A hybrid goal programming and dynamic data envelopment analysis framework for sustainable supplier evaluation

Neural Computing and Applications

Volumn 28, Issue 12, 2017, Pages 3683-3696

  Tavana, Madjid ^a,b   Shabanpour, Hadi ^c   Yousefi, Saeed ^c   Farzipoor Saen, Reza ^c  

^a LA SALLE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF PADERBORN   (Germany)

^c ISLAMIC AZAD UNIVERSITY   (Iran)

Author keywords

Benchmarking; Decision making units; Dynamic data envelopment analysis; Efficiency evaluation; Goal programming; Sustainable supplier selection

Indexed keywords

BENCHMARKING; DATA ENVELOPMENT ANALYSIS; EFFICIENCY; LINEAR PROGRAMMING; MULTIOBJECTIVE OPTIMIZATION; SUPPLY CHAIN MANAGEMENT;

DECISION MAKING UNIT; DYNAMIC DATA; EFFICIENCY EVALUATION; GOAL PROGRAMMING; SUSTAINABLE SUPPLIER SELECTIONS;

DECISION MAKING;

EID: 84961199563     PISSN: 09410643     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s00521-016-2274-z     Document Type: Article

References (62)

1. Ageron B, Gunasekaran A, Spalanzani A (2012) Sustainable supply management: an empirical study. Int J Prod Econ 140(1):168–182
2. Amindoust A, Ahmed S, Saghafinia A, Bahreininejad A (2012) Sustainable supplier selection: a ranking model based on fuzzy inference system. Appl Soft Comput 12(6):1668–1677
3. Andersen P, Petersen NC (1993) A procedure for ranking efficient units in data envelopment analysis. Manag Sci 39(10):1261–1264
4. Azadi M, Farzipoor Saen R (2012) Developing a new chance-constrained DEA model for suppliers selection in the presence of undesirable outputs. Int J Oper Res 13(11):44–66
5. Azadi M, Farzipoor Saen R, Tavana M (2012) Supplier selection using chance constrained data envelopment analysis with nondiscretionary factors and stochastic data. Int J Ind Syst Eng 13(2):167–196
6. Bai C, Sarkis J (2010) Integrating sustainability into supplier selection with grey system and rough set methodologies. Int J Prod Econ 124(1):252–264
7. Beamon BM (2005) Environmental and sustainability ethics in supply chain management. Sci Eng Ethics 11(2):221–234
8. Carter CR, Jennings MM (2002) Logistics social responsibility: an integrative framework. J Bus Logist 23(1):145–180
9. Charnes A, Cooper WW, Ferguson RO (1955) Optimal estimation of executive compensation by linear programming. Manag Sci 1(2):138–151
10. Charnes A, Cooper WW (1961) Management models and industrial applications of linear programming. Wiley, New York
11. Charnes A, Cooper WW, Rhodes E (1978) Measuring the efficiency of decision making units. Eur J Oper Res 2(6):429–444
12. Cooper WW, Seiford LM, Tone K (2007) Data envelopment analysis: a comprehensive text with models, applications, references and DEA-solver software, 2nd edn. Springer, New York
13. Dyllick T, Hockerts K (2002) Beyond the business case for corporate sustainability. Bus Strateg Environ 11(2):130–141
14. Färe R, Grosskopf S (1996) Productivity and intermediate products: a frontier approach. Econ Lett 50(1):65–70
15. Färe R, Grosskopf S, Lovell K, Pasurka C (1989) Multilateral productivity comparisons when some outputs are undesirable: a nonparametric approach. Rev Econ Stat 71(1):90–98
16. Färe F, Grosskopf S, Tyteca D (1996) An activity analysis model of the environmental performance of firms—application to fossil-fuel-fired electric utilities. Ecol Econ 18(2):161–175
17. Farzipoor Saen R (2008) Using super-efficiency analysis for ranking suppliers in the presence of volume discount offers. Int J Phys Distrib Logist Manag 38(8):637–651
18. Farzipoor Saen R (2009) A decision model for ranking suppliers in the presence of cardinal and ordinal data, weight restrictions, and nondiscretionary factors. Ann Oper Res 172(1):177–192
19. Farzipoor Saen R (2010) Developing a new data envelopment analysis methodology for supplier selection in the presence of both undesirable outputs and imprecise data. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 51(9):1243–1250
20. Gass SI (1986) A process for determining priorities and weights for large scale linear goal programmes. J Oper Res Soc 37(8):779–785
21. Govindan K, Khodaverdi R, Jafarian A (2013) A fuzzy multi criteria approach for measuring sustainability performance of a supplier based on triple bottom line approach. J Clean Prod 47:345–354
22. Hatami-Marbini A, Saati S, Tavana M (2010) An ideal-seeking fuzzy data envelopment analysis framework. Appl Soft Comput 10(4):1062–1070
23. Hsu CW, Hu AH (2007) Green supply chain management in the electronic industry. Int J Environ Sci Technol 5(2):205–216
24. Jahanshahloo GR, Hosseinzadeh Lotfi F, Khanmohammadi M, Kazemimanesh M, Rezaie V (2010) Ranking of units by positive ideal DMU with common weights. Expert Syst Appl 37(12):7483–7488
25. Jahanshahloo GR, Hosseinzadeh Lotfi F, Shoja N, Tohidi G, Razavyan S (2005) Undesirable inputs and outputs in DEA models. Appl Math Comput 169(2):917–925
26. Kahraman C, Cebeci U, Ulukan Z (2003) Multi-criteria supplier selection using fuzzy AHP. Logist Inf Manag Syst 16(6):382–394
27. Korhonen PJ, Luptacik M (2004) Eco-efficiency analysis of power plants: an extension of data envelopment analysis. Eur J Oper Res 154(2):437–446
28. Kumar S (2006) Environmentally sensitive productivity growth: a global analysis using Malmquist–Luenberger index. Ecol Econ 56(2):280–293
29. Kumar A, Jain V, Kumar SA (2014) A comprehensive environment friendly approach for supplier selection. Omega 42(1):109–123
30. Li L, Li M, Wu C (2013) Production efficiency evaluation of energy companies based on the improved super-efficiency data envelopment analysis considering undesirable outputs. Math Comput Model 58(5–6):1057–1067
31. Liang L, Wu D, Hua Z (2004) MES-DEA modeling for analyzing anti-industrial pollution efficiency and its application in Anhui province of China. Int J Glob Energy Issues 22(2–4):88–98
32. Liao CN, Kao HP (2011) An integrated fuzzy TOPSIS and MCGP approach to supplier selection in supply chain management. Expert Syst Appl 38(9):10803–10811
33. Likert R (1932) A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Arch Psychol 22(140):1–55
34. Muralidharan C, Anantharaman N, Deshmukh SG (2002) A multi-criteria group decision-making model for supplier rating. J Supply Chain Manag 38(4):22–33
35. Murphy PR, Poist RF (2003) Green perspectives and practices: a comparative logistics study. Supply Chain Manag Int J 8(2):122–131
36. Noorizadeh A, Mahdiloo M, Farzipoor Saen R (2011) Supplier selection in the presence of dual-role factors, nondiscretionary inputs, and weight restrictions. Int J Product Qual Manag 8(2):134–152
37. Önüt S, Kara SS, Işik E (2009) Long term supplier selection using a combined fuzzy MCDM approach: a case study for a telecommunication company. Expert Syst Appl 36(2):3887–3895
38. Pittman R (1983) Multilateral productivity comparisons with undesirable outputs. Econ J 93(372):883–891
39. Ratan SRA, Sekhari A, Rahman M (2010) Sustainable supply chain management: state-of-the-art. In: International conference on software, knowledge, information management and applications, Paro, Bhutan
40. Romero C (2004) A general structure of achievement function for a goal programming model. Eur J Oper Res 153(3):675–686
41. Sarkis J, Talluri S (2004) Evaluating and selecting e-commerce software and communication systems for a supply chain. Eur J Oper Res 159(2):318–329
42. Seiford LM, Zhu J (2002) Modeling undesirable factors in efficiency evaluation. Eur J Oper Res 142(1):16–20
43. Sengupta JK (1995) Dynamics of data envelopment analysis: theory of systems efficiency. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht
44. Sexton TR, Silkman RH, Hogan AJ (1986) Data envelopment analysis: critique and extensions, vol 32, no 1. In: Silkman RH (ed) Measuring efficiency: an assessment of data envelopment analysis. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, pp 73–105
45. Stewart TJ (2010) Goal directed benchmarking for organizational efficiency. Omega 38(6):534–539
46. Sueyoshi T, Goto M (2010) Should the US clean air act include CO2 emission control? Examination by data envelopment analysis. Energy Policy 38(10):5902–5911
47. Sueyoshi T, Goto M (2011) Methodological comparison between two unified (operational and environmental) efficiency measurements for environmental assessment. Eur J Oper Res 210(3):684–693
48. Sun J, Wu J, Guo D (2013) Performance ranking of units considering ideal and anti-ideal DMU with common weights. Appl Math Model 37(9):6301–6310
49. Tone K, Tsutsui M (2010) Dynamic DEA: a slacks-based measure approach. Omega 38(3–4):145–156
50. Tone K, Tsutsui M (2014) Dynamic DEA with network structure: a slacks-based measure approach. Omega 42(1):124–131
51. Tseng M-L, Chiang JH, Lan LW (2009) Selection of optimal supplier in supply chain management strategy with analytic network process and choquet integral. Comput Ind Eng 57(1):330–340
52. Wang Y-M, Chin K-S, Luo Y (2011) Cross-efficiency evaluation based on ideal and anti-ideal decision making units. Expert Syst Appl 38(8):10312–10319
53. Wang Y-M, Luo Y (2006) DEA efficiency assessment using ideal and anti-ideal decision making units. Appl Math Comput 173(2):902–915
54. Wang NS, Yi RH, Wang W (2008) Evaluating the performances of decision-making units based on interval efficiencies. J Comput Appl Math 216(2):328–343
55. Weber A, Current J, Desai A (2000) An optimization approach to determining the number of vendors to employ. Int J Supply Chain Manag 5(2):90–98
56. Wen L, Xu L, Wang R (2013) Sustainable supplier evaluation based on intuitionistic fuzzy sets group decision methods. J Inf Comput Sci 10(10):3209–3220
57. White BJ (1996) Developing products and their rhetoric from a single hierarchical model. Proc Annu Conf Soc Tech Commun 43:223–224
58. Wierzbicki AP (1999) Reference point approaches. In: Gal T, Stewart TJ, Hanne T (eds) Multicriteria decision making: advances in MCDM models, algorithms, theory, and applications, Chapter 9. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston
59. Yahya S, Kingsman B (1999) Vendor rating for an entrepreneur development programme: a case study using the analytic hierarchy process method. J Oper Res Soc 50(9):916–930
60. Yaisawarng S, Klein J (1994) The effects of sulfur dioxide controls on productivity change in the US electric power industry. Rev Econ Stat 76(3):447–460
61. Yousefi S, Shabanpour H, Farzipoor Saen R, Faramarzi GR (2014) Making an ideal decision making unit using virtual network data envelopment analysis approach. Int J Bus Perform Manag 15(4):316–328
62. Zouggari A, Benyoucef L (2012) Simulation based fuzzy TOPSIS approach for group multi-criteria supplier selection problem. Eng Appl Artif Intell 25(3):507–519