A new hybrid method for the fair assignment of productivity targets to indirect corporate processes

References

• Adler, N., Liebert, V., & Yazhemsky, E. (2013). Benchmarking airports from a managerial perspective. Omega, 41(2), 442–458. doi: 10.1016/j.omega.2012.02.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Asmild, M., Paradi, J. C., & Pastor, J. T. (2009). Centralized resource allocation BCC models. Omega, 37(1), 40–49. doi: 10.1016/j.omega.2006.07.006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barnum, D. T., Karlaftis, G. M., & Tandon, S. (2011). Improving the efficiency of metropolitan area transit by joint analysis of its multiple providers. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 47(6), 1160–1176. doi: 10.1016/j.tre.2011.04.006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Becker, H.-H., Deiwiks, J., Faust, P., Horzella, A., & Thesling, U. (2007). Prozessoptimierung im Indirekten Bereich. VW Abgasanlage in Kassel steigert Wettbewerbsfähigkeit. Zwf Zeitschrift Für Wirtschaftlichen Fabrikbetrieb, 102(11), 771–774. doi: 10.3139/104.101216
   Google Scholar
• Bertsimas, D., Farias, V. F., & Trichakis, N. (2012). On the efficiency-fairness trade-off. Management Science, 58(12), 2234–2250. doi: 10.1287/mnsc.1120.1549
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Castelli, L., Pesenti, R., & Ukovich, W. (2001). DEA-like models for efficiency evaluations of specialized and interdependent units. European Journal of Operational Research, 132(2), 274–286. doi: 10.1016/S0377-2217(00)00151-X
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Charnes, A., Cooper, W., & Rhodes, E. (1978). Measuring the efficiency of decision making units. European Journal of Operational Research, 2(6), 429–444. doi: 10.1016/0377-2217(78)90138-8
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cook, W. D., Harrison, J., Imanirad, R., Rouse, P., & Zhu, J. (2013). Data Envelopment Analysis with Nonhomogeneous DMUs. Operations Research, 61(3), 666–676. doi: 10.1287/opre.2013.1173
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dyson, R. G., Allen, R., Camanho, A. S., Podinovski, V. V., Sarrico, C. S., & Shale, E. A. (2001). Pitfalls and protocols in DEA. European Journal of Operational Research, 132(2), 245–259. doi: 10.1016/S0377-2217(00)00149-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Edwards, W., & Barron, F. H. (1994). SMARTS and SMARTER: Improved Simple Methods for Multiattribute Utility Measurement. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 60(3), 306–325. doi: 10.1006/obhd.1994.1087
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Farquhar, P. F. (1984). Utility assessment methods. Management Science, 30(11), 1283–1300. doi: 10.1287/mnsc.30.11.1283
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gomes, E. G., de Mello, J. C. C. B. S., & de Freitas, A. C. R. (2012). Efficiency measures for a non-homogeneous group of family farmers. Pesquisa Operacional, 32(3), 561–574. doi: 10.1590/S0101-74382012005000026
   Google Scholar
• Goodwin, P., & Wright, G. (2004). Decision Analysis for Management Judgment (3rd ed). Chichester: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Grosfeld-Nir, A., Ronen, B., & Kozlovsky, N. (2007). The Pareto managerial principle: When does it apply? International Journal of Production Economics, 45(10), 2317–2325. doi: 10.1080/00207540600818203
   Google Scholar
• Heldmann, M., Vogt, B., Heinze, H.-J., & Münte, T. E. (2009). Different methods to define utility functions yield similar results but engage different neural processes. Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, 3, 1–9. doi: 10.3389/neuro.08.043.2009
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hooker, J. N., & Williams, H. P. (2012). Combining equity and utilitarianism in a mathematical programming model. Management Science, 58(9), 1682–1693. doi: 10.1287/mnsc.1120.1515
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ihrig, S., Ishizaka, A., & Mohnen, A. (2017). Target setting for indirect processes: A new hybrid method for the continuous improvement management of indirect processes. Production Planning and Control, 28(3), 220–231. doi: 10.1080/09537287.2016.1254830
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jacquet-Lagreze, E., & Siskos, J. (1982). Assessing a set of additive utility functions for multicriteria decision-making, the UTA method. European Journal of Operational Research, 10(2), 151. doi: 10.1016/0377-2217(82)90155-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Korhonen, P., & Syrjänen, M. (2004). Resource allocation based on efficiency analysis. Management Science, 50(8), 1134–1144. doi: 10.1287/mnsc.1040.0244
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee, H., Park, Y., & Choi, H. (2009). Comparative evaluation of performance of national R&D programs with heterogeneous objectives: A DEA approach. European Journal of Operational Research, 196(3), 847–855. doi: 10.1016/j.ejor.2008.06.016
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee, J., & Covell, M. (2008). A strategic approach to overhead management. Strategy & Leadership, 36(2), 40–46. doi: 10.1108/10878570810858202
   Google Scholar
• Lozano, S. (2014). Company-wide production planning using a multiple technology DEA approach. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 65(5), 723–734. doi: 10.1057/jors.2012.171
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lozano, S., & Villa, G. (2004). Centralized resource allocation using data envelopment analysis. Journal of Productivity Analysis, 22(1/2), 143–161. doi: 10.1023/B:PROD.0000034748.22820.33
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lozano, S., Villa, G., & Adenso-Dı́az, B. (2004). Centralised target setting for regional recycling operations using DEA. Omega, 32(2), 101–110. doi: 10.1016/j.omega.2003.09.012
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Medal-Bartual, A., Garcia-Martin, C.-J., & Sala-Garrido, R. (2012). Efficiency analysis of small franchise enterprises through a DEA metafrontier model. Service Industries Journal, 32(15), 2421–2434. doi: 10.1080/02642069.2012.677829
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meza, L. A., Neto, L. B., Brandão, L. C., Andrade, F. do. V. S., Mello, de. J. C. C. B. S., & Coelho, P. H. G. (2011). Modelling with self-organising maps and data envelopment analysis: A case study in educational evaluation. In J. I. Mwasiagi (Ed.), Self organizing maps – Applications and novel algorithm design (pp. 71–88). Rijeka: InTech.
   Google Scholar
• Murthy, I., & Sarkar, S. (1998). Stochastic shortest path problems with piecewise-linear concave utility functions. Management Science, 44(11-part-2), S125–S136. doi: 10.1287/mnsc.44.11.S125
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ogryczak, W., Wierzbicki, A., & Milewski, M. (2008). A multi-criteria approach to fair and efficient bandwidth allocation. Omega, 36(3), 451–463. doi: 10.1016/j.omega.2005.12.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paradi, J. C., & Zhu, H. (2013). A survey on bank branch efficiency and performance research with data envelopment analysis. Omega, 41(1), 61–79. doi: 10.1016/j.omega.2011.08.010
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Saen, R. F., Memariani, A., & Lotfi, F. H. (2005). Determining relative efficiency of slightly non-homogeneous decision making units by data envelopment analysis: A case study in IROST. Applied Mathematics and Computation, 165(2), 313–328. doi: 10.1016/j.amc.2004.04.050
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sala-Garrido, R., Molinos-Senante, M., & Hernández-Sancho, F. (2011). Comparing the efficiency of wastewater treatment technologies through a DEA metafrontier model. Chemical Engineering Journal, 173(3), 766–772. doi: 10.1016/j.cej.2011.08.047
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Samoilenko, S., & Osei-Bryson, K.-M. (2008). Increasing the discriminatory power of DEA in the presence of the sample heterogeneity with cluster analysis and decision trees. Expert Systems with Applications, 34(2), 1568–1581. doi: 10.1016/j.eswa.2007.01.039
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Samoilenko, S., & Osei-Bryson, K.-M. (2010). Determining sources of relative inefficiency in heterogeneous samples: Methodology using Cluster Analysis, DEA and Neural Networks. European Journal of Operational Research, 206(2), 479–487. doi: 10.1016/j.ejor.2010.02.017
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Seidenschwarz & Comp. GmbH, Pedell, B, & SAS Institute GmbH (Eds.). (2009). Kostenmanagement in Deutschland. Status Erwartungen Potenziale. Eine Benchmark-Studie zur Optimierung indirekter Bereiche.
   Google Scholar
• Sengupta, J. K. (2005). Data envelopment analysis with heterogeneous data: An application. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 56(6), 676–686. doi: 10.1057/palgrave.jors.2601861
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sharma, M. J., & Yu, S. J. (2009). Performance based stratification and clustering for benchmarking of container terminals. Expert Systems with Applications, 36(3), 5016–5022. doi: 10.1016/j.eswa.2008.06.010
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tao, L. (2013). Study on DEA method of multiple environmental character variable (ECV) grouping in DMU environment heterogeneity situation. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Information Management, Innovation Management and Industrial Engineering (pp. 125–129), Xi'an: China.
   Google Scholar
• Tiedemann, T., Francksen, T., & Latacz-Lohmann, U. (2011). Assessing the performance of German Bundesliga football players: A non-parametric metafrontier approach. Central European Journal of Operations Research, 19(4), 571–587. doi: 10.1007/s10100-010-0146-7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang, Q., Zhao, Z., Zhou, P., & Zhou, D. (2013). Energy efficiency and production technology heterogeneity in China: A meta-frontier DEA approach. Economic Modelling, 35, 283–289. doi: 10.1016/j.econmod.2013.07.017
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Williams, A., & Cookson, R. (2000). Equity in health. In A. J. Culyer & J. P. Newhouse (Eds.), Handbook of Health Economics (pp. 1863–1910). Amsterdam: Elsevier Science.
   Google Scholar
• De Witte, K., & Marques, R. C. (2010). Incorporating heterogeneity in non-parametric models: A methodological comparison. International Journal of Operational Research, 9(2), 188–204. doi: 10.1504/IJOR.2010.035044
   Google Scholar
• Wu, J., Zhou, Z., & Tsai, H. (2012). Measuring and decomposing efficiency in international tourist hotels in Taipei Using a multidivision DEA model. International Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Administration, 13(4), 259–280. doi: 10.1080/15256480.2012.722505
   Google Scholar