of expertise and will be making decisions regarding this topic (presented in

Table 1. Expert information summary.

Classification		Industry		Academic		Total
Gender	Male	6	40%	3	20%	9	60.0%
	Female	4	27%	2	13%	6	40.0%
Age	Less than 40	1	7%	1	7%	2	13.33%
	41–50 years	5	33%	2	13%	7	46.67%
	51–60 years	3	20%	2	13%	5	33.33%
	over 60 years	1	7%	-	-	1	6.67%
Education	Bachelor degree	-	-	-	-	-	-
	Master’s degree	8	53%	-	-	8	53.33%
	Ph.D. degree	2	13%	5	33%	7	46.67%
Working experience	10–15 years	7	47%	2	13%	9	60.0%
	over 15 years	3	20%	3	20%	6	40.0%

). Next, after expert consultations have been conducted and weights to categorize barriers and their significance to resilience and sustainable supply chain management have been set, the obstacles could be ranked according to their importance.

4. Result and Discussions

4.1. Identifying Supply Chain Resilience Barriers in Vietnamese SMEs

This work determined the barriers to supply chain resilience in SMEs on the basis of three major clusters: the resilience phase, strategy resilience, and resilience competencies. To develop these constructs, the authors conducted a comprehensive literature review and consulted with experts in the field for their final approval. After multiple rounds of debate and consultation with specialists, we defined three major barrier groups with 15 sub-barriers for evaluating and ranking importance in the context of Vietnam (see

Table 2. Proposed list of supply chain resilience factors.

No	Code	Barriers	Description	Reference
Resilience phase (RP)
1	RP1	Lack of financial resources	The lack of funds during a disruption, which makes it difficult to obtain urgent loans, will restrict the search for other methods to deliver products to clients on time.	[45,46]
2	RP2	Lack of distribution channels	Transport infrastructure, including rivers, roads, and rail networks in the region of operation and supply chains, must be favorable and efficient to support SMEs.	[16]
3	RP3	Lack of long-term vision and plan on practice of SCR	Directors focus on short-term gains and methods, not long-term strategies.	[12,46]
4	RP4	Lack of IT integration	SMEs have demonstrated an inability to get real-time data on activity in the downstream supply chain.	[8]
5	RP5	Lack of available alternatives for sources of supply	It is difficult for producers to locate alternate sources of supply, a difficulty that increases the possibility of unavailable raw materials and limited production, especially for SMEs.	[16,51]
Strategy resilience (SR)
6	SR1	Lack of skilled and competent workforce	For SME supply chain recovery to occur rapidly, educated professionals need to be available.	[22]
7	SR2	Lack of ability to operational contingencies	In terms of a natural hazard or a pandemic, firms cannot immediately adapt to human, material, and financial changes.	[10]
8	SR3	Noncommitment of top management	Senior management guides the organization during disruptions. Top management’s irresponsibility and lack of commitment might cause financial problems.	[45]
9	SR4	Lack of agile capabilities	The organization’s business objectives need to be centered on locating the optimal combination of lean, agile, and resilient activities.	[20,33]
10	SR5	Lack of relationship with vendors	Relationships with vendors are important for any supply chain, and partners must work well together. Shallow vendor relationships will impede supply chain recovery from risk and exacerbate resource availability issues.	[40,45]
Resilience competencies (CR)
11	CR1	Lack of collaboration across the supply chain	SMEs’ operations are interrupted, and there is no collaboration that will directly affect their operations.	[20,33,61]
12	CR2	Lack of a diversification network	SMEs cannot quickly find a replacement source of raw material or input material.	[33]
13	CR3	Lack of policy, guidance and support from government	When the environment is unstable, SMEs need government support and policies to overcome the crisis on time.	[19]
14	CR4	Lack of transparency, collaboration, and trust in constructing a resilient system	Cooperating with suppliers, the firms often hide information and lack transparency, leading to information problems in the system.	[8,62]
15	CR5	Capacity or inventory inflexibilities	Inflexibilities in inventories at various stages in the supply chain might become important barriers to resilience.	[12,46]

).

After multiple iterations of deliberation and consultation with experts, we obtained 15 barriers and ranked them on the basis of each respondent’s opinions. Next, by using the fuzzy VIKOR technique and compiling experts’ perspectives, we shed light on the intricate interrelationships between these 15 barriers. This study aggregated their opinions by adopting fuzzy sets, whose values have been suggested and adopted by some scholars, such as Chang (2014) and Rahman et al., (2020); linguistic variables and the corresponding TFNs were mentioned in this theory [57,58] (see

Table 3. Aggregate rating of alternatives by all experts.

Linguistic Variables	Corresponding TFNs
Very low (VL)	(0.0; 0.1; 0.2)
Low(L)	(0.1; 0.2; 0.3)
Medium low (ML)	(0.2; 0.35; 0.5)
Medium (M)	(0.4; 0.5; 0.6)
Medium high (MH)	(0.5; 0.65; 0.8)
High (H)	(0.7; 0.8; 0.9)
Very high (VH)	(0.8; 0.9; 1.0)

). Thus, the fuzzy VIKOR approach could solve discrete decision-making problems from conflicting criteria [12,50]. The VIKOR algorithm is presented in this part, along with an examination of trade-offs and a weight stability analysis.

This approach focuses on rating and choosing from various alternatives and coming up with compromise solutions for an issue with competing criteria to help decision makers make their final choice [50]. For example, given all the requirements, each alternative is evaluated, and the compromise ranking could be carried out by comparing the closeness measure to the ideal solution (the best criteria values). Thus, calculate the integrated matrix of all barriers to determine the average decision matrix of 15 experts (see

Table 4. Normalized decision matrix.

	Criteria 1			Criteria 2			Criteria 3
RP1	14.6667	17.9667	21.2667	14.2000	17.4333	20.6667	13.6667	16.7667	19.8667
RP2	2.0667	3.2667	4.4667	10.6000	12.6333	14.6667	10.6000	12.6333	14.6667
RP3	10.0000	11.8667	13.7333	10.8667	12.9000	14.9333	10.6000	12.6333	14.6667
RP4	11.4000	13.7667	16.1333	1.7333	2.9667	4.2000	1.7333	2.9667	4.2000
RP5	14.2667	17.2667	20.2667	13.8667	16.9667	20.0667	13.4000	16.5000	19.6000
SR1	14.6667	17.8333	21.0000	14.0000	16.9667	19.9333	13.1333	15.6667	18.2000
SR2	9.1333	10.7667	12.4000	5.6667	6.8333	8.0000	9.4000	11.0333	12.6667
SR3	12.7000	15.2167	17.7333	13.7333	16.7333	19.7333	13.3333	16.1667	19.0000
SR4	0.8000	1.3667	1.9333	11.6000	13.7667	15.9333	11.8000	14.1333	16.4667
SR5	5.3333	6.5333	7.7333	5.3333	6.5333	7.7333	5.3333	6.5333	7.7333
CR1	13.8667	17.0667	20.2667	12.7333	15.4333	18.1333	13.0000	15.9333	18.8667
CR2	10.1333	11.9333	13.7333	5.6667	6.8333	8.0000	6.0000	7.2667	8.5333
CR3	13.2000	15.9333	18.6667	14.2000	17.0667	19.9333	12.8000	15.5667	18.3333
CR4	11.9000	14.2167	16.5333	10.6000	12.6333	14.6667	10.6000	12.6333	14.6667
CR5	10.7667	12.8167	14.8667	11.0667	13.1000	15.1333	10.3333	12.3000	14.2667

). In detail, Table 4 demonstrates the fuzzy best and worst values of all criteria provided. Thereafter, ${\tilde{f}}_i^{*}$ is the positive ideal solution, and ${\tilde{f}}_i^{-}$ is the negative of the 15 barriers (see

Table 5. The fuzzy ${\tilde{f}}_i^{*}$ and ${\tilde{f}}_i^{-}$ values.

	Criteria 1			Criteria 2			Criteria 3
${\tilde{f}}_i^{*}$	14.667	17.967	21.267	14.200	17.433	20.667	13.667	16.767	19.867
${\tilde{f}}_i^{-}$	0.800	1.367	1.933	1.733	2.967	4.200	1.733	2.967	4.200

).

The finalization of Vietnamese SMEs’ resilience barriers in the supply chain. The calculated values of S_i, R_i, and Q_i are displayed in

Table 6. Ranking of SCR barriers.

Barriers	Si	Ri	Qi	Rank (Qi)
RP1	−0.0168	−0.0034	0.0000	1
RP2	0.3869	0.2357	0.4737	12
RP3	0.2416	0.0951	0.2372	9
RP4	0.5642	0.2508	0.5727	15
RP5	0.0081	0.0080	0.0252	2
SR1	0.0147	0.0150	0.0367	3
SR2	0.3970	0.1827	0.4141	10
SR3	0.0525	0.0401	0.0842	6
SR4	0.3704	0.2672	0.5043	14
SR5	0.5547	0.1880	0.4924	13
CR1	0.0491	0.0300	0.0705	5
CR2	0.4475	0.1827	0.4371	11
CR3	0.0460	0.0282	0.0669	4
CR4	0.2076	0.0799	0.2032	7
CR5	0.2286	0.0808	0.2139	8

. The supply chain resilience alternatives were rated on the basis of their Q_i values; ideally, the lowest Q value was selected as the best option if it matched the two parameters outlined in the previous research phase. Hence, a lack of financial resources is ranked at the top because it has the lowest Q value and meets both criteria; additionally, Q ranked first according to both the R and S values. Consequently, this study has extracted 15 identified barriers for the SCR in Vietnamese SMEs, which are listed in the following order: RP1 > RP5 > SR1 > CR3 > CR1> SR3 > CR4 > CR5 > RP3 > SR2 > CR2 > RP2 > SR5 > SR4 > RP4. The SCR criteria underwent a fuzzy VIKOR analysis for us to obtain the ranks for all the options, and the barriers were chosen and ranked. The results demonstrate that the sequence of obstacles performs best according to these SCR criteria. Thus, Vietnamese SMEs’ top managers can consider this evidence to attain SMEs goals in the supply chain.

4.2. Discussions

This study was conducted in the context of the Vietnamese supply chain, particularly Vietnamese SMEs, which are among the more vulnerable entities in the supply chain than large companies are in facing unexpected adverse events [8,40]. The findings indicate that various barriers influence hindering supply chain resilience. Therefore, this work contributes to the research literature on supply chains management by finding numerous barriers to enhancing the resilience of SMEs [5,63]. This research’s findings (Table 6) are consistent with the findings of Agarwal and Seth (2021), who also claimed that the lack of financial resources (RP1) barrier is the priority among the barrier categories of SMEs, and allocating financial resources in resilience phases to optimize recovery time is a crucial priority for SMEs [45]. Furthermore, Agarwal et al., (2022) highlighted the lack of available alternatives for sources of supply (RP5) [21,45]. The category of financial barriers and available alternatives was weighted during the recovery period. However, a lack of IT integration, lack of long-term vision, and lack of distribution channels are not significant at the resilience phase cluster, which is inconsistent with previous studies [21,45]. According to Ali et al., (2017), IT integration plays a leading role in resilience, but this study presents the opposite results [8]. In addition, Nighshined and Carvalho (2021) emphasized the importance of distribution channels, but compared with their findings, the Vietnamese SMEs in the resilience phase can be considered a medium priority [16]. Meanwhile, Rajesh et al., (2018) have found a need for a long-term vision and plan for practicing SCR, which reveals that the involvement of SMEs is essential for recovery and that SMEs need a backup strategy in the event of a disruption [12,34].

In terms of the strategy resilience category, the lack of a skilled and competent workforce (SR1) was found to be the most essential element, and it ranks third. Meanwhile, Singh et al., (2018) proposed the same barrier: the skill of human resources is required to quickly achieve efficient development [22]. In addition, the noncommitment of top management (SR3), which is deemed to be the sixth criterion on the list, is similarly comparable to the research conducted by Ali et al., (2017) and Agarwal and Seth (2021) [8,45]. Particularly post-crisis, SME managers are especially interested in reorienting their development blueprints. To build a recovery strategy, it is necessary to evaluate and rank issues and their linkages to SMEs’ resilience and firm capacity [12,13,46]. Hence, they give priority to activities related to overcoming adversity and getting back on track after an interruption, with minimal impact on operations and business strategy [8,10].

An internal resource serves as a crucial foundation for cultivating resilience in the face of obstacles. However, small and medium-size enterprises (SMEs) often have limited knowledge about SCR and require more support from external stakeholders. In this article, it has been found that Vietnamese SMEs face challenges due to a lack of guidance, policies, and government support (CR3), which may result in a deficiency in their flexibility [8]. In addition, Banerjee et al., (2022) revealed that the supply chain is disrupted by collaboration restrictions [20]. Similarly, the authors found that Vietnamese SMEs are known for lacking collaboration across the supply chain (CR1), and they should have improved cooperation to overcome crises and quickly recover [12,20,21]. In addition to these challenges, a lack of transparency, collaboration, and trust in building a resilient system (CR4) and a lack of a capacity for inventory inflexibilities (CR5) have been identified as priority barriers in previous studies [8,12,46]; however, these barriers rank seventh and eighth in this work. The distinction between research conducted in other nations and Vietnam can be explained as follows: Vietnam is a developing country, and the lack of transparency, lack of cooperation, and lack of knowledge about the supply chain pose significant challenges that need improvement [15]. Thus, Vietnamese SMEs are still limited in their inventory management capacity because of their small size, lack of capital, and personnel.

The research findings revealed 15 key barriers to supply chain resilience for Vietnamese SMEs (as shown in Figure 2), along with the degree of obstruction experienced by SMEs in this context, classified into low, medium, and high levels of importance. However, differences in SMEs’ capacity and the prioritization of these barriers have led to their inability to implement resilience measures [64,65]. On the basis of the significant barriers outlined in Figure 2 and Table 6, the authors have discussed the findings, highlighting the importance of each problem and the essential measures that need to be taken to improve SMEs’ resilience in Vietnam. Hence, the results of this study make valuable contributions to identifying supply chain resilience barriers, particularly in the context of an emerging economy such as that in Vietnam. Scholars and managers can utilize these findings to develop a blueprint for overcoming vital obstacles and strengthening resilience in the supply chain. Moreover, an organization’s growth heavily depends on its ability to overcome crises. This study aims to assist SMEs in understanding and assessing available resources to identify barriers to resilience and identify solutions to overcome these struggles.

5. Research Implications

The findings of this research provide three important additions to the existing literature. First, this paper introduces 15 SCR barriers for SMEs across three categories: the resilience phase (RP), strategy resilience (SR), and resilience competencies (CR). Second, the study identifies and ranks these barriers, shedding light on how SMEs perceive their ability to follow blueprints in a volatile environment. Finally, the paper significantly contributes to the SCR literature by critically ranking the identified barriers on the basis of evidence from the Vietnam supply chain. More importantly, the authors introduce an exciting new topic for discussing the elements that hinder SMEs’ resilience. They also highlight the varying sub-barriers within each construct of the resilience concept. Moreover, the study offers several theoretical insights into the SCR literature by comparing its findings to previous studies.

This article provides valuable insights for SMEs operating in the Vietnam supply chain, an article whose approach could be taken for use in another context. First, this research investigated the various elements contributing to the SCR management of SMEs in Vietnam. As a part of a complicated supply chain, which necessitates that managers of SMEs have a firm grasp of SCR knowledge because of the interdependence of the SMEs in the entire supply chain. Hence, the article aims to equip SMEs with a resilient mindset to help them identify potential risks, devise contingency plans, and swiftly respond to any disruptions. Second, this study sheds light on the resilience of the Vietnamese supply chain through SMEs and provides new evidence for top managers. In detail, financial resources and budgetary constraints were the most difficult of the barriers that SMEs faced. Moreover, this research stresses that government policy and support broadly impact SMEs’ resilience. Thus, the influence of SMEs on the economy’s resilience deserves more consideration from policymakers. Finally, the article recommends that SMEs adopt flexible resources to overcome human barriers in the SCR management process, such as top management commitment to a competent workforce.

This paper is a reference source for managers to examine their current circumstances to remove related barriers. Additionally, they should focus on building resilience within their organization to ensure their long-term sustainability and success in the supply chain.

6. Conclusions, Limitations, and Future Research

This contribution is an effort to distinguish and analyze significant barriers to adopting SCR concepts in the Vietnamese SMEs context. In this research, the authors reveal 15 barriers related to SCR adoption by using a literature survey and feedback received from experts. In addition, it establishes a hierarchy of SCR barriers that could help managers focus on overcoming obstacles in each cluster, which is crucial for increasing SCR success rates. According to the findings, the following is our ranking of the most critical barriers in SCR practices in the Vietnam context: a lack of financial resources (RP1); a lack of available alternatives for sources of supply (RP5); a lack of a skilled and competent workforce (SR1); the noncommitment of top management (SR3); a lack of policy, guidance, and support from the government (CR3); and a lack of collaboration across the supply chain (CR1). Further, this paper identifies significant obstacles that need to be addressed and eliminated or prioritized in each phase to ensure the resilience of SMEs. This research minimizes the lack of literature on SCR by identifying and ranking barriers. This paper has contributed to the supply chain literature by addressing resilience and SMEs. This paper examines the capability of SMEs to explore 15 barriers to implementing resilience, and this study contributes to the current literature on SCR.

Supply chain resilience has been emphasized, and several barriers to bolstering resilience in SMEs have been outlined. Unfortunately, the study contains limitations, which are promising ideas for future works as follows. First, the collected data scope was restricted to 15 Vietnamese experts in the supply chain field, and this study took the fuzzy VIKOR approach. Thus, specific recommendations for other scholars that could attempt other methods of making decisions based on various SCR barriers, such as AHP and TOPSIS, are also utilized to rank the obstacles. In addition, the quantitative method could be suggested to solve the limitation related to sample size. Second, this work has identified 15 SCR barriers from consultations with Vietnamese experts’ and from the existing literature. In subsequent research, other scholars could explore more obstacles and investigate the importance of barriers preventing supply chain resilience for SMEs. Lastly, the authors focused only on Vietnamese SMEs and did not make comparisons or consider large enterprises. Hence, the authors suggest that other scholars compare these findings with other studies by choosing another context, such as a particular industry or a different economy.