Advanced manufacturing technologies (AMTs) are more and more used by firms to perform repetitive tasks in the production processes. As opting for an ATM represents an important investment for firms, several methodologies have been suggested to help firm decision-makers selecting the best one. A popular concept in that context is the cross-efficiency technique. In short, it endogenously selects the best ATM by computing scores using linear programmings. In this paper, we extend the cross-efficiency technique by adding a new feature: we model ATMs as multi-task processes. The multi-task approach presents two main advantages. One, it naturally gives the option to allocate inputs/costs and indicators/attributes to every task, yielding to a more realist modelling of the AMT processes. Two, AMTs can be compared for every task separately, increasing the discriminatory power of the selection process. As a consequence, the overall performances can be better understood, and, in particular, the reasons for declaring a specific AMT to be best can be investigated. We demonstrate the usefulness of our approach by considering a numerical example and two applications. In each case, we demonstrate the practical and managerial usefulness of our approach.
Keywords: Advanced manufacturing technology (AMT), data envelopment analysis (DEA), efficiency, cross-efficiency, robot selection
@article{RO_2022__56_5_3471_0,
author = {Walheer, Barnab\'e},
title = {Cross-efficiency for advanced manufacturing technology selection: {A} multi-task approach},
journal = {RAIRO. Operations Research},
pages = {3471--3490},
year = {2022},
publisher = {EDP-Sciences},
volume = {56},
number = {5},
doi = {10.1051/ro/2022158},
mrnumber = {4496050},
zbl = {1507.90106},
language = {en},
url = {https://www.numdam.org/articles/10.1051/ro/2022158/}
}
TY - JOUR AU - Walheer, Barnabé TI - Cross-efficiency for advanced manufacturing technology selection: A multi-task approach JO - RAIRO. Operations Research PY - 2022 SP - 3471 EP - 3490 VL - 56 IS - 5 PB - EDP-Sciences UR - https://www.numdam.org/articles/10.1051/ro/2022158/ DO - 10.1051/ro/2022158 LA - en ID - RO_2022__56_5_3471_0 ER -
%0 Journal Article %A Walheer, Barnabé %T Cross-efficiency for advanced manufacturing technology selection: A multi-task approach %J RAIRO. Operations Research %D 2022 %P 3471-3490 %V 56 %N 5 %I EDP-Sciences %U https://www.numdam.org/articles/10.1051/ro/2022158/ %R 10.1051/ro/2022158 %G en %F RO_2022__56_5_3471_0
Walheer, Barnabé. Cross-efficiency for advanced manufacturing technology selection: A multi-task approach. RAIRO. Operations Research, Tome 56 (2022) no. 5, pp. 3471-3490. doi: 10.1051/ro/2022158
[1] , and , Measuring the efficiency of decision making units. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2 (1978) 429–444. | MR | Zbl | DOI
[2] and , Efficiency and cross-efficiency in DEA: Derivations, meanings and uses. J. Oper. Res. Soc. 45 (1994) 567–578. | Zbl | DOI
[3] , and , A multi-criteria decision model for the selection of a computerized manufacturing control system. Int. J. Prod. Res. 23 (1985) 117–128. | DOI
[4] and , Decision models for robot selection: A comparison of ordinary least squares and linear goal programming methods. Decis. Sci. 20 (1989) 40–53. | DOI
[5] and , A decision support system for selection and justification of advanced manufacturing technologies. Prod. Plan. Control 8 (1997) 270–284. | DOI
[6] and , Decision-making and performance measurement models with applications to robot selection. Comput. Ind. Eng. 36 (1999) 503–523. | DOI
[7] and , Comparison of three modern multicriteria decision-making tools. Int. J. Syst. Sci. 31 (2000) 497–517. | Zbl | DOI
[8] and , Dimensional analysis for investment selection in industrial robots. Int. J. Prod. Res. 38 (2000) 4843–4848. | Zbl | DOI
[9] , Distance-based fuzzy MCDM approach for evaluating flexible manufacturing system alternatives. Int. J. Prod. Res. 40 (2002) 3167–3181. | Zbl | DOI
[10] and , Practical common weight multi-criteria decision-making approach with an improved discriminating power for technology selection. Int. J. Prod. Res. 43 (2005) 1537–1554. | Zbl | DOI
[11] and , Improved common weight MCDM model for technology selection. Int. J. Prod. Res. 46 (2008) 6933–6944. | DOI
[12] and , A note on DEA models in technology selection: An improvement of Karsak and Ahiska’s approach. Int. J. Prod. Res. 45 (2007) 2313–2316. | DOI
[13] , and , Life cycle cost for technology selection: A case study in the manufacturing of injection moulds. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 128 (2010) 368–378. | DOI
[14] , and , Strategic justification of advanced manufacturing technology using an extended AHP model. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 52 (2011) 1103–1113. | DOI
[15] , and , Technology selection: Application of the PROMETHEE in determining preferences – A real case of nanotechnology in Iran. J. Oper. Res. Soc. 64 (2013) 884–897. | DOI
[16] , A decision model for information technology selection using AHP integrated TOPSIS-Grey: The case of content management systems. Knowl.-Based Syst. 70 (2014) 44–54. | DOI
[17] and , Fuzzy multi-criteria decision-making method for technology selection for emissions reduction from shipping under uncertainties. Transp. Res. Part D: Transp. Environ. 40 (2015) 43–60. | DOI
[18] , and , Data envelopment analysis: Critique and extensions. In: Measuring Efficiency: An Assessment of Data Envelopment Analysis, edited by . Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA (1986) 73–105.
[19] and , Cross-evaluation in DEA: Improving discrimination among DMUs. INFOR 33 (1995) 205–222. | Zbl
[20] , and , Preference voting and project ranking using DEA and cross-evaluation. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 90 (1996) 461–472. | Zbl | DOI
[21] and , A closer look at the use of data envelopment analysis for technology selection. Comput. Ind. Eng. 32 (1997) 101–108. | DOI
[22] and , A unified framework for the selection of flexible manufacturing system. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 85 (1995) 297–315. | Zbl | DOI
[23] and , A cone-ratio DEA approach for AMT justification. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 66 (2000) 119–129. | DOI
[24] , and , The fixed weighting nature of a cross-evaluation model. J. Prod. Anal. 18 (2002) 249–255. | DOI
[25] , Assessing computer numerical control machines using data envelopment analysis. Int. J. Prod. Res. 40 (2002) 2011–2039. | Zbl | DOI
[26] and , Data envelopment analysis based decision model for optimal operator allocation in CMS. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 164 (2005) 800–810. | Zbl | DOI
[27] , , and , Alternative secondary goals in DEA cross efficiency evaluation. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 113 (2008) 1025–1030. | DOI
[28] , , and , The DEA game cross-efficiency model and its Nash equilibrium. Oper. Res. 56 (2008) 1278–1288. | MR | Zbl | DOI
[29] , and , DEA game cross-efficiency approach to Olympic rankings. Omega 37 (2009) 909–918. | DOI
[30] , and , Determination of weights for the ultimate cross efficiency using Shapley value in cooperative game. Expert Syst. App. 36 (2009) 872–876. | DOI
[31] , , and , Ranking approach of cross-efficiency based on improved TOPSIS technique. J. Syst. Eng. Electron. 22 (2011) 604–608. | DOI
[32] , , , and , DEA cross-efficiency evaluation based on satisfaction degree: An application to technology selection. Int. J. Prod. Res. 54 (2016) 5990–6007. | DOI
[33] and , Some alternative models for DEA cross-efficiency evaluation. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 128 (2010) 332–338. | DOI
[34] , , and , Selecting symmetric weights as a secondary goal in DEA cross-efficiency evaluation. Appl. Math. Model. 35 (2011) 544–549. | MR | Zbl | DOI
[35] , Optimizing the rank position of the DMU as secondary goal in DEA cross-evaluation. Appl. Math. Model. 36 (2012) 2642–2648. | MR | Zbl | DOI
[36] , , and , The DEA game cross-efficiency model and its Nash equilibrium. Oper. Res. 56 (2008) 1278–1288. | MR | Zbl | DOI
[37] , Minimax and maximin formulations of cross-efficiency in DEA. Comput. Ind. Eng. 62 (2012) 726–731. | DOI
[38] , , and , Using a DEA-cross efficiency approach in public procurement tenders. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 218 (2012) 523–529. | MR | Zbl | DOI
[39] , , and , Optimising proportional weights as a secondary goal in DEA cross-efficiency evaluation. Int. J. Oper. Res. 19 (2014) 234–245. | MR | Zbl | DOI
[40] and , DEA Cobb-Douglas frontier and cross-efficiency. J. Oper. Res. Soc. 65 (2014) 265–268. | DOI
[41] , , and , Fixed cost and resource allocation based on DEA cross-efficiency. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 235 (2014) 206–214. | MR | Zbl | DOI
[42] , and , Use of DEA cross-efficiency evaluation in portfolio selection: An application to Korean stock market. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 236 (2014) 361–368. | MR | Zbl | DOI
[43] and , Evaluating energy efficiency for airlines: An application of VFB-DEA. J. Air Transp. Manage. 44 (2015) 34–41. | DOI
[44] , The fundamental singularity theorem for non-joint production. Int. Econ. Rev. 7 (1966) 34–41. | Zbl | DOI
[45] , Profit functions of technologies with multiple inputs and outputs. Rev. Econ. Stat. 54 (1972) 281–289. | MR | DOI
[46] , The specification of technology with several kinds of output. J. Political Econ. 81 (1973) 878–892. | DOI
[47] , Non-joint technologies. Rev. Econ. Stud. 50 (1983) 209–219. | Zbl | DOI
[48] , Technology and public goods. J. Public Econ. 26 (1985) 379–400. | DOI
[49] , Nonjoint production and the cost function: Some refinements. J. Econ. 46 (1986) 283–297. | MR | Zbl | DOI
[50] , and , A Bayesian analysis of multiple-output production frontiers. J. Econ. 98 (2000) 47–79. | Zbl | DOI
[51] , and , Multiple-output production with undesirable outputs: An application to nitrogen surplus in agriculture. J. Amer. Stat. Assoc. 97 (2002) 432–442. | MR | Zbl | DOI
[52] , and , Alternative efficiency measures for multiple-output production. J. Econ. 126 (2005) 411–444. | MR | Zbl | DOI
[53] and , Model comparison of coordinate-free multivariate skewed distributions with an application to stochastic frontiers. J. Econ. 137 (2007) 641–673. | MR | Zbl | DOI
[54] , , , and , Opening the black box of efficiency measurement: Input allocation in multi-output settings. Oper. Res. 61 (2013) 1148–1165. | MR | Zbl | DOI
[55] , and , Multi-output efficiency with good and bad outputs. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 240 (2015) 872–881. | Zbl | DOI
[56] , and , Multi-output profit efficiency and directional distance functions. Omega 61 (2016) 100–109. | DOI
[57] , A multi-sector nonparametric production-frontier analysis of the economic growth and the convergence of the European countries. Pac. Econ. Rev. 21 (2016) 498–524. | DOI
[58] , Growth and convergence of the OECD countries: A multi-sector production-frontier approach. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 252 (2016) 665–675. | MR | Zbl | DOI
[59] , Economic growth and greenhouse gases in Europe: A non-radial multi-sector nonparametric production-frontier analysis. Energy Economics 74 (2018) 51–62. | DOI
[60] , Cost Malmquist productivity index: An output-specific approach for group comparison. J. Prod. Anal. 49 (2018) 79–94. | DOI
[61] , Disaggregation of the Cost Malmquist productivity index with joint and output-specific inputs. Omega 75 (2018) 1–12. | DOI
[62] , Scale efficiency for multi-output cost minimizing producers: The case of the US electricity plants. Energy Econ. 70 (2018) 26–36. | DOI
[63] and , Profit Luenberger and Malmquist-Luenberger indexes for multi-activity decision making units: The case of the star-rated hotel industry in China. Tourism Management 69 (2020) 1–11. | DOI
[64] and , Restricting multiple-output multiple-input DEA models by disaggregating the output-input vector. J. Prod. Anal. 24 (2005) 5–29. | DOI
[65] , and , DEA-R: Ratio-based comparative efficiency model, its mathematical relation to DEA and its use in applications. J. Prod. Anal. 28 (2007) 33–44. | DOI
[66] , and , Cost-efficient production behavior under economies of scope: A nonparametric methodology. Oper. Res. 56 (2008) 204–221. | MR | Zbl | DOI
[67] and , Network DEA. Socio-Econ. Plan. Sci. 34 (2000) 35–49. | DOI
[68] , and , Network DEA. In: Modeling Data Irregularities and Structural Complexities in Data Envelopment Analysis, edited by and . Springer (2007). | Zbl
[69] and , Network DEA: A slacks-based measure approach. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 197 (2009) 243–252. | Zbl | DOI
[70] , Malmquist productivity index for multi-output producers: An application to electricity generation plants. Socio-Econ. Plan. Sci. 65 (2018) 76–88. | DOI
[71] , Allocating fixed costs and resources via data envelopment analysis. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 147 (2003) 198–216. | Zbl | DOI
[72] , , and , Allocating the fixed cost as a complement of other cost inputs: A DEA approach. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 197 (2009) 389–401. | MR | Zbl | DOI
[73] , and , Human resource rightsizing using centralized data envelopment analysis: Evidence from Taiwan’s airports. Omega 41 (2013) 119–130. | DOI
[74] and , Solving DEA models in a single optimization stage: Can the non-Archimedean infinitesimal be replaced by a small finite epsilon? Eur. J. Oper. Res. 257 (2017) 412–419. | MR | Zbl | DOI
[75] , On the uniqueness of solutions to linear programs. J. Oper. Res. Soc. 53 (2002) 1127–1132. | Zbl | DOI
[76] , and , Cross-efficiency in DEA: A maximum resonated appreciative model. Measurement 63 (2015) 159–167. | DOI
[77] and , Aggregation of cost efficiency: Indicators and indexes across firms. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 146 (2003) 615–620. | MR | Zbl
[78] , A scale elasticity measure for directional distance function and its dual: Theory and DEA estimation. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 228 (2006) 592–600. | MR | Zbl | DOI
[79] , Aggregation of scale efficiency. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 240 (2016) 269–277. | MR | Zbl | DOI
[80] and , Aggregation of Malmquist productivity indexes allowing for reallocation of resources. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 238 (2014) 774–785. | MR | Zbl | DOI
[81] and , The denominator rule for share-weighting aggregation. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 260 (2017) 1175–1180. | MR | Zbl | DOI
[82] , Aggregation of metafrontier technology gap ratios: The case of European sectors in 1995–2015. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 269 (2018) 1013–1026. | MR | Zbl | DOI
[83] , Scale, congestion, and technical efficiency of European countries: A sector-based nonparametric approach. Empir. Econ. 56 (2019) 2025–2078. | DOI
[84] , , and , Weight restrictions and value judgements in DEA: Evolution, development and future directions. Ann. Oper. Res. 45 (1997) 2313–2316.
[85] , and , The law of one price in data envelopment analysis: Restricting weight flexibility across firms. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 170 (2006) 735–757. | Zbl | DOI
[86] , and , On the role of weight restrictions in data envelopment analysis. J. Prod. Anal. 8 (1997) 215–230. | DOI
[87] , and , A study on the ranking performance of some MCDM methods for industrial robot selection problems. Int. J. Ind. Eng. Comput. 7 (2016) 399–422.
[88] and , A solution to robot selection problems using data envelopment analysis. Int. J. Ind. Eng. Comput. 4 (2013) 355–372.
[89] , Strategic evaluation and selection of R&D projects. R&D Manage. 19 (1989) 47–62. | DOI
[90] and , Recent progress in modeling R&D project-selection processes. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manage. 39 (1992) 189–201. | DOI
[91] and , A practical R&D project-selection scoring tool. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manage. 46 (1999) 158–170. | DOI
[92] and , R&D project selection using the analytic network process. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manage. 49 (2002) 59–66. | DOI
[93] and , Evaluating and selecting investments in industrial robots. Int. J. Prod. Res. 37 (1999) 4157–4178. | Zbl | DOI
[94] , and , A methodology for collective evaluation and selection of industrial R&D projects. Manage. sci. 37 (1991) 871–885. | Zbl | DOI
[95] , , and , DEA cross-efficiency evaluation based on Pareto improvement. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 248 (2016) 571–579. | MR | Zbl | DOI
Cité par Sources :
