A unique mathematical programming algorithm for performance optimization of organizational indicators in manufacturing sector

References

• Wickramasinghe D, Wickramasinghe V. Differences in organizational factors by lean duration. Oper Manag Res. 2011;4:111–126.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ahilan C, Edwin Raja Dhas J, Somasundaram K, et al. Performance assessment of heat exchanger using intelligent decision making tools. Appl Soft Comput. 2015;26:474–482.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harris TJ, Seppala CT, Desborough LD. A review of performance monitoring and assessment techniques for univariate and multivariate control systems. J Process Control. 1999;9:1–17.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shaw A. A guide to performance measurement and non-financial indicators. Surrey, United Kingdom: The Foundation for Performance Measurement; 1999.
   Google Scholar
• Hitchens D, Birnie JE, Wagner K. A matched plant comparison of productivity in East and West Germany: transition to the market economy. Omega (Westport). 1996;24(3):347–372.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hitomi K. Efficiency analysis of Japan’s industry and manufacturing. Technovation. 2004;24(9):741–748.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hong HK, Ha SH, Shin CK, et al. Evaluating the efficiency of integration projects using DEA and machine learning. Expert Syst Appl. 1999;16:283–296.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Madu C. Reliability and quality interface. Int J Qual Reliab Manage. 1999;16(7):691–698.
   Google Scholar
• Bhat VN. A multivariate analysis of airline flight delays. Int J Qual Reliab Manage. 1995;12(2):54–59.
   Google Scholar
• Madsen TK. Successful export marketing management: some empirical evidence. Int Marketing Rev. 1989;6(4):41–57.
   Google Scholar
• Mehrez A, Hu H, Offodile F. Multivariate economic analysis of robot performance repeatability and accuracy. J Manuf Syst. 1996;15(4):215–226.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen LH, Kao C, Kuo S, et al. Productivity diagnosis via fuzzy clustering and classification: an application to machinery industry. Omega (Westport). 1996;24(3):309–315.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guimaraes T, Matensson N, Stahre J, et al. Empirically testing the impact of manufacturing complexity on performance. Int J Oper Prod Manage. 1999;19(12):1254–1269.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Terziovski M. Achieving performance excellence through integrated strategy of radical innovation and continuous improvement. Measuring Bus Excellence. 2002;6(2):5–14.
   Google Scholar
• Kumar S. Application of multivariate analysis techniques in understanding industrial process: a pulp mill example, pulping and bleaching analysis and control group. USA: University of Washington; 1998.
   Google Scholar
• Feroz EH, Raab R, Haag S. An income efficiency model approach to the economic consequences of OSHA cotton dust regulation. Aust J Manag. 2001;26(1):69–89.
   Google Scholar
• Karakaya F, Canel C. Underlying dimensions of business location. Ind Manage Data Syst. 1998;98:321–329.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meade N. Strategic positioning in UK car market. Eur J Marketing. 1987;21(5):43–57.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Salehi V, Veitch B, Musharraf M. Measuring and improving adaptive capacity in resilient systems by means of an integrated DEA-Machine learning approach. Appl Ergon. 2019;82:102975.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Triantis K, Girod O. A mathematical programming approach for measuring technical efficiency in a fuzzy environment. J Productivity Anal. 1998;10:85–102.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xu M, Wang X, Zhao L. Predicted supply chain resilience based on structural evolution against random supply disruptions. Int J Systems Sci Oper Logist. 2014;1(2):105–117.
   Google Scholar
• Yoo H. A study on the efficiency evaluation of total quality management activities in Korean companies. Total Qual Manag Bus. 2003;14(1):119–128.
   Google Scholar
• Yadav SSK, Abidi N, Bandyopadhayay A. Development of the Environmental Sustainability Indicator Profile for ITeS Industry. Procedia Comput Sci. 2017;122:423–430.
   Google Scholar
• da Silva FA, Borsato M. Organizational performance and indicators: trends and opportunities. Procedia manufacturing. 2017;11:1925–1932.
   Google Scholar
• Novak A. Knowledge management and organizational performance–literature review in management challenges in a network economy. MakeLearn and TIIM International Conference; May 17–19; Lublin, Poland; 2017.
   Google Scholar
• Defersh FM, Salam A, Bhuiyan N. A new approach for product cost estimation using data envelopment analysis. Int J Ind Eng Computations. 2012;3:817–828.
   Google Scholar
• Azadeh A, Ghaderi SF, Omrani H. A deterministic approach for performance assessment and optimization of power distribution units in Iran. Energy Policy. 2009;37(1):274–280.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wu J, Sun J, Liang L. DEA cross-efficiency aggregation method based upon Shannon entropy. Int J P Res. 2012;50(23):6726–6736.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Amin GR, Toloo M, Sohrabi B. An improved MCDM DEA model for technology selection. Int J P Res. 2007;44(13):2681–2686.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Toloo M. An epsilon-free approach for finding the most efficient unit in DEA. Appl Math Modell. 2014;38:3182–3192.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mondal S, Chakraborty S. A solution to robot selection problems using data envelopment analysis. Int J Ind Eng Computations. 2013;4:355–372.
   Google Scholar
• Al-Refaie A. A proposed satisfaction function model to optimize process performance with multiple quality responses in the Taguchi method. J Eng Manuf. 2014;228(2):291–301.
   Google Scholar
• Zhang X, Deng Y, Chan FT, et al. Supplier selection based on evidence theory and analytic network process. J Eng Manuf. 2016;230(3):562–573.
   Google Scholar
• Ganegoda A, Evans J. A framework to manage the measurable, immeasurable and the unidentifiable financial risk. Aust J Manag. 2014;39:5–34.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hatami-Marbini A, Saati S, Tavana M. An ideal-seeking fuzzy data envelopment analysis framework. Appl Soft Comput. 2010;10(4):1062–1070.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hatami A, Saati S. Stability of RTS of efficient DMUs in DEA with fuzzy u0 under fuzzy data. Appl Math Sci. 2009;3(44):2157–2166.
   Google Scholar
• Saati S, Hatami-Marbini A, Makui A. An application of fuzzy numbers ranking in performance analysis. J Appl Sci. 2009;9(9):1770–1775.
   Google Scholar
• Kao C, Liu ST. Fuzzy EFfiCIENCY MEASURES IN DATA ENVELOPMENT ANALYSIS. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 2000;113(3):427–437.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Agrawal AK, Graham SJH, Rysman MS. Industry standards, intellectual property, and innovation: introduction to the special issue. Int J Ind Organ. 2014;36:1–3.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Azadeh A, Moghaddam M, Asadzadeh SM, et al. An integrated fuzzy simulation-fuzzy data envelopment analysis algorithm for job-shop layout optimization: the case of injection process with ambiguous data. Eur J Oper Res. 2011;214(3):768–779.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Azadeh A, Saberi M, Anvari M. An integrated artificial neural network fuzzy c-means-normalization algorithm for performance assessment of decision-making units: the cases of auto industry and power plant. Comput Ind Eng. 2011;60:328–340.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davenport TH. Process innovation, reengineering work through information technology. Brighton (MA): Harvard Business Review; 1993.
   Google Scholar
• Kaplan RS, Norton DP. Balanced scorecard: translating strategy into action. Brighton (MA): Harvard Business Review; 1996.
   Google Scholar
• Rucci AJ, Kirn SP, Quinn RT. The employee–customer profit chain at sears. Harv Bus Rev. From the January–February; 1998.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shingo S. A revolution in manufacturing. Boca Raton (FL): Productivity Press, CRC Press, Taylor & Francis; 1985.
   Google Scholar
• Simons R. Performance measurement and control systems for implementing strategy. New York: Prentice Hall; 2000.
   Google Scholar
• Hax AC, Majluf NS. The strategy approach and process: a pragmatic approach. New York: Prentice Hall; 1996.
   Google Scholar
• Kaplan RS, Norton DP. Putting balanced scorecard to work. Harv Bus Rev. From the September–October; 1993;134–147.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Proud JF. Master scheduling: a practical guide to competitive manufacturing. New York: Wiley and Sons; 1999.
   Google Scholar
• Schneiderman AM. Why balanced scorecard failed. J Strategic Perform Meas. 1999;2(11):6–11.
   Google Scholar
• Schneiderman M. Measurement: the bridge between the hard and soft sides. J Strategic Perform Meas. 1998;2(2):14–21.
   Google Scholar
• Waller DL. Operation management: a supply chain approach. Virginia: International Business Press; 1999.
   Google Scholar
• Zain Mohammed M, Rickards T. Assessing and comparing the innovativeness and creative climate of firms. Scand J Manag. 1996;96(3–6):109–121.
   Google Scholar
• Port O, Smith G. Quality: small and midsize companies seize the challenge – not a moment too soon. Bus Week. 1992;30:66–75.
   Google Scholar
• Azadeh A, Nasirian B, Salehi V, et al. Integration of PCA and DEA for identifying and improving the impact of Six Sigma implementation on job characteristics in an automotive industry. Qual Eng. 2017;29(2):273–290.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Azadeh A, Roudi E, Salehi V. Optimum design approach based on integrated macro-ergonomics and resilience engineering in a tile and ceramic factory. Saf Sci. 2017;96:62–74.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Azadeh A, Salehi V, Kianpour M. Performance evaluation of rail transportation systems by considering resilience engineering factors: tehran railway electrification system. Transp Lett. 2018;10(1):12–25.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• United Nations Industrial Development Organization. International year book of industrial statistics. New York (NY): Co-publisher Edward Elgar; 1999.
   Google Scholar
• US department of labor multifactor productivity measures for three-digit sic manufacturing industries. US Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, December, Report 948; 2000.
   Google Scholar
• World Bank. World Development Report; 1995.
   Google Scholar
• World Bank. World Development Indicators. 1998.
   Google Scholar