Supply chain performance evaluation with data envelopment analysis and balanced scorecard approach

Applied Mathematical Modelling

Volumn 38, Issue 21-22, 2014, Pages 5092-5112

  Shafiee, Morteza ^a   Hosseinzadeh Lotfi, Farhad ^b   Saleh, Hilda ^b  

^a ISLAMIC AZAD UNIVERSITY   (Iran)

^b ISLAMIC AZAD UNIVERSITY   (Iran)

Author keywords

Balanced scorecard (BSC); Data envelopment analysis (DEA); DEMATEL; Network DEA; Supply chain management

Indexed keywords

DATA ENVELOPMENT ANALYSIS; DECISION MAKING; EFFICIENCY; SUPPLY CHAIN MANAGEMENT;

BALANCED SCORECARD APPROACH; BALANCED SCORECARDS; DECISION-MAKING PROBLEM; DEMATEL; EFFICIENCY EVALUATION; NETWORK DEA; SUPPLY CHAIN EFFICIENCY; SUPPLY CHAIN PERFORMANCE;

INFORMATION MANAGEMENT;

EID: 84908503401     PISSN: 0307904X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.apm.2014.03.023     Document Type: Article

References (77)

1. Ferguson B.R. Implementing supply chain management. Prod. Inventory Manage. J. 2000, 64-67.
2. Chen I.J., Paulraj A. Understanding supply chain management: critical research and a theoretical framework. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2004, 42:131-163.
3. Neely A., Gregory M., Platts K. Performance measurement system design: a literature review and research agenda. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manage. 1995, 15:80-116.
4. Kaplan R.S., Norton D.P. The balanced scorecard: measures that drive performance. Harvard Bus. Rev. 1992, 70:9-71.
5. Keagan D.P., Eiler R.G., Jones C.R. Are your performance measures obsolete?. Manage. Accounting 1989, 47-134.
6. Dixon J.R., Nanni A.J., Vollmann T.E. The New Performance Challenge: Measuring Operations for World Class Competition 1990, Dow Jones, Irwin, Homewood, IL.
7. Globerson S. Issues in developing a performance criteria system for an organization. Int. J. Prod. Res. 1985, 23:639-646.
8. Chi Sun C. A performance evaluation model by integrating fuzzy AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS methods. Expert Syst. Appl. 2010, 37:7745-7754.
9. Ghalayini A.M., Noble J.S. The changing basis of performance measurement. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manage. 1996, 16:63-88.
10. Neely A., Bourne M. Why measurement initiatives fall. Measuring Bus. Excellence 2000, 4:3-7.
11. Kaplan R., Noton D. The Balanced Scorecard 1996, HBS Press, Boston.
12. Bhagwat R., Sharma M.K. Performance measurement of supply chain management: a balanced scorecard approach. Comput. Ind. Eng. 2007, 53:43-62.
13. Bigliardi B., Bottani E. Performance measurement in the food supply chain: a balanced scorecard approach. Facilities 2010, 28:249-260.
14. Chia A., Goh M., Hum S.H. Performance measurement in supply chain entities: balanced scorecard perspective. Benchmarking: Int. J. 2009, 16:605-620.
15. Park J.H., Lee J.K., Yoo J.S. A framework for designing the balanced supply chain scorecard. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 2005, 14:335-346.
16. Sharma M.K., Bhagwat R. An integrated BSC-AHP approach for supply chain management evaluation. Measuring Bus. Excellence. 2007, 11:57-68.
17. Varma S., Wadhwa S., Deshmukh S.G. Evaluating petroleum supply chain performance. Asia Pac. J. Marketing Logist. 2008, 20:343-356.
18. C.A.F. Amado, S.R.P. Santos, P.M. Margues, Integrating the Data Envelopment Analysis and the Balanced Scorecard approaches for enhanced performance assessment. Omega, Int. J. Manage. Sci. Article In Press (2011).
19. Asoshen A., Nalchigar S., Jamporazmey M. Information technology project evaluation: an integrated data envelopment analysis and balanced scorecard. Expert Syst. Appl. 2010, 37:5931-5938.
20. Chen T.Y., Chen L.H. DEA performance evaluation based on BSC indicators incorporated. Int. J. Prod. Perform. Manage. 2007, 56:335-357.
21. Chen T.Y., Chen C.B., Peng S.Y. Firm operation performance analysis using data envelopment analysis and balanced scorecard. Int. J. Prod. Perform. Manage. 2008, 57:523-539.
22. Eilat H., Golany B., Shtub A. Constructing and evaluating balanced portfolios of R&D projects with interactions: a DEA based methodology. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2005, 172:1018-1039.
23. Eilat H., Golany B., Shtub A. R&D project evaluation: an integrated DEA and balanced scorecard approach. Int. J. Manage. Sci. 2007, 36:895-912.
24. Min H., Min H., Joo S. A data envelopment analysis-based balanced scorecard for measuring the comparative efficiency of Korean luxury hotels. Int. J. Qual. Reliab. Manage. 2008, 25:349-365.
25. Richard R.C. Setting benchmarks and evaluating balanced scorecards with data envelopment analysis. Benchmarking: Int. J. 2003, 10:226-245.
26. Valderrama T.G., Mendigorri E.M., Bordoy D.R. Relating the perspectives of the balanced scorecard for R&D by means of DEA. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2009, 196:1177-1189.
27. Wang J.C., Wu H. Corporate performance efficiency investigated by data envelopment analysis and balanced scorecard. J. Am. Acad. Bus. 2006, 9:312-318.
28. Charnes A., Cooper W.W., Rhodes E. Measuring the efficiency of decision making units. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 1978, 2:429-444.
29. Tseng M.L. Implementation and performance evaluation using the fuzzy network balanced scorecard. Comput. Educ. 2010, 55:188-201.
30. Wu H.Y., Lin Y.K., Chang C.H. Performance evaluation of extension education centers in universities based on the balanced scorecard. Eval. Program Plann. 2011, 34:37-50.
31. R.H. Ballou, S. M. Gilbert, A. Mukherjee, New managerial challenges from supply chain opportunities. IEEE Engineering Management Review, (Third quarter): (2000) 7-16.
32. Ellram L.M., Zsidisin G.A., Siferd S.P., Stanly M.J. The impact of purchasing and supply management activities on corporate success. J. Supply Chain Manage. 2002, 38:4-7.
33. Stewart G. Supply chain performance benchmarking study reveals keys to supply chain excellence. Logist. Inf. Manage. 1995, 8:38-44.
34. Samuel H., Sunil S., Ge W. A research and analysis of supply chain operations reference (SCOR) model. Supply Chain Manage: Int. J. 2004, 9:23-29.
35. Parker C. Performance measurement. Work Study 2000, 49:63-66.
36. Lambert D.M., Cooper M.C. Issues in supply chain management. Ind. Mark. Manage. 2000, 29:65-84.
37. Russell K. Supply chain management. Computer. World 2001, 35(1):32.
38. Farris M.T., Hutchison P.D. Cash to cash: the new supply chain management metric. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manage. 2002, 32:288-296.
39. Morphy E. Measuring up, Export Today 1999, 15:52-57.
40. Hoek R.I. Measuring the unmeasurable - measuring and improving performance in the supply chain. Supply Chain Manage. 1998, 3:187-191.
41. Supply Chain Council, Supply Chain Operations Reference Model: Overview of SCOR Version 8.0. Available from: www.Supply Chain.org. (2006).
42. Beamon B.M. Supply chain design and analysis: models and methods. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 1998, 55:281-294.
43. Gunasekaran A., Patel C., Tirtiroglu E. Performance measures and metrics in a supply chain environment. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manage. 2001, 21:71-87.
44. W.H. Hausman, Supply chain performance metrics, in: Corey Billington, H. Terry, L. Hau, N. Hohn (Eds.). The practice of supply chain management. Kluwer Academic Publishers (2002).
45. Felix T.S., Qi H.J. An innovative performance measurement method for supply chain management. Supply Chain Manage. 2003, 8:209-223.
46. Agarwal A., Shankar R., Tiwari M.K. Modeling the metrics of lean, agile and legible supply chain: an ANP-based approach. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2006, 173:211-225.
47. Soni G., Kodali R. Internal benchmarking for assessment of supply chain performance. Benchmarking: Int. J. 2010, 17:44-76.
48. Angerhofer B.J., Angelides M.C. A model and a performance measurement system for collaborative supply chains. Decis. Support Syst. 2006, 42:283-301.
49. Berrah L., Clivillé V. Towards an aggregation performance measurement system model in a supply chain context. Prod. Plann. Control 2007, 58:709-719.
50. Chang S.L., Wang R.C., Wang S.Y. Applying a direct multi-granularity linguistic and strategy-oriented aggregation approach on the assessment of supply performance. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2007, 177:1013-1025.
51. Beamon B.M. Measuring supply chain performance. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manage. 1999, 19:275-292.
52. Beamon B.M., Chen V.C.P. Performance analysis of conjoined supply chains. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2001, 39(14):3195-3218.
53. Gunasekaran A., Patel C., Ronald E., McGaughey R. A framework for supply chain performance measurement. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2004, 87:333-348.
54. Chan F.T.S. Performance measurement in a supply chain. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 2003, 21:534-548.
55. De Toni A., Tonchia S. Performance measurement systems: models, characteristics and measures. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manage. 2001, 21:46-70.
56. Schnetzler M.J., Sennheiser A., Schonsleben P. A decomposition-based approach for the development of a supply chain strategy. Prod. Econ. 2007, 105:21-42.
57. Chan F.T.S., Qi H.J. An innovative performance measurement method for supply chain management. Supply Chain Manage. Int. J. 2003, 8(3-4):209-223.
58. Huang S.H., Sheoran S.K., Wang G. A review and analysis of supply chain operations reference (SCOR) model. Supply Chain Manage. Int. J. 2004, 9:23-29.
59. Li S., SubbaRao S., Ragu-Nathan T.S., Ragu-Nathan B. Development and validation of a measurement instrument for studying supply chain practices. J. Oper. Manage. 2005, 23:618-641.
60. Lockamy A., McCormack K. Linking SCOR planning practices to supply chain performance. an exploratory study. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manage. 2004, 24:1192-1218.
61. Stephens S. Supply chain operations reference model version 5.0: a new tool to improve supply chain efficiency and achieve best practice. Inf. Syst. Front. 2001, 3:471-476.
62. Lohman C., Fortuin L., Wouters M. Designing a performance measurement system: a case study. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2004, 156:267-286.
63. Vorst J.V.d., Beulens A. Identifying sources of uncertainty to generate supply chain redesign strategies. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manage. Decis. 2001, 32(6):409-430.
64. Farrell M.J. The Measurement of Productive Efficiency. J. R. Stat. Soc. 1957, 120:253-281.
65. Banker R.D., Charnes A., Cooper W.W. Some models for estimating technical and scale inefficiencies in data envelopment analysis. Manage. Sci. 1984, 30:1078-1092.
66. Detoro I. The 10 pitfalls of benchmarking. Qual. Prog. 1995, 28:3-61.
67. Sheridan J.H. Where bench markers go wrong. Ind. Week 1993, 242:28-34.
68. Golany B. An interactive MOLP procedure for the extension of DEA to effectiveness analysis. J. Oper. Res. Soc. 1988, 39:725-734.
69. Spronk J., Post T. Performance benchmarking using interactive data envelopment analysis. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 1999, 115:472-487.
70. J. Zhu, L.M. Seiford, W.D. Cook. Models for performance benchmarking: measuring the effect of e-business activities on banking performance. Omega, Int. J. Manage. Sci. 32 (2004) 313-322.
71. Tamura H., Akazawa K. Stochastic DEMATEL for structural modeling of a complex problematique for realizing safe, secure and reliable society. J. Telecommun. Inf. Technol. 2005, 4:139-146.
72. Ahumada O., Villalobos J.R. Application of planning models in the agri-food supply chain: a review. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2009, 195:1-20.
73. Chen T.Y., Yu O.S. Performance evaluation of selected US utility commercial lighting demand side management programs. Energy Eng. 1997, 94:50-66.
74. Baker N., Freeland J. Recent advances in R&D benefit measurement and project selection methods. Int. J. Manage. Sci. 1975, 21:1164-1175.
75. Cook W.D., Zhu J., Bi G., Ynage F. Network DEA: additive efficiency decomposition. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2010, 207:1122-1129.
76. Kao C., Hwang S.N. Efficiency decomposition in two-stage data envelopment analysis: an application to non-life insurance companies in Taiwan. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2008, 183:418-429.
77. Tone K., Tsutsui M. Network DEA: a slack-based measure approach. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2009, 197:243-252.