Annals of Operations Research

, Volume 275, Issue 2, pp 461–484 | Cite as

Supply chain performance evaluation using fuzzy network data envelopment analysis: a case study in automotive industry

  • Yongbo Li
  • Amir-Reza AbtahiEmail author
  • Mahya Seyedan
Original Research


Supply chain performance evaluation problems are evaluated using data envelopment analysis. This paper proposes a fuzzy network epsilon-based data envelopment analysis for supply chain performance evaluation. In the common data envelopment analysis models which are used for evaluation of decision-maker units efficiency, there are several inputs and outputs. One of the bugs of such models is that the intermediate products and linking activities are overlooked. Considering these intermediate activities and products, the current study evaluates the performance of decision-maker units in an automotive supply chain. There are ten decision-maker units in the supply chain in which there are three suppliers, two manufacturers, two distributors, and four customers. Moreover, the overall efficiency of input-oriented (input-based) model and input-oriented divisional efficiency are calculated. In order to improve the efficiencies, the projections onto the frontiers are obtained by using the outputs of the solved model and Lingo software. In order to show the applicability of the proposed model, it is applied on automotive industry, as a case study, to evaluate supply chain performance. Then, the overall efficiencies of DMUs and each sections (divisions) of DMUs were calculated separately. Therefore, every organization can apply this evaluation method for improving the performance of alternative factors.


Supply chain management Performance measurement Network DEA Fuzzy DEA 



The authors would like to thank the anonymous reviewers and the editor for their insightful comments and suggestions. The work funded by National Social Science Foundation of China. Grant Number: 14 BJL045; The Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities of China. Grant Number: 15CX05006B.


  1. Azadi, M., Jafarian, M., Saen, R. F., & Mirhedayatian, S. M. (2015). A new fuzzy DEA model for evaluation of efficiency and effectiveness of suppliers in sustainable supply chain management context. Computers & Operations Research, 54, 274–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Azadi, M., Shabani, A., Khodakarami, M., & Saen, R. F. (2014). Planning in feasible region by two-stage target-setting DEA methods: An application in green supply chain management of public transportation service providers. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 70, 324–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Balfaqih, H., Nopiah, Z. M., Saibani, N., & Al-Nory, M. T. (2016). Review of supply chain performance measurement systems: 1998–2015. Computers in Industry, 82, 135–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beamon, B. M. (1999). Measuring supply chain performance. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 19(3), 275–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Camm, J. D., Chorman, T. E., Dull, F. A., Evans, J. R., Sweeney, D. J., & Wegryn, G. W. (1997). Blending OR/MS, judgment, and GIS: Restructuring P&G’s supply chain. Interfaces, 27(1), 128–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chan, F. T. S., & Qi, H. J. (2003). An innovative performance measurement method for supply chain management. Supply Chain Management, 8(3), 209–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chen, C., & Yan, H. (2011). Network DEA model for supply chain performance evaluation. European Journal of Operational Research, 213(1), 147–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chen, Y. J. (2011). Structured methodology for supplier selection and evaluation in a supply chain. Information Sciences, 181(9), 1651–1670.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Christopher, M. (1992). Logistics and supply chain management: Strategies for reducing costs and improving services (Vol. 1). London: Financial Times.Google Scholar
  10. Cohen, M. A., & Lee, H. L. (1989). Resource deployment analysis of global manufacturing and distribution networks. Journal of Manufacturing and Operations Management, 2, 81–104.Google Scholar
  11. Costa, A. S., Govindan, K., & Figueira, J. R. (2018). Supplier classification in emerging economies using the ELECTRE TRI-nC method: A case study considering sustainability aspects. Journal of Cleaner Production, 201, 925–947.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. De Toni, A., & Tonchia, S. (2001). Performance measurement systems-models, characteristics and measures. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 21(1/2), 46–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Devika, K., Jafarian, A., & Nourbakhsh, V. (2014). Designing a sustainable closed-loop supply chain network based on triple bottom line approach: A comparison of metaheuristics hybridization techniques. European Journal of Operational Research, 235(3), 594–615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Five Winds Asset Management International (2018). Accessed Aug 2018.
  15. Garvin, D. A. (1993). Manufacturing strategic planning. California Management Review, 35(4), 85–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Govindan, K., Jafarian, A., Khodaverdi, R., & Devika, K. (2014). Two-echelon multiple-vehicle location–routing problem with time windows for optimization of sustainable supply chain network of perishable food. International Journal of Production Economics, 152, 9–28.Google Scholar
  17. Govindan, K., Soleimani, H., & Kannan, D. (2015). Reverse logistics and closed-loop supply chain: A comprehensive review to explore the future. European Journal of Operational Research, 240(3), 603–626.Google Scholar
  18. Haghighi, S. M., Torabi, S. A., & Ghasemi, R. (2016). An integrated approach for performance evaluation in sustainable supply chain networks (with a case study). Journal of Cleaner Production, 137, 579–597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Halkos, G., Tzeremes, N., & Kourtzidis, S. (2011). The use of supply chain DEA models in operations management: A survey. Online at
  20. Halme, M., Joro, T., Korhonen, P., Salo, S., & Wallenius, J. (1999). A value efficiency approach to incorporating preference information in data envelopment analysis. Management Science, 45(1), 103–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hatami-Marbini, A., Ebrahimnejad, A., & Lozano, S. (2017). Fuzzy efficiency measures in data envelopment analysis using lexicographic multiobjective approach. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 105, 362–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Holmberg, S. (2000). A systems perspective on supply chain measurements. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 30(10), 847–868.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jakhar, S. K. (2015). Performance evaluation and a flow allocation decision model for a sustainable supply chain of an apparel industry. Journal of Cleaner Production, 87, 391–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Jalali Naini, S. G., Aliahmadi, A. R., & Jafari-Eskandari, M. (2011). Designing a mixed performance measurement system for environmental supply chain management using evolutionary game theory and balanced scorecard: A case study of an auto industry supply chain. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 55(6), 593–603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kannan, D. (2018). Role of multiple stakeholders and the critical success factor theory for the sustainable supplier selection process. International Journal of Production Economics, 195, 391–418.Google Scholar
  26. Kannan, D., de Sousa Jabbour, A. B. L., & Jabbour, C. J. C. (2014). Selecting green suppliers based on GSCM practices: Using fuzzy TOPSIS applied to a Brazilian electronics company. European Journal of Operational Research, 233(2), 432–447.Google Scholar
  27. Kao, T. W. D., Simpson, N. C., Shao, B. B., & Lin, W. T. (2017). Relating supply network structure to productive efficiency: A multi-stage empirical investigation. European Journal of Operational Research, 259(2), 469–485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Khalili-Damghani, K., & Taghavifard, M. (2012). A three-stage fuzzy DEA approach to measure performance of a serial process including JIT practices, agility indices, and goals in supply chains. International Journal of Services and Operations Management, 13(2), 147–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Khalili-Damghani, K., Taghavi-Fard, M., & Abtahi, A. R. (2012). A fuzzy two-stage DEA approach for performance measurement: Real case of agility performance in dairy supply chains. International Journal of Applied Decision Sciences, 5(4), 293–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Khalili-Damghani, K., Taghavifard, M., Olfat, L., & Feizi, K. (2011). A hybrid approach based on fuzzy DEA and simulation to measure the efficiency of agility in supply chain: Real case of dairy industry. International Journal of Management Science and Engineering Management, 6(3), 163–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Khalili-Damghani, K., & Tavana, M. (2013). A new fuzzy network data envelopment analysis model for measuring the performance of agility in supply chains. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 69(1–4), 291–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Khodakarami, M., Shabani, A., Saen, R. F., & Azadi, M. (2015). Developing distinctive two-stage data envelopment analysis models: An application in evaluating the sustainability of supply chain management. Measurement, 70, 62–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Korhonen, P., Tainio, R., & Wallenius, J. (2001). Value efficiency analysis of academic research. European Journal of Operational Research, 130(1), 121–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Li, Y., Kannan, D., Garg, K., Gupta, S., Gandhi, K. & Jha, P. C. (2018). Business orientation policy and process analysis evaluation for establishing third party providers of reverse logistics services. Journal of Cleaner Production, 182, 1033–1047.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Liang, T. F. (2011). Application of fuzzy sets to manufacturing/distribution planning decisions in supply chains. Information Sciences, 181(4), 842–854.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Long, Q. (2017). A framework for data-driven computational experiments of inter-organizational collaborations in supply chain networks. Information Sciences. Scholar
  37. Mirhedayatian, S. M., Azadi, M., & Saen, R. F. (2014). A novel network data envelopment analysis model for evaluating green supply chain management. International Journal of Production Economics, 147, 544–554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Olfat, L., Amiri, M., Soufi, B. J., & Pishdar, M. (2016). A dynamic network efficiency measurement of airports performance considering sustainable development concept: A fuzzy dynamic network-DEA approach. Journal of Air Transport Management, 57, 272–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Pasandideh, S. H. R., Niaki, S. T. A., & Asadi, K. (2015). Bi-objective optimization of a multi-product multi-period three-echelon supply chain problem under uncertain environments: NSGA-II and NRGA. Information Sciences, 292, 57–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Pramanik, S., Jana, D. K., Mondal, S. K., & Maiti, M. (2015). A fixed-charge transportation problem in two-stage supply chain network in Gaussian type-2 fuzzy environments. Information Sciences, 325, 190–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Puri, J., & Yadav, S. P. (2014). A fuzzy DEA model with undesirable fuzzy outputs and its application to the banking sector in India. Expert Systems with Applications, 41(14), 6419–6432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Soheilirad, S., Govindan, K., Mardani, A., Zavadskas, E. K., Nilashi, M., & Zakuan, N. (2017). Application of data envelopment analysis models in supply chain management: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Annals of Operations Research, 1–55. Scholar
  43. Tavana, M., Kaviani, M. A., Di Caprio, D., & Rahpeyma, B. (2016). A two-stage data envelopment analysis model for measuring performance in three-level supply chains. Measurement, 78, 322–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Tavana, M., Mirzagoltabar, H., Mirhedayatian, S. M., Farzipoor Saen, R., & Azadi, M. (2013). A new network epsilon-based DEA model for supply chain performance evaluation. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 66(2), 501–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Tavana, M., Shiraz, R. K., Hatami-Marbini, A., Agrell, P. J., & Paryab, K. (2012). Fuzzy stochastic data envelopment analysis with application to base realignment and closure (BRAC). Expert Systems with Applications, 39(15), 12247–12259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Toloo, M., & Tavana, M. (2017). A novel method for selecting a single efficient unit in data envelopment analysis without explicit inputs/outputs. Annals of Operations Research, 253(1), 657–681.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Tone, K. (2001). A slacks-based measure of efficiency in data envelopment analysis. European Journal of Operational Research, 130(3), 498–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Tone, K., & Tsutsui, M. (2009). Network DEA: A slacks-based measure approach. European Journal of Operational Research, 197(1), 243–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Tone, K., & Tsutsui, M. (2010). An epsilon-based measure of efficiency in DEA-A third pole of technical efficiency. European Journal of Operational Research, 207(3), 1554–1563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Wan, S. P., Xu, G. L., & Dong, J. Y. (2017). Supplier selection using ANP and ELECTRE II in interval 2-tuple linguistic environment. Information Sciences, 385, 19–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Wu, D., Wu, D. D., Zhang, Y., & Olson, D. L. (2013). Supply chain outsourcing risk using an integrated stochastic-fuzzy optimization approach. Information Sciences, 235, 242–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Yang, F., Wu, D., Liang, L., Bi, G., & Wu, D. D. (2011). Supply chain DEA: Production possibility set and performance evaluation model. Annals of Operations Research, 185(1), 195–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Economics and ManagementChina University of Petroleum (East China)QingdaoPeople’s Republic of China
  2. 2.Department of Information Technology ManagementKharazmi UniversityTehranIran
  3. 3.Concordia Institute for Information Systems EngineeringConcordia UniversityMontrealCanada

Personalised recommendations