DEA models for supply chain efficiency evaluation

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

References

  1. Altiok, T. and R. Ranjan. (1995). “Multi-stage, pull-type production/inventory systems.” IIE Transactions, 27, 190–200.

    Article  Google 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).

  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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Golany, B., S.T. Hackman, and U. Passy. (2003). “An Efficiency Measurement Framework for Multi-Stage Production Systems.” Working Paper.

  10. Huang, Z. (2000). “Franchising cooperation through chance cross-constrained games.” Naval Research Logistics, 47, 669–685.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Porter, M.E. (1974). “Consumer behavior, retailer power and market performance in consumer goods industries.” Review of Econom. Statist. LVI, 419–436.

  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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Zhu, J. (2002). Quantitative Models for Performance Evaluation and Benchmarking: Data Envelopment Analysis with Spreadsheets. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Joe Zhu.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Liang, L., Yang, F., Cook, W.D. et al. DEA models for supply chain efficiency evaluation. Ann Oper Res 145, 35–49 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-006-0026-7

Download citation

Keywords

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