2 Beyond the Hype: Toward a Theory of the Unthinkable, Part I

With this chapter, we begin the development of a Theory of the Unthinkable. The starting point is the recognition that technology—more accurately, technologists—generally promises more than it can possibly deliver. Indeed, unbridled promises and unbounded enthusiasm are part and parcel of the basic makeup of the inventors of all goods and services.

Beyond the Hype: Toward a Theory of the Unthinkable, Part I Let's play a game I like to call 'This Gadget's Worst Nightmare. ' The game goes like this: Pick some newish tech thing. Then spin the story out in your head. Imagine all the ways the technology might be misused, and ask yourself if our laws and politicians are prepared to handle the dystopian nightmare that emerges. I'm going to warm you: The game gets scary very quickly.
Manjoo [1] As someone who studies the impact of misinformation on society, I often wish the young entrepreneurs of Silicon Valley who enabled communication at speed had been forced to run a 9/11 scenario with their technologies before they deployed them commercially.
Wardle [2] With this chapter, we begin the development of a Theory of the Unthinkable. The starting point is the recognition that technology-more accurately, technologistsgenerally promises more than it can possibly deliver. Indeed, unbridled promises and unbounded enthusiasm are part and parcel of the basic makeup of the inventors of all goods and services. Needless to say, such promises wouldn't exist were it not for our insatiable need to satisfy our wildest, and endless, dreams and fantasies.
In return for the promise/desire for unrivaled beauty; instantaneous and constant connection with an endless array of friends; unsurpassed and lasting fame; immediate gratification of our every wish and desire; unparalleled popularity; superhuman power and strength; and indeed, defeating death itself, 1 we've sold our souls to the great God-or better yet, Devil-of technology. But it's a false bargain for technology can never fully deliver, and hence satisfy, our starry-eyed dreams and hopes.
Fundamental to Thinking the Unthinkable is the consideration of as many ways as possible as to how satisfying our unbridled dreams and hopes by means of technology leads to not only severe disappointment and collective distrust, but worse yet, major crises. A major factor is the all-too-common failure to think about the actual contexts in which technologies are used versus the simplified and idealized ones that are typically presumed. We say more about this later in this chapter and the next one as well. This chapter is only the beginning of a Theory of the Unthinkable. We introduce additional key elements as we proceed.
To reiterate, it's part of the basic nature of technologists-if not the inventors of all goods or services-to see mainly, if not solely, the positive benefits of their marvelous creations and thus to downplay and ignore altogether the negative consequences and disbenefits. Facebook is a prime example par excellence. It was ripe for systematic abuse and misuse. Indeed, if we had deliberately set out to design a specific instrument that could be systemically abused and exploited, we couldn't have created a better, more powerful, and dangerous mechanism. No wonder why increasingly, Facebook, and in particular its founder, are portrayed in the worst of terms. 2 Indeed, cartoons in The Week feature absolutely horrid portrayals of Mark Zuckerberg. In one, he's shown driving a car with the license plate, "Facebook soliciting kids," along with the caption, "Hey, Little Girl! Twenty Bucks If You'll Show Me All Your Private Stuff!" 3 In another, he's standing between racists, lying pols, Nazis, and Russians along with the caption, "It's Hard To Deny Friend Requests…" 4 From the standpoint of Crisis Management, such portrayals are literally the worst nightmare for any individual and organization. They are virtually impossible from which to recover. As such, they are prominent examples of the Unthinkable. Who among us can envision us and our organization being shown in the most disparaging light, let alone how to withstand it?
While not as portentous, consider a more bothersome, and growing problem, electrified scooters. Their primary attraction is not only are they fun to ride, but they offer an easy way to get around crowded urban centers. The problem is that users are not generally responsible when they are finished riding them. Indeed, they are largely irresponsible. They just dump them as they are on sidewalks, thereby creating a hazard for passing pedestrians and especially the elderly. As such, their users are a primary example of arrested development, i.e., young teenagers who are oblivious to their surroundings.
As an important aside, by being largely unconcerned with the potential abuses, misuses, and unintended consequences of their creations, arrested development may be more common than we'd like to admit among young, primarily male technologists. It's thereby one of the greatest barriers to the establishment of Socially Responsible Tech Companies. It's further aided and abetted by the tremendous amounts of monies at stake. And, it's also exacerbated by the tight tech communities, or "bubbles," in which they work and live that subtly and not so subtly encourage its members to behave and think alike.
To return to scooters, the failure to take into account the actual ways in which they would be used is responsible for the conspicuous threat they pose. No wonder why many cities have considered banning them outright. 5 The point is that technology always impacts, and in turn is impacted by, the larger social environment in which it operates. The failure is not talking into account the broader contexts in which all technologies are used and impact.
If technologists and tech companies are largely insensitive to the unintended social consequences of their prized creations, how then does one foresee and take appropriate steps to protect us from the dangers that not only are lurking in, but result from all of our creations? By continuously and systematically Thinking the Unthinkable! As we discuss later, it needs to be a fundamental part of a new federal office of socially responsible technology or OSRT. It also needs to be a basic part of the job of the chief technology officer who is responsible for the use and development of technology whether the organization is directly involved with the production of technology or not. Indeed, it's hard to imagine any organization that is not heavily involved with technology in one way or another. And, the chief officers for Crisis Management and Strategy need to be directly involved as part of a close-knit corporate team.
As we indicated in the Preface, Denmark has taken the groundbreaking and unprecedented step of appointing an ambassador to Silicon Valley to represent its interests against the giant tech companies. 6 It did this after it determined that "tech behemoths now have as much power as many governments-if not more." Thinking the Unthinkable requires us to attempt what few are inclined to do, let alone are capable: to imagine how every one of the proposed positive attributes and benefits of a technology can lead and/or turn into their exact opposite. Such a task is virtually impossible for single individuals to accomplish entirely on their own. Thus, shortly after Facebook's release-ideally prior to it-it would have required teams of parents, psychologists, teachers, and even kids themselves to envision how it could serve as a major platform for relentless Cyber Bullying. Indeed, in retrospect, such a scenario was virtually guaranteed to occur and, in this sense, was perfectly predictable, that is, if one had wanted to think systematically and comprehensively about such things in the first place.
To reiterate, to foresee, and to guard against the dangers lurking within a technology require us to do one of the most difficult things with which humans are charged: thinking of as many ways as possible to undermine our most cherished creations.
One of the most powerful ways of Thinking the Unthinkable is by uncovering the host of taken-for-granted assumptions that are made about the larger body of 5 Griffith [5]. 6 Stariano, op cit. stakeholders who use and are affected by a technology, and then challenging those assumptions as ruthlessly as we can. For example, a commonly made assumption about users is that they are conscientious and their intentions are honorable. In short, they want to do the right thing. As a result, they will follow scrupulously the instructions for how to use a technology responsibly. Accordingly, they will not abuse and misuse it for malicious ends like Cyber Bullying or interference in our elections.
Thinking the Unthinkable also requires something even more difficult: the emotional fortitude to face up to tough problems long before they occur. For this reason, one cannot emphasize enough the front-page story in the November 15, 2018, edition of The New York Times that showed how Facebook not only ignored, but deliberately denied clear and persistent warning signals of major problems.

A Theory of the Unthinkable: Part I
The following are some of the key elements of a Theory of the Unthinkable. We introduce additional elements as we proceed: 1. Major unanticipated and/or systematically ignored stakeholders who can and will deliberately cause harm, at the very least interfere with the ideal and idealized aims of a technology; 2. Major idealized attributes/assumptions about principal stakeholders that are later proven to be false; 3. The idealized contexts in which a technology will be used and which later prove to be false as well; 4. Idealized assumptions about the key benefits/properties of a technology and how the exact opposite can and will occur; 5. Idealized assumptions about how one can contain the damage, if any, if a technology fails, and worse, is responsible for widespread harm; how such assumptions are demonstrably false; 6. Idealized assumptions as to why there will not be widespread calls for the strict regulation, and worse, the strict banning and/or elimination of a technology.
We say a word about each. First, "stakeholders" are all the parties who affect and are affected by the invention, licensing, marketing, operation, regulation, etc., of a technology. In short, they are deeply involved with every aspect and phase of a technology from its initial conception and development, operation, to its eventual obsolescence and replacement. For instance, a basic taken-for-granted assumption is that malicious, nefarious actors will not abuse and/or misuse a technology for their ill ends alone. In other words, the major players/stakeholders are not only known, but benign and responsible.
It's also generally assumed that the contexts in which a technology will be used are known, and predictable, benign, stable, and under control. For instance, Social Media will not be a major factor in the spread of disinformation, misinformation, hate speech, etc.
For another, technology will work as promised and its benefits are clear and demonstrable. It will certainly not be responsible for major harm or injuries. It will work as planned because its properties are essentially known and predictable. In other words, there will be no major surprises.
Since it's generally assumed that a technology will work as intended, and its benefits are clear and incontestable, there is essentially no need for backup plans for CM since failure is essentially precluded. In essence, planning for the worst is nothing but a waste of precious time and resources. In the same way, there will not be major calls for its elimination or strict control.

Stakeholders
While we discuss each of the preceding elements in more detail throughout, we want to close this chapter with a more thorough examination of the first factor. In particular, we want to show how one can think systematically about the stakeholders and one typically doesn't take into account and indeed, often, doesn't want to consider.
One of the best ways to think about the general kinds of stakeholders that are involved in any and all technologies is by means of expanding circles. In the innermost circle are all those parties who are involved in the creation, direct financing, leadership, and marketing of a technology, product, or service. It also includes all the immediate employees and supervisory personnel in the operations of a company.
In essence, assumptions are the presumed properties of stakeholders, what they are like and how they will behave. Thus, it's commonly assumed, if not taken for granted, that one's primary innermost stakeholders are capable, dedicated, dependable, honest, intelligent, loyal, trustworthy, etc. In other words, not only are they not malicious, but they are a demonstrable and valuable asset. They certainly will not cause or be responsible for harm in any way. Sadly, this is often not the case with disgruntled or disaffected workers who have engaged in workplace sabotage and violence. The trick is to be on the constant lookout for malicious internal actors without creating an oppressive/Orwellian-type workplace or culture that actually encourages precisely that which one wishes to prevent. One of the best, but not perfect, ways of doing this is to involve employees in how they will "police themselves." In a later chapter, we explicitly examine the notion of harm. If they even consider it at all, most companies take the avoidance of harm for granted. Instead of considering it explicitly, especially from the standpoint of Ethics, it's "under the radar screen." The next, outermost circle is composed of all those parties immediately external to an institution or organization, e.g., competitors, the media, regulators, and most of all, the direct users of a technology, product, etc. Once again, it's commonly assumed that users are competent, intelligent, etc., so that they will use a technology responsibly as intended. They will certainly not abuse or misuse it. Worst of all are external malicious actors who are deliberately out to cause as much harm as possible through the improper/unintended use of a technology and whom rarely are considered explicitly and systematically.
This latter circle also includes the most vulnerable users and those who are most affected by a technology. Namely, what is benign to one party may be harmful to others. Similarly, not all are equally affected by what are deemed unintended consequences and side effects. In other words, what's a positive benefit to one class of stakeholders is not necessary to others. We talk more later about a specific process for addressing this important issue.
Outer circles contain foreign actors, governments, etc. Many more kinds of stakeholders exist that are not typically included when planning for a product or service. The following is a specific example of how they not only need to be addressed, but can be.
A company that produced a product that was intended only for adults discovered that young children were using it in ways that raised concerns. Somehow or another, the company realized that if young kids were using their product, then they needed to hire an expert in child development to give them continuous ongoing advice of how they could redesign the product in ways so that it would not pose an immediate danger to kids. Given that all technologies now affect children and in essence are used by everyone, all tech companies need to expand the base of their "normal personnel." In addition to considering explicitly as many parties as possible that are involved in the invention, promotion, distribution, etc., of a technology or product, one especially needs to consider those who will use it to further nefarious ends. Stakeholders and the associated assumptions we are making about them are among the most important factors in Thinking the Unthinkable.
A comprehensive list of stakeholders while extremely important is only one factor in Thinking the Unthinkable. We not only need to say more about all of the other elements, but even more need to demonstrate a process that will help ensure that we have given them the serious consideration they require and, thus, that they will be acted upon in the right ways to ensure the health and well-being of all those who are affected in one way or another by technology. The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.


The influential factors of business development among SMEs in the Food Industry of the GCC Region

SMEs are the core engine of most economies around the world. Empowering SMEs with the right tools, especially those tools utilized to formulate business models would help the ventures to thrive more successfully. This study aims to provide such business development support tools to the food sectors SMEs of the GCC. This paper presents the results of an on-going research, part of which is investigating the factors influencing business development decision making, among SMEs operating in the food industry of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC). To that end, the paper conducts an extensive literature review on the topic, which is followed by an industrial field study, and analysis of the data obtained. The field study involved 36 companies within the food industry of the GCC region. The findings from this study show that the SMEs in the food industry in the GCC region will need to have an effective business model in order to successfully run or grow their businesses. The initial result of this research shows that the business model canvas is the most suitable for SMEs in the GCC food sector. Furthermore, from the field study, a total of eleven influential factors have been identified, and these factors influence the approach to the business development process and the eventual success of such business development activities. Finally, from the eleven factors, three themes were established. These themes showed the relationship between the influential factors and the BMC; the themes were the value proposition design, customer segmentation and business planning. In conclusion, it was identified that the major challenge the food SMEs face is that of establishing a product-market fit in the development of their products and services. Product market fit as a challenge in the GCC is associated with the rapid geopolitical and social changes being experienced in the region. Hence, leading to changes in the demand and delivery of food products. Product market fit challenge is also linked to the fundamental weakness of the BMC identified in the study. Therefore, further research is required to see how the BMC can be enhanced, to make it more effective to the specific needs and structure of the GCC market environment. To do this will require to capture and incorporate the knowledge from this study and those from successful food SMEs into a single enhanced BMC. Corresponding author: Bandar Fahad Alharbi Email addresses for the corresponding author: bandar.alharbi@cranfield.ac.uk First submission received: 4th March 2020 Revised submission received: 24th April 2020 Accepted: 27th April 2020 Introduction The study seeks to identify the influential factors affecting business development among SMEs operating in the food industry of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC). Most businesses in the GCC are now looking to innovation-led strategic transformations as well as the adoption of the latest and simplest business models to help them improve their business processes (The World Bank, 2015). This shift in approach and the demand for a more effective business model is mainly motivated by an ever-increasing global competition in the food sector, as well as advancements in technology. Consequently, it has become necessary to understand the influential factors that affect business development, together with similar other factors that guide the design of a business model. The identified factors can then be considered by the SMEs in the GCC to achieve their desired growth and sustainability. Journal of Business and Retail Management Research (JBRMR), Vol. 14 Issue 2 April 2020 www.jbrmr.com A Journal of the Centre for Business & Economic Research (CBER) 97 The environment in the GCC region is considered unsuitable to agricultural and food production due to its extreme climatic conditions. As a result, more than 90% of the region’s food and beverage needs are imported to meet its domestic demand (FAO, 2002). Additionally, the GCC region has been experiencing a change in lifestyle over the past few decades, mainly due to urbanisation and busy working families, and this has also contributed to an increase in demand for high-value processed food. Furthermore, the region has the fastest-growing tourism industry in the world, and this has also caused a higher demand for food and its consumption. Consequently, the local food industries are having to play catch-up and need to reconsider their strategies to meet such increasing demands. The main aim of this research is to identify the key factors that should be considered by Food sectors SMEs, so as to develop a more effective business model. These factors can then be further investigated by capturing the relevant pieces of related knowledge, and which can then be presented as a model that can be used to guide the SMEs with their business development. Such a model should be able to help the SMEs achieve growth, profitability, and expansion to new markets. This paper presents the results from the on-going research describing the influential factors that significantly impact the decision making of SMEs in their business development. The paper identifies such influential factors through extensive literature review and the data analysis of industrial field study in the GCC region. The authors believe that these influential factors are also the source of the knowledge that should be captured, to make up a holistic business model that will aid SMEs to plan for business sustainability and growth accurately. Research Methodology The analysed data were collected in three phases. Phase one was a review of the existing literature on the influential factors and challenges of business development. In phase two, a questionnaire survey was developed to collect primary data from an industrial field study on SMEs operating in the food processing sector in the GCC, this is followed by phase three, where an analysis of the data captured from the industrial field study was analysed. Finally, a list of all the key influential factors and detailed explanation of each of them is presented. These factors are further grouped into themes, to identify the main area to focus on, so as to help the Food sector SMEs in the GCC improve the effectiveness of their business development activities. The sample of the field study consists of 36 companies, whose owners and top directors were interviewed through utilising a semi-structured questionnaire. The questionnaire was developed based on the finding from the literature review. Sampled companies serve as a representative of the food sector across different states in the GCC region, and with employees ranging between 50 to 200 only. The study was conducted via face-to-face interviews. In each case, the participants had experience ranging between 5 to 20 years in the sector. Review of the related literature Overview of business development and business models ′′ Business development is defined as the creation of long-term value for an organisation, from its customers, markets, and relationships′′ (Sørensen 2012). This is achieved by intentionally pursuing strategic opportunities for the organisation, such as by cultivating partnerships or other commercial relationships, or by identifying new markets for products or service (Rainey, 2010). ‘Value’ to an organisation, in this context, refers to more than just assets, revenue or shareholders value; it also includes other elements such as human capital, knowledge, prestige, image, business relationships, social involvement and social responsibilities. Therefore, in this paper, business development is considered as the strategic process of identifying ongoing and future opportunities, minimising risks, creation of a flexible environment for success, and being prepared for continuing changes. A typical business development process is a challenging decision process, as various conflicting factors need to be considered at the same time. For example, how to find a balance between issues relating to competitive advantage and those relating to new business opportunities. Such decision making and processes as they relate to business development factors are known as the ‘business model design’ (Kajanus et al., 2014). Journal of Business and Retail Management Research (JBRMR), Vol. 14 Issue 2 April 2020 www.jbrmr.com A Journal of the Centre for Business & Economic Research (CBER) 98 A business model offers a structured approach to business development. It offers a comprehensive framework that addresses all the necessary business elements of that particular business context; at the same time, it shows how to manage the interrelations of the elements (Osterwalder & Pigneur, 2010). Simply put, a business model is a tool that reflects the business development activity of a firm (Drakulevski and Nakov, 2014). The business model helps to address how the various elements of business development activities are strategically selected, aligned, and communicated to the relevant stakeholders (Sørensen 2012). Business models can also be used by an organisation to fulfil various other functions. Some of these functions include the understanding and communication of the business logic. Business models can also be sued to analyse, manage, prospect and even patent such business logic (Osterwalder et al., 2005). By using a business model, even new players in a sector can expertly be guided in business development (D’Souza, 2016). It is essential to point out that business development activities sometimes even transcend the focal firm and spans beyond its boundaries, encompassing other firms and players (Zott and Amit, 2010). Thus, despite a firm’s centric view of its business model, the firm’s business development approach has to deliberately integrate with other associated third parties’ activities into its business model. Consequently, the business model, in this sense, can be used to adequately appropriate a share of the value captured to the other partners in the activity system (value-creating activity). ‘Activity’ in the context of business model, refers to ‘the engagement of human, physical and/or capital resources of any party to the business model (the focal firm, end customers, vendors, etc.), to serve a specific purpose towards the fulfilment of the overall business objective’. Likewise, an activity system in this context refers to ‘a set of interdependent organisational activities, centred on the focal firm, including those activities conducted by its partners, vendors, customers, etc.’ (Zott and Amit, 2010). Presently, several business models are available; In the author’s opinion, it is essential to compare the available business models and identify the most suitable for the food processing SMEs in the GCC. The main reason for this is to identify the best model that will help the SMEs to capture, understand, communicate, design, analyse and (if necessary) change the business logic of their firm towards growth and sustainability. Various authors in the literature have suggested different types of business models. These models differ in terms of their building blocks, which are also called elements or components. Combining components helps to define the logic of how a business creates value for its customers, and also how it captures value for itself. Given the vast difference in the types of elements in the available models, it is also necessary for this study to identify what elements should belong to a business model. The matrix in Table 1 shows the various available business models in literature with their authors, and also the types of components or elements these authors have considered. The matrix further illustrates how high or low each component has been adopted generally in business model literature. The authors were selected based on a search on business model components in different journals from 2000 to 2017. The most highly cited were considered, and a review was further carried out to ascertain their suitability for this purpose. This resulted in the selection of the final 14 studies for this research. From Table 1, it can be seen that the components most referred to by the various authors are those regarding value proposition, market offerings and resources. In light of the most important components and bearing in mind the key aim of the business model required for this study, four of the models put forward are considered as the best that fit the criteria for this study. They are the Business Model Canvas of Osterwalder & Pigneur (2010), Kaplan (2012), Chesbrough and Rosenbloom (2002), Johnson et al., (2008) and Osterwalder et al., (2005). Journal of Business and Retail Management Research (JBRMR), Vol. 14 Issue 2 April 2020 www.jbrmr.com A Journal of the Centre for Business & Economic Research (CBER) 99 Table 1: Components analysis of different business model based on literature

Introduction
The study seeks to identify the influential factors affecting business development among SMEs operating in the food industry of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC). Most businesses in the GCC are now looking to innovation-led strategic transformations as well as the adoption of the latest and simplest business models to help them improve their business processes (The World Bank, 2015). This shift in approach and the demand for a more effective business model is mainly motivated by an ever-increasing global competition in the food sector, as well as advancements in technology. Consequently, it has become necessary to understand the influential factors that affect business development, together with similar other factors that guide the design of a business model. The identified factors can then be considered by the SMEs in the GCC to achieve their desired growth and sustainability.
www.jbrmr.com A Journal of the Centre for Business & Economic Research (CBER) 97 The environment in the GCC region is considered unsuitable to agricultural and food production due to its extreme climatic conditions. As a result, more than 90% of the region's food and beverage needs are imported to meet its domestic demand (FAO, 2002). Additionally, the GCC region has been experiencing a change in lifestyle over the past few decades, mainly due to urbanisation and busy working families, and this has also contributed to an increase in demand for high-value processed food. Furthermore, the region has the fastest-growing tourism industry in the world, and this has also caused a higher demand for food and its consumption. Consequently, the local food industries are having to play catch-up and need to reconsider their strategies to meet such increasing demands.
The main aim of this research is to identify the key factors that should be considered by Food sectors SMEs, so as to develop a more effective business model. These factors can then be further investigated by capturing the relevant pieces of related knowledge, and which can then be presented as a model that can be used to guide the SMEs with their business development. Such a model should be able to help the SMEs achieve growth, profitability, and expansion to new markets. This paper presents the results from the on-going research describing the influential factors that significantly impact the decision making of SMEs in their business development. The paper identifies such influential factors through extensive literature review and the data analysis of industrial field study in the GCC region. The authors believe that these influential factors are also the source of the knowledge that should be captured, to make up a holistic business model that will aid SMEs to plan for business sustainability and growth accurately.

Research Methodology
The analysed data were collected in three phases. Phase one was a review of the existing literature on the influential factors and challenges of business development. In phase two, a questionnaire survey was developed to collect primary data from an industrial field study on SMEs operating in the food processing sector in the GCC, this is followed by phase three, where an analysis of the data captured from the industrial field study was analysed. Finally, a list of all the key influential factors and detailed explanation of each of them is presented. These factors are further grouped into themes, to identify the main area to focus on, so as to help the Food sector SMEs in the GCC improve the effectiveness of their business development activities.
The sample of the field study consists of 36 companies, whose owners and top directors were interviewed through utilising a semi-structured questionnaire. The questionnaire was developed based on the finding from the literature review. Sampled companies serve as a representative of the food sector across different states in the GCC region, and with employees ranging between 50 to 200 only. The study was conducted via face-to-face interviews. In each case, the participants had experience ranging between 5 to 20 years in the sector.

Review of the related literature Overview of business development and business models
″ Business development is defined as the creation of long-term value for an organisation, from its customers, markets, and relationships″ (Sørensen 2012). This is achieved by intentionally pursuing strategic opportunities for the organisation, such as by cultivating partnerships or other commercial relationships, or by identifying new markets for products or service (Rainey, 2010). 'Value' to an organisation, in this context, refers to more than just assets, revenue or shareholders value; it also includes other elements such as human capital, knowledge, prestige, image, business relationships, social involvement and social responsibilities. Therefore, in this paper, business development is considered as the strategic process of identifying ongoing and future opportunities, minimising risks, creation of a flexible environment for success, and being prepared for continuing changes.
A typical business development process is a challenging decision process, as various conflicting factors need to be considered at the same time. For example, how to find a balance between issues relating to competitive advantage and those relating to new business opportunities. Such decision making and processes as they relate to business development factors are known as the 'business model design' (Kajanus et al., 2014 A business model offers a structured approach to business development. It offers a comprehensive framework that addresses all the necessary business elements of that particular business context; at the same time, it shows how to manage the interrelations of the elements (Osterwalder & Pigneur, 2010).
Simply put, a business model is a tool that reflects the business development activity of a firm (Drakulevski and Nakov, 2014). The business model helps to address how the various elements of business development activities are strategically selected, aligned, and communicated to the relevant stakeholders (Sørensen 2012). Business models can also be used by an organisation to fulfil various other functions. Some of these functions include the understanding and communication of the business logic. Business models can also be sued to analyse, manage, prospect and even patent such business logic (Osterwalder et al., 2005). By using a business model, even new players in a sector can expertly be guided in business development (D'Souza, 2016).
It is essential to point out that business development activities sometimes even transcend the focal firm and spans beyond its boundaries, encompassing other firms and players (Zott and Amit, 2010). Thus, despite a firm's centric view of its business model, the firm's business development approach has to deliberately integrate with other associated third parties' activities into its business model. Consequently, the business model, in this sense, can be used to adequately appropriate a share of the value captured to the other partners in the activity system (value-creating activity).
'Activity' in the context of business model, refers to 'the engagement of human, physical and/or capital resources -of any party to the business model (the focal firm, end customers, vendors, etc.), to serve a specific purpose towards the fulfilment of the overall business objective'. Likewise, an activity system in this context refers to 'a set of interdependent organisational activities, centred on the focal firm, including those activities conducted by its partners, vendors, customers, etc.' (Zott and Amit, 2010).
Presently, several business models are available; In the author's opinion, it is essential to compare the available business models and identify the most suitable for the food processing SMEs in the GCC. The main reason for this is to identify the best model that will help the SMEs to capture, understand, communicate, design, analyse and (if necessary) change the business logic of their firm towards growth and sustainability.
Various authors in the literature have suggested different types of business models. These models differ in terms of their building blocks, which are also called elements or components.
Combining components helps to define the logic of how a business creates value for its customers, and also how it captures value for itself. Given the vast difference in the types of elements in the available models, it is also necessary for this study to identify what elements should belong to a business model. The matrix in Table 1 shows the various available business models in literature with their authors, and also the types of components or elements these authors have considered. The matrix further illustrates how high or low each component has been adopted generally in business model literature. The authors were selected based on a search on business model components in different journals from 2000 to 2017. The most highly cited were considered, and a review was further carried out to ascertain their suitability for this purpose. This resulted in the selection of the final 14 studies for this research.
From Table 1, it can be seen that the components most referred to by the various authors are those regarding value proposition, market offerings and resources. In light of the most important components and bearing in mind the key aim of the business model required for this study, four of the models put forward are considered as the best that fit the criteria for this study. They are the Business Model Canvas of Osterwalder & Pigneur (2010), Kaplan (2012), Chesbrough and Rosenbloom (2002), Johnson et al., (2008) and Osterwalder et al., (2005  Previous authors have compared the business models on different effectiveness and efficiency factors. Some of such studies include Lucassen et al. (2012), Hoffmann (2013), and Aarntzen (2016). In these studies, authors considered the effectiveness of these models as 'the extent to which they successfully communicate and captures the entirety of the business models.
The most common criteria used by the authors for assessing the effectiveness of business models include: 1. Acceptance: the degree of utilisation of the framework in business and academia 2. Explicit Modelling Method: provides instructions that are explicitly defining the approach 3. Method Efficacy: the instructions are easily translated into practice. Different authors also use several other criteria. In this study, some of these are selected to compare the most common business models in the literature, as shown in Table 2. The criteria are assessed as High, Medium and Low comparative to each other, according to the number of components they have, or based on how they are used in the industry. Again, they are labelled as 'yes' or 'no' depending on if they measure up to the criteria.
In the end, the best business model is highlighted based on how well they satisfy the various criteria compared to the others (spectrum of effectiveness). As can be seen from the analysis in Table 2, the Business Model Canvas is the most encompassing of the key criteria, when compared to the other frameworks. Its key weakness is in stimulating creativity. However, this as can be seen to be low within all the frameworks.
Not surprisingly, the business model Canvas is now the most widely used business model tool in both industry and academia. It has also been adopted in a wide variety of industries around the world (Hoffmann, 2013).

Different applications of the business model canvas
The Business Model Canvas (BMC) created by Osterwalder and Pigneur (2010) is presently the most popular business model available, and it has become standard amongst practitioners in the design (or redesign) of business models (Kajanus et al., 2014). The BMC's popularity has made it the focus of many academic studies (such as Coes, 2014;Golnam et al., 2014;and Gutiérrez and Borreguero, 2016). Several reasons are pointed to as the reason for its wide appeal among practitioners; key among them include the graphic representation it offers (Hoffman, 2013; Massa and Tucci, 2013), its focus on value (Coes, 2014) and its simplicity and ease-of-use (Gutiérrez and Borreguero, 2016).
In Wrigley and Straker's (2016) assessment of the BMC, they used BMC to investigate innovation practices within a range of diverse companies. The BMC formed both parts of the research methodology and the research outcome. They concluded that the BMC was a tool that can be used as a "methodology for identifying and developing opportunities for business model innovation". Hoffmann's (2013) study, specifically observed the importance of the 'visualisation of business development elements' that is offered by the BMC. He explained that the visualisation effect helps to effectively communicate knowledge and stimulate creativity. It can also help in managing ongoing developments efforts, as the organisation have a snapshot view of its business model at any instant and can see any area that needs to be improved. Aarntzen (2016) studied the use of business model frameworks, especially among SMEs. He observed that the BMC is also the most widely used among industries of all sizes, including SMEs.
Despite the wide use of the BMC, other scholars have identified and criticised the limitations of the BMC (such as Chesbrough and Rosenbloom, 2002;Solaimani and Bouwman, 2012;Kraaijenbrink, 2012;Ching and Fauvel, 2013;and Jukova et al., 2019). The BMC is criticised for existing in isolation, and for lacking a detailed definition towards implementation. Other authors also recommended that the BMC should also consider strategy at the same time as the other business model elements, jointly integrated, as one holistic business development approach.
Therefore, for this study, the BMC needs to be further assessed, to see if it needs to be modified or customised, to make it more suitable to the needs of the food industry SMEs in GCC.

SMEs business development and business performance (Growth)
Scholars such as Achtenhagen et al., (2017) and Kumar (2017) have used different approaches to identify the factors affecting the performance and growth of small firms. However, there are considerable variations in the results of previous researches. As early as the 1950s, researchers started studying business development and business growth. They suggested that business performance can be assessed in terms of an increase in sales, numbers of employees, assets and/or profit (Kor et al., 2016). This provided an early theorization of business development. O'Cass and Sok (2013) defined business development and business growth, particularly as they relate to SMEs; they explained that business development and growth refers to a firm meeting or exceeding its performance goals. These can be financial goals (such as profitability, sales, revenue, and financial goals) and non-financial goals (such as intensified customer satisfaction).
Some scholars have attempted to list the factors that affect the growth of SMEs (Storey, 1994;Hsu et al., 2013). Some of the factors identified include the characteristics of the entrepreneur, available resources, and the firm's strategy. However, there appears to be no unified pattern, and rather, the evidence points towards a complex set of interrelated factors that affect small business growth. Furthermore, all of these factors need to be taken into account holistically.
Consequently, various authors have attempted to identify the growth paths among SMEs. Table  3 summarises the findings as reported in the literature.
Amentie, Taking over another venture + + Low The authors have all reported varying degree of influence of the different growth path on SMEs business development. Nevertheless, Market penetrations/increase in sales and number of employees are considered by most authors as the most important type of growth. According to Nason and Wiklund (2015), an increase in sales is the most common performance indicator among entrepreneurs.
According to Achtenhagen, et al., (2017), market penetration or increase in sales is defined as the ability of the company to successively expand its sales, through in-house resources and activities, without necessarily having to engage in other growth modes such as acquisitions of other firms.
In order to achieve the desired growth of their businesses, SMEs in the food sector needs to have a business development model to help with balancing the different business elements, especially as different types of the business model are available for different purposes. In this research, the business model needs to help the firm to achieve whichever of the growth paths mentioned in Table 3 that a firm desire to pursue. Presently, there is no available business model that is good enough for all of them. Therefore, there is a need to modify the business model canvas so that it can be more suitable as a business model so that it can guide SMEs in the food sector of the GCC to meet their growth aspirations.
However, other factors also affect the ability of a firm to grow. Before an organisation can successfully use business modelling tools, they also need to be aware of these different internal and external influential factors. These factors are the focus of the next section. Table 4 has been arranged as a matrix of literature/references published between 2008 to 2019. It includes the key influential factors mentioned in the literature, such as value proposition, profit and market size. Among these factors, those that are mentioned more than four times are considered high, while those below four and up to two factors are considered medium. Those mentioned two times and less are among the authors considered as low.

Influential factors on business development in SMEs
As can be seen from Table 4, the most highly cited factors include a value proposition, profit, competition, market size, and entrepreneurial competencies. These make up the most important factors to consider in business development.
For example, profitability, which is considered one of the most influential factors for SME growth, can be explained to offer the base for a stable, resilient company, which can develop over www.jbrmr.com A Journal of the Centre for Business & Economic Research (CBER) 104 time, generating value with which it can finance its expansion, from its accumulated profits (Achtenhagen et al., 2017). Nevertheless, some factors from Table 4 are considered worth exploring, despite having a low mention in the literature reviewed. For example, the author believes the following are also important factors but have not been well explored by the literature: • Networks Partners-networks are crucial in the international expansion of SMEs, especially internationally and can, in turn, overcome the liability of smallness (Wang, 2016). • Technological capacity: For any business model to be viable and support growth, it has to be technologically viable (D'souza, 2016). Therefore, technical capability can be a necessity to support business growth, especially in mechanised food processing. • Market regulations: for instance, high tax rates, can reduce firms' internal finances. This can discourage SMEs from growing to become visible to governmental officials, as this can likely lead to an increase in the cost of operating (Bouazza et al., 2015). Therefore, a field study is conducted that will also further explore the importance and effectiveness of such a factor in business development success.

www.jbrmr.com A Journal of the Centre for Business & Economic Research (CBER) 105
Wang,

The Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) market situation
The GCC is an economic and political alliance which was formed to strengthen cooperation and reinforce the links between its member countries (Martini et al.;. Its countries represent nations with fast-growing populations. However, the GCC nations import the majority of the food which they consume (Alpen Capital, 2015). Even food products made locally rely heavily on foreign employment (Yaqoob, 2011). What is more, the tourism sector of the GCC countries is also growing significantly. The increase in tourists visiting the GCC region is also causing a parallel growth in its hospitality sector, and indirectly, also causing the growth of the GCC's food and beverage sector (Nagraj, 2013;Al Masah Capital, 2014;Algethami, 2015). Furthermore, other factors also contribute to the increasing food consumption in the GCC region, such as population growth, rising disposable income levels, and changing consumption patterns (Malek, 2014;Napier, 2014).
Presently, it is considered impossible for the GCC to grow all the food it needs, primarily due to its weather conditions and the limited water resources available in the region (Al-Farra, 2015;FAO, 2015). Consequently, this lack of water affects the amount of agriculture which can be done in the region. In 2012, approximately 30 million metric tons of food was imported into the GCC region as compared to the approximately 10 million metric tons of food that were locally produced (Alpen Capital, 2015). As a result, focusing more on local agriculture for all types of crops, to minimize imports, does not seem like a plausible option, as that will also have a detrimental effect on the water supply of these nations.
It is therefore evident that the market in the GCC area is subjected to rapid change, and this will require companies also to adapt their businesses, to meet the growing demands and competitions. Furthermore, if such companies are to succeed in exploiting the opportunities provided by the changing environment and at the same time cope with its threats, their strategies must be aligned with the new market realities. With minimal research on business development in the GCC food sector, this paper aims to fill the gap by researching factors affecting business development in the region.
Given the advantages of the BMC, the next section will review the particular characteristics of this studies' target market (GCC), in order to develop a suitable business model canvas for the region's food and beverage industry SMEs.

The industrial perspective of influential factors on business development: Analysis and findings
This section presents the data analysis of the findings from the industrial field study. It mainly focuses on the questions that relate to the influential factors of business development, challenges in business development, and business development models, as they relate to the GCC food sector.
For each survey item presented, the questions were used to evaluate the perceived effectiveness and importance of each activity. These were presented as an activities list, with a five scale Likert type response representing importance and effectiveness. So, any score from 3.5 to 5 indicate relative importance or effectiveness, while less than 3.5 indicates not unimportance or not effective.

Influential factors affecting the decision to grow your business or expand to new market
During the field of study, the researchers observed several issues that influence business development among the SMEs of the GCC region. Firstly, it was observed that all the identified drivers from the literature review are considered important by practitioners in the industry. Nevertheless, the most important drivers for business development were shown to be 'increasing sales' and 'entering new markets.
It is good to see the companies are aware of these drivers; however, executing these activities to achieve business growth has several challenges. One of such key challenges identified is 'access to finance'. The next research item investigated how the companies address this issue.

Main challenges in access finance to support business growth
Access to finance is one of the most significant factors reported both in the literature review and by the business, as a barrier to their growth and expansions. This field study specifically asked what challenges the business faced with accessing finance. The result showed that the only challenge they have, stopping them from access finance is their lack of formal 'business planning capability'.
www.jbrmr.com A Journal of the Centre for Business & Economic Research (CBER) 107

Key activities currently undertaken as part of business development
The field study also showed that most of the companies were not aware of the importance of some key activities, while these are activities that they should be carrying out in their business development. It was evident from the way the majority of the respondent responded, where they rated some important activities as having low importance-only making a new product, increased rate of production and 'new market research beyond the typical commercial area' were identified of having high importance in the region.
In regard to how they view the effectiveness of the listed key business development activities, only new product development and 'new market research beyond the typical commercial area' were considered effective in helping their business grow.

Figure 1: Market factors influencing business development among food SMEs in the GCC
The results also showed that all the business modelling elements were considered of high importance. Specifically, marketing and market size were considered to be of the utmost importance. On the other hand, Tax and Zakat were considered insignificant. Except for Tax and Zakat, all the elements were considered to have a high impact on business performances. Marketing and market size were specifically, reported to have the most significant impact on business development activities.
Influential capabilities needed for business development The results also showed that most of the respondents were not aware of the other key elements that are involved in business development apart from market study, loan as an investment, and online growth which were considered as important capabilities, in which they needed to grow their business.
In terms of effectiveness, only market study and 'investment as a loan' were considered to have the most significant impact on their business growth.

Discussion of findings of Influential factors of business development
The following is an analysis and discussion of each of the influential factors identified from the field study, describing how they will have an impact on business development, business sustainability and growth of SMEs in the food sector of the GCC.
Specifically, the factors observed from the field study are listed below. 1. Increasing sales 2. Lack of a framework or a process for business development 3. Identifying the needs in the market 4. Meeting demand for more of the same product 5. Making new products 6. Newmarket research beyond the typical commercial area 7. Marketing 8. Market study 9. Loan as investment 10. Business planning capability 11. Availability of competitively priced raw agricultural products As the aim of this study is to offer a business development framework or business model, which can guide the SMEs of the food sector in the GCC to carry out their business development, the factors are thus further analysed as they relate to the BMC, and then grouped into similar themes for ease of understanding.
1. Increasing sales: this aspect is considered the key goal of business development activities among most firms; it is the results of various other activities including-improvement of the production process, increased access to key resources (including the raw materials used in production), or due to an increase in the number of product lines from new product developments. It is, therefore related to key activities, resources, and value proposition elements of the BMC. 2. Identifying the need in the market: this is related to the value proposition and customer segment of the BMC. It requires the firms to identify who are their key customers and also how best to satisfy them. 3. New product development: this aspect is also associated with the value proposition aspect of the business. It involves identifying demands and gaps in the market, by means of research and development, so as to introduce new products to the market. Therefore, this will also involve customer segmentation to identify the key customers and then defining the value proposition, so as to provide products that satisfy the customers. 4. Market study: this is also similar to 'new market research' and is related to the customer segmentation and value proposition elements; it involves researching and documentation of established markets for the business products. 5. Meeting demand for more of the same product: this is chiefly associated with the key resource's element of the BMC; it requires access to finance so as to acquire increased production capacity, and also to help in acquiring more raw materials. This factor is also associated with the distribution channel that is needed to make the products available to the customers. 6. Newmarket research beyond the typical commercial area: this is also associated with key activities and customer segmentation elements of the BMC. it involves scanning the market to establish more customer base -both locally and internationally, so as to increase the sales from the business. 7. Marketing: this is also associated with the customer relationship' element of the BMC. It requires the business to promote the company's product to the customers.
www.jbrmr.com A Journal of the Centre for Business & Economic Research (CBER) 109 8. Loan investment: this refers to access to finance to support all of the business growth activities. It is also needed to access raw materials and other key resources required by the business. It is therefore related to the key resources' element of the BMC. 9. Business planning capability: this aspect is unique to the business model, as it encompasses all elements of the BMC. It is the final documentation of all the elements of the BMC and their interaction. It is carried out before the onset of a business or at the onset of a business's new activity, so as to ensure that the business succeeds. In this context, it is an activity carried out as a key requirement to access investment, loan and other financial instruments, to allow the business to access the needed resources and capabilities to start-up or grow. 10. Availability of competitively priced raw agricultural products: This is one of the most important 'key resources' of the business. The availability of raw materials at competitive prices allows the business to provide lower prices to the customers as well as earn more in revenue and profit. It also helps the company meet increased demand and an increase in sales.
From the analysis of the results and findings, as elaborated above, three common themes are identified.
The first two relate to the elements of the BMC, which includes customer segmentation and developing the right value proposition. The last part is related to the entire BMC elements, as it relates to documenting it as a business plan. Customer segmentation stands out here, as it was NOT one of the most highly cited in the literature in Table 1, and even far less in Table 4.
In regard to the first two themes, they are the key starting points of any business modelling activity (Osterwalder et al., 2015). The responses within the themes show that there is a hardship defining the value concept required. This implies that they have a challenge of establishing a 'product-market fit'. This supports previous findings that the value proposition and customer segmentation interact mainly in developing the product-market fit (Osterwalder et al., 2015).
Product market fit can be defined to be: the fit between the offering and value provided, to the market requirements created by the needs of customers; and this fit creates the first step in formulating a successful business model (Andreessen, 2007).
If no fit is achieved at any level, then the product or service offered is not going to satisfy the market, and ultimately the business will not survive or thrive.
It's understandable that the results will show product-market fit as a challenge in the GCC; as has been identified in the study, the region is experiencing rapid changes in customer demand as a result of tourism, change in tastes and lifestyle (Algethami, 2015;Malek, 2014;Napier, 2014). This will also mean changes in the type of food customer's desire, as well as how they would like to access their food. All these changes have several implications on the SMEs in terms of 'what' products or service to offer, and 'how'.
Lastly, business planning here as a theme relates to the instrument used to access to finance. As can be seen, access to finance (or loan) as a key factor in business development, is linked to the ability to conduct market research and develop a business model. The business plan is the final product of the business modelling activity, which documents the overall business model, including what it seeks to achieve and how (Türko, 2016).
For new or cash strapped companies, the business plan is what they use to apply for a loan and other financial instruments. In the case of established companies seeking to grow, the business plan is the basis of decision making, with which management can inject finance to new activities (Jukova et al., 2019).
However, despite being a popular and widely used tool for business development, the BMC still has its limitations and criticism, as was highlighted previously. As regards its effectiveness to support SMEs in the GCC, so that they can achieve product-market fit, the key weakness as identified in this study needs to be addressed. Firstly, is the BMC's lack of explicit modelling method, whereby, there are no instructions explicitly defining the approach to developing the BMC elements (Aarntzen, 2016). As such, it cannot easily be translated into practice by a new or inexperienced manager (Solaimani and Bouwman, 2012). This is more critical in regard to the development of the value proposition among SMEs.
www.jbrmr.com A Journal of the Centre for Business & Economic Research (CBER) 110 Therefore, the BMC must be complemented with more information, so that even a novice SME manager can be guided through step by step process of what to do in developing their business model. This supports previous studies of Ching and fauvel (2013).
Secondly, as the business development process using the BMC is not a linear process, but goes back and forth, until the right product-market fit is achieved, among the shortcomings of BMC is that it mixes different levels of abstraction among different elements. Level of abstraction is one of the reasons that business owner with no business development experience or education, cannot understand how to go about developing their business model, or how to fill up the various boxes of the BMC (Kraaijenbrink,2012). This makes it more imperative that a step by step guide be provided to support decision making in developing the BMC for SMEs in the GCC.

Contribution of this paper
The findings from this study have made it obvious, that SMEs in the GCC food sector need to have a clear business model as the basis of their business development, in order to start up their business or to grow it. They also need a business model to run their businesses. This paper has highlighted the importance of the influential factors of business development among the GCC food SMEs, and how they impact the decision-making process of the business owners, in seeking to meet their business development objectives. Such factors have been identified through extensive literature review and subsequent analysis of the data captured from the industrial field study. The understanding of these influential factors would provide a knowledge base for SMEs in the food sector of the GCC, so they can know what the most important considerations and activities required to help them achieve their growth targets are. It will also enable them to identify the pitfalls and challenges they should watch out for.
However, despite having identified the influential factors of business development, such factors need to be presented in a way that shows how they interrelate with other business activities, and how they can be communicated so that even a novice in the business or the organisation can apply it. This is what business models such as the business model canvas (BMC) are intended for. It was highlighted that the BMC is the most suitable to be adopted for this purpose, especially for the SMEs of the GCC food sector. Therefore, the identified factors have also been explained as they relate to the various elements of the BMC.

Managerial Implications
This study has provided some fascinating insights into the factors that influence business development among the food SMEs of the GCC.
All the factors identified are shown to be related to the market research phase, the product development phase, and subsequent documentation of the business model and plan. So, the most important factors affecting business development success among the food SME in the GCC are the actual customer identification, and the requirements definition, towards the development of the right value proposition From a practical perspective, the key influential factors are a reflection of key BMC elements. Two key elements were identified within which the influential factors were mostly associated with. These are the elements of the value proposition and customer segmentation. The interplay of the two elements helps a business achieve 'product-market fit'.
The findings have managerial implications in a practical sense. It shows that the business model is of high relevance when it comes to the business development of the food SME in the GCC, however, in applying the BMC to the SMEs, it needs to be improved, so that it offers a guided step by step instructions, to how they can segment their customer and develop their value propositions; thereby achieving a product-market fit.
Therefore, to enhance the usefulness of the BMC, what is needed is subtitles within the various elements, and these should describe issues the manager should consider, in making product development decisions to fit the available market demands.
www.jbrmr.com A Journal of the Centre for Business & Economic Research (CBER) 111 However, these details need to be presented in a way that shows how they interrelate with other business activities, as this will help maintain the visual representation strength of the BMC so that it can be communicated to even novice business managers.

Limitation and Suggestion for Future Research
Regarding the limitations of this study, firstly, the sampling was judgmentally selected, where some biases may have existed. The fact that most of the subjects are based in the KSA may be considered such a bias, yet this cannot be confirmed because of the nature of the study. One rationale to explain this would be the fact that the KSA has a very developed SMEs ecosystem, compared to other countries in the GCC, second only to the UAE.
The second limitation is related to the representativeness of the sample. The sample size was small due to the exploratory nature of the first part of the research. Nevertheless, when the findings are proposed based on the collected data, the representativeness issue is a limitation of this study, binding the academic and industrial parts of this research together.
Furthermore, further research is required to see what knowledge can be captured from experienced practitioners in the industry, which can form the subtitles to guide even novice business owners and managers. Further studies should also seek how this knowledge can be presented, in such a way to make it effective for business development. In order words, further studies should asses how the BMC can be integrated with the knowledge into a holistic model.


AN INTEGRATED D-MARCOS METHOD FOR SUPPLIER SELECTION IN AN IRON AND STEEL INDUSTRY

Original scientific paper Abstract: The modern era of manufacturing has recognized the importance of a sustainable supply chain management (SCM) system in order to attain the desired level of stability and productivity for fulfillment of the customers’ requirements. Selection of the most suitable set of suppliers is an integral part of SCM which can be effectively solved with the deployment of different multicriteria decision making (MCDM) techniques. This paper endeavors to resolve the uncertainty involved in the decision making process for supplier selection with the application of D numbers. A relatively new MCDM technique in the form of measurement alternatives and ranking according to compromise solution (MARCOS) is later employed for ranking of a set of competing suppliers. This integrated approach is finally applied to choose the best performing supplier in a leading Indian iron and steel making industry based on seven selective evaluation criteria and opinions of three decision makers. It would provide more generic and unbiased results while addressing uncertainty and ambiguity involved in the supplier selection process.

Introduction
In the modern day highly competitive manufacturing environment, a sustainable supply chain management (SCM) system has been recognized as one of the predominant issues for survival and long-term prosperity of any organization. A sustainable SCM system ensures supply of the best quality products at reduced costs to the customers, hence helping a manufacturing organization capturing its superior position over its competitors in the market. In case of expensive products, it focuses on quick delivery in order to minimize inventory and associated holding cost. Thus, an efficient SC should take care of a wide range of objectives keeping in mind the welfares of both the organization and its customers. The present day manufacturing organizations should focus on devising a reliable as well as flexible SC based on a proper opinionated research. In SC, an essential responsibility bestowed on the purchasing department is to identify a set of compatible suppliers based on their capabilities to fulfill the primary requirements of cost, quality, delivery, technological capability, production capacity, financial strength etc. Thus, with the adoption and advancement of SCM, supplier selection has started playing a pivotal role. The supplier selection process mainly focuses on the following tasks, i.e. a) identification of the products to be procured, b) assimilation of a list of potential suppliers, c) shortlisting of the key factors (criteria) based on which the suppliers need to be evaluated, d) formation of a team of experts/decision makers to extensively analyze and strategize this selection process, e) choosing of the most apposite supplier while disposing off the inefficient ones, and f) continuous performance evaluation of the finally sleected supplier (De Boer et al., 2001). Over the course of development, supplier selection process has undergone a gradual transition from an intuitionistic approach to a more tangible strategic one, hence characterizing its further complication (Parkhi, 2015).
It has already been well acknowledged that SCs form the backbone of most of the manufacturing industries for selection of the reliable suppliers who can provide continuous stock of quality raw materials in order to fulfill the basic objectives of productivity and profitability with economic justification to the manufacturing processes. In supplier selection process, the main challenge and mathematical complexity lies in the identification of disparate evaluation criteria with varying degrees of importance, requiring a sensible trade-off amongst them. The manufacturing sector, heavily relying on SCs to achieve its goals, finds strong dependence on the application of different multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) techniques to choose the best fit supplier from a pool of competing alternatives based on the shortlisted evaluation criteria.
The MCDM has become interesting among the researcher community over a long time, whereby, it has come across innovative methodologies to help the decision makers to weigh multiple alternatives to choose the best option, while taking into account a set of conflicting qualitative and quantitative criteria. Application of any of the MCDM techniques in supplier selection has two basic objectives, i.e. a) deriving the preferential weights (relative importance) of the considered criteria by evaluating one against the others, and b) ranking of the candidate suppliers based on the accumulative score with respect to each criterion. In this direction, an unlimited number of MCDM techniques, like analytic hierarchy process (AHP), technique of order preference similarity to the ideal solution (TOPSIS), VIKOR (VlseKriterijumska Optimizacija I Kompromisno Resenje), grey relational analysis (GRA), preference ranking organization method for enrichment evaluation (PROMETHEE), combinative distance-based assessment (CODAS), weighted aggregated sum product assessment (WASPAS) etc. has been deployed for solving the supplier selection problems in diverse manufacturing industries. Recently, Stević et al. (2020) proposed a new MCDM tool, called measurement of alternatives and ranking according to compromise solution (MARCOS) involving ranking of the alternatives based on a compromised solution. In this approach, the ranking procedure is based on the distance of the alternatives from the ideal and anti-ideal solutions with respect to the considered criteria and their aggregated score reflected by a utility function.
However, the biggest challenge in decision making lies in the underlying uncertainty of the decision makers while evaluating the alternatives with respect to a set of qualitative criteria based on some predefined benchmarks and linguistic judgements. A linguistic judgement cannot always be ascertained, especially when there is not a single decision maker, rather an entire team, introducing chances of biasness in the decision making process. In real life situations, it becomes difficult for the decision makers to ascertain a particular degree or rating to a specific criterion owing to their varied backgrounds and experiences. Various mathematical tools, like fuzzy set theory, intutionistic fuzzy set etc. have already been employed to deal with the uncertainty and ambiguity involved in the supplier selection process. Deng (2012) introduced another tool in the form of D numbers to successfully account for uncertainty involved in the decision making processes.
This paper aims at addressing the issue of uncertainty involved in the supplier selection process when the concerned decision makers assign relative scores to the competing suppliers with respect to different evaluation criteria, which if ignored, may result in highly ambiguous results. Though MARCOS method itself is a robust yet mathematically simple model, it still does not address the issue of uncertainty often involved in group decision making where the team of experts comes from different backgrounds and experiences. While there are alternatives, like fuzzy theory, Dempster-Shafer (D-S) theory etc. to deal with such uncertainty, they often have constraints, like elements in the frame of discernment should be mutually exclusive whereby the sum of the basic probability of mass function should be one. However, D numbers, free from such constraints, provide more generalized solutions. Thus, combining D numbers with MARCOS gives a more holistic and impactful model covering the major loopholes involved in group decision making by accounting for uncertainties using a mathematically simpler formulation. This paper thus deals with implementation of the proposed methodology for supplier selection in a fully operational large scale iron and steel industry in India which has to compete with other stalwarts to carve its own position in the global market.
The organization of this paper is as follows. Section 2 provides a brief literature review on the applications of different MCDM techniques in supplier selection. Section 3 deals with the mathematical details of D numbers and MARCOS method. Section 4 illustrates the application of the propsoed methodology for supplier selection in an Indian iron and steel industry. Finally, conclusions are drawn in Section 5 along with the future dierctions of research.

Literature review
The importance of supplier selection can be proved by the humungous extent of researches conducted based on the applications of various MCDM techniques under both certain and uncertain manufacturing environments. Table 1 provides a concise list of different evaluation criteria and mathematical approaches considered for resolving supplier selection problems, with a special emphasis on steel making industries.
It can be clearly noticed from Table 1 that different mathematical techniques have mainly been employed for two purposes, i.e. a) determination of weights (relative importance) to be assigned to various evaluation criteria and b) ranking of the competing suppliers. The AHP, best-worst method etc. have been deployed for criteria weight estimation, while ANP, TOPSIS, GRA, PROMETHEE, VIKOR, CODAS etc. have been augmented for supplier ranking. It is also noticed that some of those MCDM techniques have been combined with fuzzy set, intuitionistic fuzzy set, D-S theory etc. for providing more accurate solutions to supplier election problems dealing with qualitative information under group decision making environment.
For effective supplier selection, the primary task is to shortlist the appropriate set of evaluation criteria. Back in the 1960s, Dickson (1966) stressed on the dependence of supplier selection on various evaluation criteria, while enlisting an exhaustive set of criteria. However, with rapid technological advancements and involvement of global economic parameters, a shift in the criteria for supplier selection has been observed. In the 1990s, the decision makers emphasized on the introduction of more qualitative criteria in the supplier selection process making it more complicated and prone to variation due to human involvement. Stević (2017) performed a comprehensive review on various criteria and sub-criteria considered for dealing with the supplier selection problems. However, these specific sets of evaluation criteria vary from one manufacturing organization to another. With every organization thriving hard to develop the best sustainable SCM system, importance of a perfect set of evaluation criteria cannot be thus ignored. Based on the literature review, it is observed that maximum importance has been provided on price, delivery, quality and production capacity.
The extravagant research shows the importance of supplier selection in manufacturing industries. However, there has been relatively less light reflected on the uncertainty involved in the decision making process due to expensive computational steps. For industries seeking a robust decision, it has now become mandatory that the adopted technique should be both exhaustive and efficient eradicating any chance of mistake. Most of the past research works have weighed the participating decision makers equally, not accounting for their varied level of expertise and experience. Those studies have also been based on the assumption that human preference can be linearly determined. In order to overcome the drawbacks of the previously adopted techniques, in this paper, a new approach for supplier selection integrating D numbers and MARCOS method is proposed. It is numerically easier to implement, yet provides more reliable ranking results, making it attractive for the manufacturing industries. Finally, it is applied to an Indian iron and steel making industry while considering the opinions of three experts/decision makers based on five alternative suppliers and seven evaluation criteria.

D numbers
The D numbers are an extension of the D-S theory, accounting for uncertainty of information. It can be defined as follows (Deng, 2012;Deng et al., 2014b): Let Ω be a finite non-empty set, D number is a mapping formulated by: where ϕ is an empty set and B is a subset of Ω.  Property 2: (Deng, 2012;Deng et al., 2014b).
If D = {(b1,v1), (b2,v2),…,(bi,vi),…,(bn,vn)}, the integrated value of D can be defined as : Property 3: (Deng, 2012;Deng et al., 2014a) Assuming two different D numbers, D1 the combination of D1 and D2 can be expressed as which can be further defined as follows: An integrated D-MARCOS method for supplier selection in an iron and steel industry It is worthwhile to mention here that the combination operation is not associative in nature. Hence, a further operation can be formulated to combine multiple D numbers.
Property 4: (Deng et al., 2014a) If D1, D2,…,Dn are n D numbers, µj is an order variable for each Dj, indicated by the tuple  

MARCOS method
It is a recently developed MCDM technique used for ranking of the candidate alternatives (Stević et al., 2020). Consideration of the reference ideal and anti-ideal solutions at the initial stages of analysis makes it advantageous over the other ranking techniques. In this method, each alternative receives a particular value of utility function depending on its relation with the ideal and anti-ideal solutions. Preference is provided to those alternatives which are closest to the ideal solution and farthest from the anti-ideal solution. Its computation starts with the formation of a decision matrix showing the performance of the alternatives with respect to different criteria. In this matrix, the ideal solution (having maximum values for benefit criteria and minimum values for cost criteria) and anti-ideal solution (with maximum values for cost criteria and minimum values for benefit criteria) are defined. The initial matrix is normalized with respect to the reference value and the corresponding weighted normalized matrix is derived by multiplying all the elements of the normalized matrix with the weight coefficients of the considered criteria. This matrix is finally employed to evaluate the utility degree for each of the alternatives based on which they are subsequently ranked.

D-MARCOS method
It has already been mentioned that this paper deals with integration of D numbers with MARCOS method for selection of the most apposite supplier in an Indian iron and steel making industry while taking into account the uncertainty prevalent in human judgement to make the decision more robust. For its successful implementation, a set of n criteria is recognized along with determination of their weights (relative importance) using a suitable criteria weight measurement technique. A versatile team of r experts is then formulated where each expert is assigned a weight λk > 0 (i = 1,2,…,r) such that Step 1: In this step, the evaluation matrices for all the participating experts are formulated. Due to different backgrounds and variation in human judgements, there exists certain extent of uncertainty while evaluating the alternatives with respect to each of the criteria, which can be taken care of by the implementation of D numbers.
For k th expert, the performance score assigned to i th alternative against j th criterion is represented by D number k ij d . Hence, the decision matrix with m alternatives and n criteria for k th expert is represented as below: Step 2: The aggregated decision matrix for all the experts in the team is now computed based on the properties of D numbers, keeping in mind the weight assigned to each expert. If there are two matrices evaluated by experts E1 and E2:  . For more than two experts in the decision making team, the aggregated decision matrix is developed using Eq. (8).
Step 3: In order to rank the candidate alternatives applying MARCOS method, a consolidated m×n matrix is formulated, integrating each of the D numbers assigned to a particular alternative against each criterion. where xij = I(dij).
Step 4: All the considered evaluation criteria are now grouped into two categories, i.e. benefit (larger-the-better) (represented by B) and cost (smaller-the-better) (denoted by C).
Step 5: The consolidated matrix is extended by defining two additional rows, indicating the ideal (AI) and anti-ideal (AAI) solutions. The anti-ideal solution reflects the worst alternative, whereas, the ideal solution reflects the best possible alternative.
Step 6: The X' matrix is then normalized to form another matrix N of (m + 2)×n dimension, i.e.
Step 7 where nij is an element of matrix N and wj is the weight assigned to j th criterion.
Step 8: The positive and negative degrees of utility for each alternative with respect to the ideal and anti-ideal solutions are respectively determined using the following equations: Step 9: The utility function hence used to evaluate the compromise of each alternative with respect to the ideal and anti-ideal solutions can be defined as follows: where the utility function with respect to the ideal and anti-ideal solutions can be respectively defined using the following equations: Step 10: The final ranking order of the alternatives can be obtained while assigning the best rank to the alternative having the highest utility function value.

Application of D-MARCOS method for supplier selection
As mentioned earlier, this paper deals with the application of D-MARCOS method for selecting the most apposite supplier for an iron and steel making industry. The steel industry being considered here is located in an industrial town of West Bengal, India and procures the requisite materials from various organizations across the globe. It is a leading producer of steel with annual production of around 2.4 million tonnes of crude steel. It came into existence in the year of 1959 and has been growing ever since. Although some of its primary raw materials are arranged from its own captive mines or from the parent organization, there are a lot of other materials need to be acquired from other suppliers. It is a gigantic unit which houses a large number of equipments and machineries, requiring huge indenting volume. Apart from the semi-finished products, its product basket consists of structural, merchant and railway items. In this plant, there is large number of furnaces and reheating units continuously in action, involving huge refractory consumption. These refractory materials are mostly procured from the external suppliers. This unit needs to be managed to stand the test of time while satisfying its clients across the globe. The importance of SC in such a big unit thus cannot be ignored. There is a dedicated team continuously working to evaluate its wide range of suppliers and choosing the most eligible ones.
Based on the humongous set of criteria available in the literature for iron and steel industry (Kar, 2015b), seven most important criteria are shortlisted for evaluation of the competing suppliers engaged in supply of refractory materials to the considered plant. Table 2 provides the list of those criteria which are again weighed by the participating experts using the best-worst method (Rezaei, 2015). It is worthwhile to mention here that amongst the criteria, delivery compliance (C2) and price (C3) are the cost criteria always preferred with their minimum values. It is also noticed from Table   An integrated D-MARCOS method for supplier selection in an iron and steel industry 59 2 that product quality (C1) and delivery compliance (C2) are the two most important criteria for this supplier selection, whereas, electronic transaction capability (C7) is the least important criterion. Table 3 represents details of the five major suppliers among whom the most competent one needs to be identified using D-MARCOS method. These five suppliers are now appraised by a team consisting of three decision makers from the steel melting unit, materials management and finance department having more than 15 years of industrial experience. Based on their varying expertise and knowledge, they are assigned weights with 0.4, 0.35 and 0.25 respectively. They are asked to assess the relative performance of the considered suppliers with respect to each criterion using a 1-9 scale, where 1-2 represent the least scores, 8-9 mark the highest scores, 4-6 denote medium scores, and 3 and 7 are intermediate scores. It accounts for the time within which delivery is met. Scheduled delivery of materials is much needed to ensure proper inventory level such that production never gets disrupted due to unavailability of resources.

0.223
Price (C3) It is the monetary value of an item to be paid by the organization to the concerned supplier.

0.208
Technological capability (C4) With the advancements of cutting edge technology, product and service must be proficient enough to meet various requirements of the organization even beyond maintaining the delivery schedule. It deals with the compatibility of a supplier to upkeep with the advanced technology.

0.125
Production capability (C5) It primarily deals with the ability of a supplier to deliver the required quantity of material at the specified time keeping in mind the fluctuating requirements. It is often graded with respect to standard certifications.

Financial strength (C6)
It stresses on the overall financial stability of a supplier with respect to changing market scenario. It is ranked based on a particular supplier's annual turnover.

0.009
Electronic transaction capability (C7) With technological advancements, electronic transaction capability is a much needed sophistication for a supplier to ensure online payment with reduction of other additional costs. 0.006 Table 3. List of the shortlisted suppliers Supplier Description S1 An almost new organization with presence in different countries is well preferred by the steel industries due to its capability to deliver functional refractory at reasonably low price. S2 It was established in early 70s as an MSME and proceeded towards adapting better technology of late, but has already succeeded in carving its name amongst the top suppliers of refractory materials. S3 It started its journey in early 70s and has become a well-known supplier of regular refractory materials. With the introduction of state-of-the-art technology, it has also collaborated with other international manufacturers to sustain through the competitive race.

S4
It was established in 80s with modern technology and management. It has always been adaptive to the latest technologies grabbing the steel industry's attention.

S5
Established in late 90s, it grossly depends on outsourcing of materials with high variation in product quality and hence, is supposed to be a risky supplier.
Tables 4-6 respectively show the corresponding evaluation matrices developed by the participating decision makers (DM1, DM2 and DM3) while assessing the performance of each of the five suppliers with respect to each criterion in terms of D numbers. For example, in Table 4, using the 1-9 scale, DM1 assigns scores 7 and 8 with 50% assurance in each case while appraising supplier S1 with respect to criterion C1. Similarly, in Table 5, DM2 is 80% confident to assign a score of 6 to supplier S1 with respect to criterion C1. The DM2 is in a dilemma (20% chance) while appraising supplier S1 with respect to criterion C1, i.e. in 20% cases, DM2 is not assured to provide any score to supplier S1 against C1. In Table 6, DM3 is 100% assured to assign a score of 6 to supplier S1 against criterion C1. Now, based on the individual evaluation matrices by the three decision makers and using properties (2)-(4) of D numbers, the aggregated D number scores are computed in Table 7.
It is observed that the scores assigned to supplier S1 with respect to criterion C1 by DM1, DM2 and DM3 are respectively D1 = {(7, 0.5), (8, 0.5)}, D2 = {(6,0.8)} and D3 = {(6,1)}. Therefore, the aggregated score for supplier S1 against criterion C1 is derived as:  It is worthwhile to mention here that in this supplier selection problem, the participating decision makers have been assigned weights with 0.4, 0.35 and 0.25 respectively depending on their varying experience and expertise. Thus, the combination operation for D numbers is first performed between DM2 and DM3 with minimum weights, and then the corresponding D number for DM1 is taken into consideration for the combination operation. Now, based on the developed aggregated decision matrix in terms of D numbers, the corresponding consolidated matrix X is formulated using Eq. (3).
In the similar direction, DM1, DM2 and DM3 respectively evaluate the performance of supplier S2 against criterion C4 as D1 = {(7,0.2), (8,0.8)}, D2 = {(9,1)}and D3 = {(9,0.6),(8,0.4)} in terms of D numbers. The aggregated score for supplier S2 with respect to criterion C4 is calculated as: Based on the procedural steps of D-MARCOS method, another matrix X' (extended matrix) is formulated from the consolidated matrix by defining two additional rows, indicating the ideal (AI) and anti-ideal (AAI) solutions at the bottom and top of the consolidated matrix respectively. Now, based on the type of the considered criterion and employing Eqs. (15)-(16), the related normalized decision matrix is obtained.    Table 8. The detailed computational steps for determining the utility function value for supplier S1 are explained as below: For ideal solution: Tai  In order to identify the most apposite supplier for providing refractory materials to the considered iron and steel making industry, they are now ranked based on the computed values of utility function. It is observed that supplier S4 with the maximum utility value of 0.661829 is ranked first, closely followed by supplier S1. The performance of suppliers S2 and S3 is almost similar. On the other hand, supplier S5 would be considered with least preference.

Conclusions
This paper proposes integration of D numbers with MARCOS method for effective selection of suppliers for refractory materials in an iron and steel industry in India. For this purpose, the relative performance of five competing suppliers is evaluated with respect to seven conflicting criteria using D numbers based on the opinions of three decision makers with varying knowledge and expertise. The MARCOS method is later employed for ranking of the considered suppliers. It has already been acknowledged that accounting for uncertainty involved in supplier selection process for effective SCM system development is an important task in today's manufacturing environment. Although there are several approaches, like fuzzy set theory, D-S theory etc. to deal with uncertainty in decision making processes, the concept of D numbers supersedes the others with respect to its ability to provide more robust and flexible results while taking into consideration varied opinions of individual decision makers who can evaluate the relative performance of the participating suppliers with varying degrees of uncertainty. Thus, this integrated MCDM tool can be efficiently adopted in other domains of decision making, like selection of optimal maintenance strategy, plant layout, inventory control policy, machine tool etc. in uncertain manufacturing environment.
Author Contributions: Each author has participated and contributed sufficiently to take public responsibility for appropriate portions of the content.
Funding: This research received no external funding.

Conflicts of Interest:
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.