Annals of Operations Research

, Volume 248, Issue 1–2, pp 449–470 | Cite as

Service performance evaluation using data envelopment analysis and balance scorecard approach: an application to automotive industry

  • Youchao Tan
  • Yang Zhang
  • Roohollah Khodaverdi
Original Paper


In today’s competitive business environment, service providers have a strong objective to satisfy the customers with low cost to ensure a patronage/loyalty. Performance measurement defines the information or feedback on actions to meeting strategic objectives and client satisfaction. Generally, performance evaluation of the service provider is a time consuming complicated process, depends customer satisfaction. Over the past two decades several researchers have proposed methods to measure service and quality performance in order to improve the performance efficiency of the organization, since there is a considerable room exists. Hence, in this paper, we analyse efficient and inefficient levels of service performance using data envelopment analysis (DEA) and balance scorecard (BSC) techniques, to bridge the exist gap. The DEA approach has been used to measure the performance of automobile dealers from different areas to know their service levels and also treats the quality of service by making use of different cross-efficiency data envelopment analysis models to discriminate the units. Then, a BSC approach analyzes which aspects of decision making units are inefficient, grounded on four perspectives like as; customers, financial, internal business process and learning and growth, based on the study carried out on ten automobile dealers from various areas. The results identify that dealers are inefficient in learning about customer’s growth, which help the dealers to transform from inefficient into efficient. In addition, this study also focused on various insights related to performance evaluation and provide some useful recommendations which can be practiced in future.


Performance measurement Data envelopment analysis (DEA) Balanced scorecard (BSC) Automotive industry 



This research was supported in part by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant Nos. 71302005, 71402084), the major Program of the National Social Science Fund of China (Grant No. 13&ZD147).


  1. Acar, Y., Kadipasaoglu, S., & Schipperijn, P. (2010). A decision support framework for global supply chain modelling: An assessment of the impact of demand, supply and lead-time uncertainties on performance. International Journal of Production Research, 48, 3245–3268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alves, M. E. D., & Portela, M. C. S. (2015) Performance evaluation of PARFOIS retailing stores. In: Operational research (pp. 1–17). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  3. Amado, C. A. F., Santos, S. P., & Marques, P. M. (2012). Integrating the data envelopment analysis and the balanced scorecard approaches for enhanced performance assessment. Omega, 40, 390–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Amaratunga, D., & Baldry, D. (2002). Moving from performance measurement to performance management. Facilities, 20(5/6), 217–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Andes, S. (2002). Measuring efficiency of physician practices using data envelopment analysis. Managed Care, 11(11), 48–56.Google Scholar
  6. Asosheh, A., Nalchigar, S., & Jamporazmey, M. (2010). Information technology project evaluation: An integrated data envelopment analysis and balanced scorecard approach. Expert Systems with Applications, 37, 5931–5938.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Avkiran, N. K. (2015). An illustration of dynamic network DEA in commercial banking including robustness tests. Omega, 55, 141–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Azadeh, A., Zarrin, M., & Salehi, N. (2016). Supplier selection in closed loop supply chain by an integrated simulation-Taguchi-DEA approach. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 29(3), 302–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Azadi, M., Jafarian, M., Saen, R. F., & Mirhedayatian, S. M. (2015). A new fuzzy DEA model for evaluation of efficiency and effectiveness of suppliers in sustainable supply chain management context. Computers & Operations Research, 54, 274–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Balios, D., Eriotis, N., Fragoudaki, A., & Giokas, D. (2015). Economic efficiency of Greek retail SMEs in a period of high fluctuations in economic activity: A DEA approach. Applied Economics, 47(33), 3577–3593.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Banker, R. D., Charnes, A., & Cooper, W. W. (1984). Somemodelsforestimatingtechnical and scale inefficiencies indataenvelopmentanalysis. Management Science, 30(9), 1078–1092.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Beamon, B. (1999). Measuring supply chain performance. International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 19(3), 275–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Beechey, J., & Garlick, D. (1999). Using the balanced scorecard in banking. Journal of the Australian Institute of Bankers, 113(1), 28–31.Google Scholar
  14. Bhagwat, R., & Sharma, M. K. (2007). Performance measurement of supply chain management: A balanced scorecard approach. Computers and Industrial Engineering, 53, 43–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Bourne, M., Mills, J., Wilcox, M., Neely, A., & Platts, K. (2000). Designing, implementing and updating performance measurement systems. International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 20(7), 754–771.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Brewer, P. C., & Speh, T. W. (2000). Using the balanced scorecard to measure supply chain performance. Journal of Business Logistics, 21(1), 75–94.Google Scholar
  17. Camanho, A. S., & Dyson, R. G. (2005). Cost efficiency measurement with price uncertainty: A DEA application to bank branch assessments. European Journal of Operational Research, 161, 432–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Chan, F. T. S. (2003). Performance measurement in a supply chain. International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 21, 534–548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Chan, F. T. S., & Qi, H. J. (2003). An innovative performance measurement method for supply chain management. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 8, 209–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Chand, D., Hachey, J. H., Owhoso, V., & Vasudevan, S. (2005). A balanced scorecard based framework for assessing the strategic impacts of ERP systems. Computers in Industry, 56, 558–572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Charnes, A., Cooper, W. W., Lewin, A., & Seiford, L. M. (1994). Data envelopment analysis: Theory, methodology and applications. Massachusetts: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Charnes, A., Cooper, W. W., & Rhodes, E. (1978). Measuring the efficiency of decision making units. European Journal of the Operational Research, 2, 429–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Chauhan, N. S., Mohapatra, P. K. J., & Pandey, K. P. (2006). Improving energy productivity in paddy production through benchmarking: An application of data envelopment analysis. Energy Conversion and Management, 47(9–10), 1063–1085.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Chen, C. C. (2008). An objective-oriented and product-line-based manufacturing performance measurement. International Journal of Production Economics, 112(1), 380–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Chen, M. J., Chiu, Y. H., Jan, C., Chen, Y. C., & Liu, H. H. (2015). Efficiency and risk in commercial banks-hybrid DEA estimation. Global Economic Review, 44(3), 335–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Chiou, Y. C., & Chen, Y. H. (2006). Route-based performance evaluation of Taiwanese domestic airlines using data envelopment analysis. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 42(2), 116–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Cho, D. W., Lee, Y. H., Ahn, S. H., & Hwang, M. K. (2012). A framework for measuring the performance of service supply chain management. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 62, 801–818.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Chytas, P., Glykas, M., & Valiris, G. (2011). A proactive balanced scorecard. International Journal of Information Management, 31, 460–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Cook, W. D., Tone, K., & Zhu, J. (2014). Data envelopment analysis: Prior to choosing a model. Omega, 44, 1–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Denton, G. A., & White, B. (2000). Implementing a balanced-scorecard approach to managing hotel operations: The case of white lodging services. The Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 41(1), 94–107.Google Scholar
  31. Doyle, J., & Green, R. (1994). Efficiency and cross-efficiency in DEA: Derivations, meanings and uses. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 45(5), 567–578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Edirisinghe, N. C. P., & Zhang, X. (2007). Generalized DEA model of fundamental analysis and its application to portfolio optimization. Journal of Banking and Finance, 31, 3311–3335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Eilat, H., Golany, B., & Shtub, A. (2006). R&D project evaluation: An integrated DEA and balanced scorecard approach. Omega. doi: 10.1016/
  34. Eilat, H., Golany, B., & Shtub, A. (2008). R&D project evaluation: An integrated DEA and balanced scorecard approach. Omega, 36(5), 895–912.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Emrouznejad, A. (2014). Advances in data envelopment analysis. Annals of Operations Research, 214(1), 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Emrouznejad, A., Parker, B. R., & Tavares, G. (2008). Evaluation of research in efficiency and productivity: A survey and analysis of the first 30 years of scholarly literature in DEA. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 42, 151–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Farrell, M.J., (1957). The measurement of productive efficiency. Journal of the Royal Statistical Association Series A, CXX, 253–281.Google Scholar
  38. Fitzgerald, L., Johnston, R., Brignall, T. J., Silvestro, R., & Voss, C. (1991). Performance measurement in service businesses. London: CIMA.Google Scholar
  39. Folan, P., Browne, J., & Jagdev, H. (2007). Performance: Its meaning and content for today’s business research. Computers in Industry, 58(7), 605–620.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Franco-Santos, M., Kennerley, M. P., Micheli, P., Martinez, V., Mason, S., Marr, B., et al. (2007). Towards a definition of a business performance measurement system. International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 27(8), 784–801.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Fu, C., & Yang, S. (2012). The combination of dependence-based interval-valued evidential reasoning approach with balanced scorecard for performance assessment. Expert Systems with Applications, 39, 3717–3730.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Gaiardelli, P., Saccani, N., & Songini, L. (2006). Performance measurement systems in the after sales service: An integrated framework. International Journal of Business Performance Measurement, 9(2), 147–171.Google Scholar
  43. Garcia-Valderrama, T., Mulero-Mendigorri, E., & Revuelta-Bordoy, D. (2009). Relating the perspectives of the balanced scorecard for R&D by means of DEA. European Journal of Operational Research, 196, 1177–1189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Giannakis, M. (2011). Management of service supply chains with a service oriented reference model: The case of management consulting source. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 16(5), 346–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Globerson, S. (1985). Issues in developing a performance criteria system for an organization. International Journal of Production Research, 23(4), 639–646.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Gomes, C. F., Yasin, M. M., & Lisboa, J. V. (2004). A literature review of manufacturing performance measures and measurement in an organizational context: a framework and direction for future research. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 15(6), 511–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Gouveia, M. C., Dias, L. C., Antunes, C. H., Mota, M. A., Duarte, E. M., & Tenreiro, E. M. (2015). An application of value-based DEA to identify the best practices in primary health care. OR Spectrum (pp.1–25).Google Scholar
  48. Green, R., Doyle, J., & Cook, W. D. (1996). Preference voting and project ranking using DEA and cross evaluation. European Journal of Operational Research, 90, 461–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Grigoroudisn, E., Orfanoudaki, E., & Zopounidis, C. (2012). Strategic performance measurement in a healthcare organization: A multiple criteria approach based on balanced scorecard. Omega, 40(2012), 104–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Gumbus, A. (2005). Introducing the balanced scorecard: Creating metrics to measure performance. Journal of Management Education, 29(4), 617–630.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Gunasekaran, A., Patel, C., & McGaughey, R. E. (2004). A framework for supply chain performance measurement. International Journal of Production Economics, 87, 333–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Hong, S., Yuedong, Z., & Gang, W. (2015). Efficiency evaluation of low-carbon agriculture development supported by public finance based on DEA—taking Heilongjiang province as an example. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 23, 046.Google Scholar
  53. Huang, S. H., Sheoran, S. K., & Keskar, H. (2005). Computer assisted supply chain configuration based on supply chain operations reference (SCOR) model. Computers and Industrial Engineering, 48, 377–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Jalali Naini, S. G., Aliahmadi, A. R., & Jafari-Eskandari, M. (2011). Designing a mixed performance measurement system for environmental supply chain management using evolutionary game theory and balanced scorecard: A case study of an auto industry supply chain. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 55, 593–603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Ji, X., Wu, J., & Zhu, Q. (2015). Eco-design of transportation in sustainable supply chain management: A DEA-like method. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment (in press).Google Scholar
  56. Johnes, J. (2006). Measuring teaching efficiency in higher education: An application of data envelopment analysis to economics graduates from UK Universities 1993. European Journal of Operational Research, 174, 443–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (1992a). The balanced scorecard as a strategic management system. Harvard Business Review, 6, 1–66.Google Scholar
  58. Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (1992b). The balanced scorecard: Measures that drive performance. Harvard Business Review (January–February) (pp. 71–79).Google Scholar
  59. Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (1996a). Using the balanced scorecard as a strategic management system. January–February. Harvard Business Review.Google Scholar
  60. Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (1996b). The balanced scorecard—Translating strategy into action. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  61. Kaplan, R. S. (1998). Innovation action research: Creating new management theory and practice. Journal of Management Accounting Research, 10(89–1), 18.Google Scholar
  62. Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (2006). Alignment: Using the balanced scorecard to create corporate synergies. Boston: Harvard Business Press. 302.Google Scholar
  63. Khodabakhshi, M., & Aryavash, K. (2014). The fair allocation of common fixed cost or revenue using DEA concept. Annals of Operations Research, 214(1), 187–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Kim, D., Cavusgil, S. T., & Calantone, R. J. (2006). Information system innovations and supply chain management: Channel relationships and firm performance. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34(1), 40–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Koning, G. M. J. (2004). Making the balanced scorecard work (part 1). Gallup Management Journal.
  66. Kroes, J. R., & Ghosh, S. (2010). Outsourcing congruence with competitive priorities: Impact on supply chain and firm performance. Journal of Operations Management, 28, 124–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Kwon, H. B., Lee, J., & Roh, J. J. (2016). Best performance modeling using complementary DEA-ANN approach: Application to Japanese electronics manufacturing firms. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 23(3), 704–721.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Lee, A. H. I., Chen, W. C., & Chang, C. J. (2008). A fuzzy AHP and BSC approach for evaluating performance of IT department in the manufacturing industry in Taiwan. Expert Systems with Applications, 34, 96–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Lee, K. H., & Farzipoor Saen, R. (2012). Measuring corporate sustainability management: A data envelopment analysis approach. International Journal of Production Economics, 104(1), 219–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Leung, L. C., Lam, K. C., & Cao, D. (2006). Implementing the balanced scorecard using the analytic hierarchy process and the analytic network process. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 57, 682–691.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Li, K., & Lin, B. (2016). Impact of energy conservation policies on the green productivity in China’s manufacturing sector: Evidence from a three-stage DEA model. Applied Energy, 168, 351–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Liang, L., Wu, J., Cook, D. D., & Zhu, J. (2008). Alternative secondary goals in DEA cross-efficiency evaluation. International Journal of Production Economics, 113, 1025–1030.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Liu, F. H. F., & Hai, H. L. (2005). The voting analytic hierarchy process method for selecting supplier. International Journal of Production Economics, 97, 308–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Liu, J. S., Lu, L. Y. Y., Lu, W. M., & Lin, B. J. Y. (2013). Data envelopment analysis (1978–2010): A citation-based literature survey. Omega, 41(1), 3–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Lockamy, A., & McCormack, K. (2004). Linking SCOR planning practices to supply chain performance: An exploratory study. International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 24, 1192–1218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Lohman, C., Fortuin, L., & Wouters, M. (2004). Designing a performance measurement system design: A case study. European Journal of Operational Research, 156(2), 267–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Mannino, M., Hong, S. N., & Choi, I. J. (2008). Efficiency evaluation of data warehouse operations. Decision Support Systems, 44, 883–898.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Milis, K., & Mercken, R. (2004). The use of the balanced scorecard for the evaluation of information and communication technology projects. International Journal of Project Management, 22, 87–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Neely, A., Adams, C., & Kennerley, M. (2002). The performance prism: The scorecard for measuring and managing business success. London: FT Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  80. Neely, A. D., Gregory, M., & Platts, K. (1995). Performance measurement system design: A literature review and research agenda. International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 15(4), 80–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Neely, A. D., Mills, J., Platts, K., Gregory, M., & Richards, H. (1996). Performance measurement system design: Should process based approaches be adopted? International Journal of Production Economics, 46–47, 423–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Neely, A. D., Richards, H., Mills, J., Platts, K., & Bourne, M. (1997). Designing performance measures: A structured approach. International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 17(11), 1131–1152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Oral, M., Kettani, O., & Lang, P. (1991). A methodology for collective evaluation and selection of industrial R&D projects. Management Science, 37(7), 871–883.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Paradi, J. C., & Zhu, H. (2013). A survey on bank branch efficiency and performance research with data envelopment analysis. Omega, 41(1), 61–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V., & Berry, L. L. (1988). SERVQUAL: A multiple-item scale for measuring consumer perceptions of service quality. Journal of Retailing, 64(1), 13–40.Google Scholar
  86. Park, S., & Kim, J. (2016). Energy efficiency in Korea: Analysis using a hybrid DEA model. Geosystem Engineering, 19(3), 143–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Phusavat, K., Anussornnitisarn, P., Helo, P., & Dwight, R. (2009). Performance measurement: Roles and challenges. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 109(5), 646–664.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Qi, Z. (2015). Empirical research on the efficiency of resource allocation of compulsory education based on DEA—Case study of primary schools in an eastern city. Educational Research, 3, 012.Google Scholar
  89. Rajesh, R., Pugazhendhi, S., Ganesh, K., Ducq, Y., & LennyKohe, S. C. (2012). Generic balanced scorecard framework for third party logistics service provider. International Journal of Production Economics, 140(1), 269–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Rickards, R. C. (2007). BSC and benchmark development for an e-commerce SME. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 14, 222–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Seiford, L. M. (1996). Data envelopment analysis: The evolution of the state of the art (1978–1995). Journal of Productivity Analysis, 7(2–3), 99–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Sevkli, Mehmet, Koh, S. C. Lenny, Zaim, Selim, Demirbag, Mehmet, & Tatoglu, Ekrem. (2007). An application of data envelopment analytic hierarchy process for supplier selection: A case study of BEKO in Turkey. International Journal of Production Research, 45(9), 1973–2003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Sexton, T. R., Silkman, R. H., & Hogon, A. J. (1986). Data envelopment analysis. Critique and extensions. In R. H. Silkman (Ed.), Measuring efficiency: An assessment of DEA (pp. 73–105). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Boss.Google Scholar
  94. Shepherd, C., & Gunter, H. (2006). Measuring supply chain performance: Current research and future directions. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 55, 242–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Shwartz, M., Burgess, J. F., & Zhu, J. (2016). A DEA based composite measure of quality and its associated data uncertainty interval for health care provider profiling and pay-for-performance. European Journal of Operational Research, 253(2), 489–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Smith, J. S., Karwan, K. R., & Markland, R. E. (2007). A note on the growth of research in service operations management. Production and Operations Management, 16(6), 780–790.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Srdjevic, B., Medeiros, Y. D. P., & Porto, R. L. L. (2005). Data envelopment analysis of reservoir system performance. Computers and Operations Research, 32(12), 3209–3226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Stoica, O., Mehdian, S., & Sargu, A. (2015). The impact of internet banking on the performance of romanian banks: DEA and PCA approach. Procedia Economics and Finance, 20, 610–622.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Tan, K. H., & Platts, K. W. (2009). Linking operations objectives to actions: A plug and play approach. International Journal of Production Economics, 121(2), 610–619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Thanassoulis, E., De Witte, K., Johnes, J., Johnes, G., Karagiannis, G., & Portela, M. (2016). Applications of DEA in education.Google Scholar
  101. Tseng, M. L. (2010). Implementation and performance evaluation using the fuzzy network balanced scorecard. Computers and Education, 55, 188–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Vachon, S., & Klassen, R. D. (2008). Environmental management and manufacturing performance: The role of collaboration in the supply chain. International Journal of Production Economics, 111, 299–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Wang, Rong-Tsu, Ho, Chien-Ta Bruce, & Oh, K. (2008). Measuring production and marketing efficiency using grey relation analysis and data envelopment analysis. International Journal of Production Research, 48(1), 183–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Weber, C. A., Current, J. R., & Desai, A. (1998). Non-cooperative negotiation strategies for vendor selection. European Journal of Operational Research, 108, 208–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Wiersma, E. (2009). For which purposes do managers use balanced scorecard? An empirical study. Management Accounting Research, 20(4), 239–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Wu, I. L., & Chang, C. H. (2012). Using the balanced scorecard in assessing the performance of e-SCM diffusion: A multi-stage perspective. Decision Support Systems, 52, 474–485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. Wu, T. H., Chen, M. S., & Yeh, J. H. (2010). Measuring the performance of police forces in Taiwan using data envelopment analysis. Evaluation and Program Planning, 33(3), 246–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. Yasin, M. M., & Gomes, C. F. (2010). Performance management in service operational settings: A selective literature examination. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 17(2), 214–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. Yuksel, I., & Dagdeviren, M. (2010). Using the fuzzy analytic network process (ANP) for balanced scorecard (BSC): A case study for a manufacturing firm. Expert Systems with Applications, 37, 1270–1278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. Zervopoulos, P. D., Brisimi, T. S., Emrouznejad, A., & Cheng, G. (2016). Performance measurement with multiple interrelated variables and threshold target levels: Evidence from retail firms in the US. European Journal of Operational Research, 250(1), 262–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. Zeydan, M., & Çolpan, C. (2009). A new decision support system for performance measurement using combined fuzzy TOPSIS/DEA approach. International Journal of Production Research, 47(15), 4327–4349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. Zhang, W. (2015). The analysis of the agriculture input and output efficiency based on DEA model. Agricultural Science & Technology, 16(2), 414.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Youchao Tan
    • 1
  • Yang Zhang
    • 2
    • 3
  • Roohollah Khodaverdi
    • 4
  1. 1.School of AccountingSouthwestern University of Finance and EconomicsChengduPeople’s Republic of China
  2. 2.Business SchoolNankai UniversityTianjinPeople’s Republic of China
  3. 3.China Academy of Corporate GovernanceNankai UniversityTianjinPeople’s Republic of China
  4. 4.Faculty of Management and AccountingUniversity of TehranTehranIran

Personalised recommendations