Window Analysis and MPI for Efficiency and Productivity Assessment Under Fuzzy Data: Window Analysis and MPI

Window Analysis and MPI for Efficiency and Productivity Assessment Under Fuzzy Data: Window Analysis and MPI

Abbas Al-Refaie
DOI: 10.4018/IJMMME.299058
Article PDF Download
Open access articles are freely available for download

Abstract

This research develops a procedure for DEA window analysis and MPI evaluation of a manufacturing process with fuzzy inputs and outputs. A real case study was provided to illustrate relative efficiency and MPI assessment of a blowing machine over a period of one a year. The proposed approach was implemented to measure the technical, pure technical, and scale efficiency scores for decision making unit. The results showed that the blowing process was technically inefficient due to scale inefficiency. Therefore, management should optimize the size of operations and better utilize resources. Then, the lower and upper MPI values and their corresponding technology change and efficiency change were calculated. The MPI results revealed the reasons behind MPI progress or regress in current period measured with respect to next period. This procedure provides great assistance to process engineering in obtaining reliable feedback on process performance and guide them to take proper actions.
Article Preview
Top

1. Introduction

In practice, production engineers regularly assess efficiency and productivity of manufacturing processes to achieve business goals (Park et al., 2018. Typically, measurement of a production unit-performance is crucial in determining whether it has achieved its objectives or not, and it generates a phase of management process that consists of feedback motivation phases (Kumar and Gulati, 2008; Al-Refaie et al., 2015). An effective technique for measuring processes’ relative efficiency is the Data envelopment analysis (DEA) method, in which a production frontier is constructed from a set of comparable Decision making Units (DMUs) and data on their inputs and outputs. The efficiency of each DMU is deðned by its relative distance from the production frontier (Al-Refaie et al., 2016a; Al-Refaie et al., 2016b; Ennen and Batool, 2018). Two common DEA models can be used for this purpose Charnes, Cooper, and Rhodes (CCR) and Banker, Chang, and Cooper (BCC) by Charnes et al. (1978) and Banker et al. (1984), respectively.

However, when using the CCR and BCC models, an important rule of thumb is that the number of DMUs is at least twice the sum of the number of inputs and outputs (Arcos-Vargaset al., 2017). Otherwise, the model may produce numerous relatively efficient units and decrease discriminating power. To resolve this difficulty, DEA window analysis was introduced in which the performance of a DMU in any period can be compared with its own performance in other periods as well as to the performance of other DMUs (Al‐Refaie et al., 2014). DEA window analysis is based on a dynamic perspective, regarding the same DMU in different period of time as entirely different DMUs (Jia and Yuan, 2017). The window analysis technique relies on the traditional CCR and BCC models for estimating technical efficiency (TE) and pure technical efficiency (PTE) scores for each DMU. DEA window analysis is usually followed by the evaluation of the Malmquist productivity index (MPI), which is a formal time-series analysis method for conducting performance comparisons of DMUs over time by solving traditional DEA type models. The MPI measures the productivity change of DMU over time. The productivity of DMU from period p and p+1 is improved when MPI is larger than one, remained unchanged when MPI equals one, and deteriorated when MPI is less than one. The productivity change can be decomposed into two parts, namely technological change (TC) and efficiency change (TEC) component, which measures the change in relative efficiency over time (Balcerzak et al., 2017).

Complete Article List

Search this Journal:
Reset
Volume 13: 1 Issue (2024)
Volume 12: 4 Issues (2022): 1 Released, 3 Forthcoming
Volume 11: 4 Issues (2021)
Volume 10: 4 Issues (2020)
Volume 9: 4 Issues (2019)
Volume 8: 4 Issues (2018)
Volume 7: 4 Issues (2017)
Volume 6: 4 Issues (2016)
Volume 5: 4 Issues (2015)
Volume 4: 4 Issues (2014)
Volume 3: 4 Issues (2013)
Volume 2: 4 Issues (2012)
Volume 1: 4 Issues (2011)
View Complete Journal Contents Listing