IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ids/ijmore/v2y2010i5p614-633.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Quantitative modelling of benchmarking process

Author

Listed:
  • Ayeley Philippe Tchangani

Abstract

In this paper, we consider the problem of establishing a quantitative model allowing, given a set of production units (enterprises, plants, banks, university departments, etc.), to determine those units that can be considered as benchmarks in terms of production efficiency and to evaluate for a unit, that is not a benchmark the gap that separates it from the benchmarks. A production unit is considered here as a transformation centre that consumes resources (input items) of different nature (information, human resources, energy, money, etc.) to deliver some products (output items) of different nature as well (manufactured products, services, information, energy, etc.). This benchmarking problem is, therefore, a multicriteria ranking problem that necessitates sensitivity analysis process to determine which items a given unit must improve in order to become as efficient as benchmark unit(s). We propose in this paper to formulate this problem using satisficing games, an evaluation method, that is, based on two measures namely selectability measure (that measures production level) and rejectability measure (that is, related to resources consumption) for each unit or alternative. Units for which the selectability measure exceeds the rejectability one will be considered as satisficing units and the benchmark units are those satisficing units that are not dominated.

Suggested Citation

  • Ayeley Philippe Tchangani, 2010. "Quantitative modelling of benchmarking process," International Journal of Mathematics in Operational Research, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 2(5), pages 614-633.
  • Handle: RePEc:ids:ijmore:v:2:y:2010:i:5:p:614-633
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.inderscience.com/link.php?id=34343
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ids:ijmore:v:2:y:2010:i:5:p:614-633. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sarah Parker (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.inderscience.com/browse/index.php?journalID=320 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.