Annals of Operations Research

, Volume 145, Issue 1, pp 35–49 | Cite as

DEA models for supply chain efficiency evaluation

Article

Abstract

An appropriate performance measurement system is an important requirement for the effective management of a supply chain. Two hurdles are present in measuring the performance of a supply chain and its members. One is the existence of multiple measures that characterize the performance of chain members, and for which data must be acquired; the other is the existence of conflicts between the members of the chain with respect to specific measures. Conventional data envelopment analysis (DEA) cannot be employed directly to measure the performance of supply chain and its members, because of the existence of the intermediate measures connecting the supply chain members. In this paper it is shown that a supply chain can be deemed as efficient while its members may be inefficient in DEA-terms. The current study develops several DEA-based approaches for characterizing and measuring supply chain efficiency when intermediate measures are incorporated into the performance evaluation. The models are illustrated in a seller-buyer supply chain context, when the relationship between the seller and buyer is treated first as one of leader-follower, and second as one that is cooperative. In the leader-follower structure, the leader is first evaluated, and then the follower is evaluated using information related to the leader's efficiency. In the cooperative structure, the joint efficiency which is modelled as the average of the seller's and buyer's efficiency scores is maximized, and both supply chain members are evaluated simultaneously. Non-linear programming problems are developed to solve these new supply chain efficiency models. It is shown that these DEA-based non-linear programs can be treated as parametric linear programming problems, and best solutions can be obtained via a heuristic technique. The approaches are demonstrated with a numerical example.

Keywords

Supply chain Efficiency Best practice Performance Data envelopment analysis (DEA) Buyer Seller 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Altiok, T. and R. Ranjan. (1995). “Multi-stage, pull-type production/inventory systems.” IIE Transactions, 27, 190–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Camm, J.D., T.E. Chorman, F.A. Dull, J.R. Evans, D.J. Sweeney, and G.W. Wegryn. (1997). “Blending OR/MS, judgment, and GIS: Restructuring P&G's supply chain.” Interfaces, 27(1), 128–142.Google Scholar
  3. Chen, Y., L. Liang, and F. Yang. (2004). “A DEA game model approach to supply chain efficiency.” Annals of Operations Research, (this issue).Google Scholar
  4. Chen, Y. and J. Zhu. (2004). “Measuring information technology's indirect impact on firm performance.” Information Technology and Management Journal, 5(1–2), 9–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cheung, K.L. and W.H. Hansman. (2000). “An exact performance evaluation for the supplier in a two-echelon inventory system.” Operations Research, 48, 646–653.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cohen, M.A. and H.L. Lee. (1989). “Resource deployment analysis of global manufacturing and distribution networks.” Journal of Manufacturing and Operations Management, 2, 81–104.Google Scholar
  7. Färe, R. and S. Grosskopf. (2000). “Network DEA.” Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 34, 35–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Forker, L.B., D. Mendez, and J. Hershauer. (1997). “Total quality management in the supply chain: What is its impact on performance?.” International Journal of Production Research, 35, 1681–1702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Golany, B., S.T. Hackman, and U. Passy. (2003). “An Efficiency Measurement Framework for Multi-Stage Production Systems.” Working Paper.Google Scholar
  10. Huang, Z. (2000). “Franchising cooperation through chance cross-constrained games.” Naval Research Logistics, 47, 669–685.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ishii, K., K. Takahashi, and R. Muramatsu. (1988). “Integrated production, inventory and distribution systems.” International Journal of Production Research, 26(3), 473–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Lee, H.L. and C. Billington. (1992). “Managing supply chain inventory: Pitfalls and opportunities.” Sloan Management Review, 33(3), 65–73.Google Scholar
  13. Lee, H.L. and C. Billington. (1993). “Material management in decentralized supply chains.” Operations Research, 41, 835–847.Google Scholar
  14. Li, S.X., Z. Huang, and A. Ashley. (1995). “Seller-buyer system co-operation in a monopolistic market.” Journal of the Operational Research Society, 46, 1456–1470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Li, S.X., Z. Huang, and A. Ashley. (1996). “Improving buyer-seller system cooperation through inventory control.” International Journal of Production Economics, 43, 37–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Newhart, D.D., K.L. Stott, and F.J. Vasko. (1993). “Consolidating production sizes to minimize inventory levels for a multi-stage production and distribution systems.” Journal of the Operational Research Society, 44(7), 637–644.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Porter, M.E. (1974). “Consumer behavior, retailer power and market performance in consumer goods industries.” Review of Econom. Statist. LVI, 419–436.Google Scholar
  18. Ross, D.F. (1998). Competing Through Supply Chain Management. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  19. Seiford, L.M. and J. Zhu. (1999). “Profitability and marketability of the top 55 US commercial banks.” Management Science, 45(9), 1270–1288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Simaan, M. and J.B. Cruz. (1973). “On the Stackelberg strategy in nonzero-sum games.” Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, 11, 533–555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Tayur, S., R. Ganeshan, and M. Magazine. (1998). Quantitative Models for Supply Chain Management. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  22. Voudouris, V.T. (1996). “Mathematical programming techniques to debottleneck the supply chain of fine chemical industries.” Computers and Chemical Engineering, 20, S1269–S1274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Zhu, J. (2002). Quantitative Models for Performance Evaluation and Benchmarking: Data Envelopment Analysis with Spreadsheets. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Liang Liang
    • 1
  • Feng Yang
    • 1
  • Wade D. Cook
    • 2
  • Joe Zhu
    • 3
  1. 1.School of BusinessUniversity of Science and Technology of ChinaHe FeiP.R. China
  2. 2.Schulich School of BusinessYork UniversityTorontoCanada
  3. 3.Department of ManagementWorcester Polytechnic InstituteWorcesterUSA

Personalised recommendations