INDEPENDENT JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT & PRODUCTION (IJM&P)

http://www.ijmp.jor.br v. 12, n. 2, March-April 2021

ISSN: 2236-269X
DOI: 10.14807/ijmp.v12i2.1268

A KNOWLEDGE SYSTEM PROPOSAL WITH WEIGHTED GOAL

PROGRAMMING APPROACH FOR MULTI-CRITERIA DEA MODEL
AND AN APPLICATION

Tugba Polat
Nursan Kablo Donanımları, Turkey
E-mail: [email protected]

Safak Kiris
Kütahya Dumlupınar University, Turkey
E-mail: [email protected]

Submission: 2/8/2020
Revision: 5/13/2020
Accept: 6/3/2020

ABSTRACT

In today's competitive environment, enterprises should use their resources

correctly; they should continuously improve themselves and work efficiently. It
is important to evaluate the performances of the units under the same conditions
in enterprises according to each other, to see the current situations and to
determine appropriate improvements in necessary points. One of the commonly
used approaches to performance evaluation is Data Envelopment Analysis. Many
approaches have been developed for the Data Envelopment Analysis model, and
Goal programming using in multi-objective decision making solutions
approaches is one of them. Goal Programming gives decision-makers the
opportunity to evaluate many objectives together in the decision-making process.
In this study, classical Data Envelopment Analysis and weighted goal
programming approach for multi-criteria data envelopment analysis model was
applied in the evaluation process of the projects worked in an automotive
supplier industry. A knowledge system has also been proposed in order to
evaluate the effectiveness of the projects periodically and to include new projects
or conditions into the evaluation.

Keywords: efficiency, data envelopment analysis, goal programming,

knowledge-system

[https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/]
Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
422
 INDEPENDENT JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT & PRODUCTION (IJM&P)
http://www.ijmp.jor.br v. 12, n. 2, March-April 2021
ISSN: 2236-269X
DOI: 10.14807/ijmp.v12i2.1268

1. INTRODUCTION

On account of the fiercely competitive atmosphere, the businesses today need to operate
productively and follow closely the operations to oversee whether their limited resources are
effectively used or not. The best course of action for the businesses to assess their existing
situation is to compare the efficiency across the specific units or processes producing similar
outputs using similar inputs. One of the approaches to be applied for this purpose is Data
Envelopment Analysis (DEA).

DEA is a non-parametric methodology which is applied to analyze the relative

efficiencies of production units manufacturing similar outputs using similar inputs in cases
when there is multiplicity of inputs and outputs. DEA is developed without regard to the
preference structures of the decision-making units.

Another, just as important, aspect is that the efficiency rate can be close to or on the
frontier in the conventional DEA when one or more input and output values are multiple. This
situation makes the interpretation difficult. For this reason and also in order to integrate the
preferences of the decision-making units into the analysis, the solutions can be offered by
applying the Goal Programming (GP) approach to the process of benchmarking the efficiency.

As an extension of linear programming, the GP ensured the attainment of the best

satisfying solution from among the satisfying solutions rather than optimizing the goal in the
solution of decision-making problems with multiple goals. The studies including the GP and
DEA were successively addressed in this part in conjunction with the findings obtained from
the review of the relevant literature.

By using the lexicographic GP approach, the study published by Bal and Örkçü (2007)
worked out a multi-criteria DEA model which was used to measure the homogeneity of the
weight distribution. Also, through a case study, the new model, while promoting the
homogeneity of input-output weights, was proved to have the same relative efficiency as the
conventional DEA. The study proposed the GP for multi-criteria DEA (Goal Programming
Multi-criteria Data Envelopment Analysis-GPMCDEA).

The study conducted in 2010 by Bal and Örkçü (2010) dealt with the appraisal of cross-
efficiency, and proposed the GP models to be applied in the second stage of the cross-efficiency
appraisal. With certain adjustments, the study proposed the GPMCDEA and GPDEA-CCR for
use in the cross-efficiency appraisal, and through three quantitative examples, the
understanding of the proposed model was reinforced.

423
[https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/]
Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
 INDEPENDENT JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT & PRODUCTION (IJM&P)
http://www.ijmp.jor.br v. 12, n. 2, March-April 2021
ISSN: 2236-269X
DOI: 10.14807/ijmp.v12i2.1268

The study carried out in 2014 by Izadikhah et al. (2014)showed how the DEA problems
would be solved by converting them into multi-objective linear programming formulations. A
case study was conducted to indicate how to perform an efficiency analysis which was based
on data envelopment by applying the GP approach.

The study undertaken in 2016 by Zografidou et al. (2016) presented the best satisfying
design for the renewable energy generation network of Greece considering the social,
environmental and economic criteria and the EU targets and applying the weighted GP [0, 1].
Furthermore, the DEA was utilized in order to find the best satisfying network among the
prospective network structures.

The model proposing the GP approach for the multi-criteria DEA was introduced by
Rubem et al. (2017). The purpose of Rubem et al. was to expand the studies undertaken by
Ghasemi et al. by identifying the deficiencies in the model suggested by Bal and Örkçü and
also to present a new WGPMCDEA model. A new theoretically congruent model which was
known as the WGPMCDEA-CCR and which solved the multi-criteria DEA problem by using
the weighted GP was developed to replace the GPDEA-CCR model as a response to the
incongruities identified in GPDEA-CCR by Rubem et al. The study can be reviewed for more
details. In this study, the model was quantitatively developed with real data retrieved from
automotive supplier industry, and its results were interpreted. The weighted GP for the
MCDEA (WGPMCDEA-CCR) was formulated from Equation (1) to Equation (9) below
(Rubem et al., 2017).

Objective Function:

𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 𝑎𝑎 = {𝜆𝜆1 𝑑𝑑1+ + 𝜆𝜆2 𝑑𝑑2+ +𝜆𝜆3 𝑑𝑑3+ } (1)

Constraints:

∑𝑟𝑟𝑖𝑖=1 𝑣𝑣𝑖𝑖 𝑥𝑥𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 = 1 (2)

∑𝑠𝑠𝑗𝑗=1 𝑢𝑢𝑗𝑗 𝑦𝑦𝑗𝑗𝑗𝑗 − ∑𝑟𝑟𝑖𝑖=1 𝑣𝑣𝑖𝑖 𝑥𝑥𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 + 𝑑𝑑𝑘𝑘 = 0, ∀𝑘𝑘 (3)

𝑀𝑀 − 𝑑𝑑𝑘𝑘 ≥ 0, ∀𝑘𝑘 , (4)

𝑑𝑑𝑜𝑜 + 𝑑𝑑1− − 𝑑𝑑1+ ≤ 𝑔𝑔1 (5)

𝑀𝑀 + 𝑑𝑑2− − 𝑑𝑑2+ ≤ 𝑔𝑔2, ∀𝑘𝑘, (6)

∑𝑛𝑛𝑘𝑘=1 𝑑𝑑𝑘𝑘 + 𝑑𝑑3− − 𝑑𝑑3+ ≤ 𝑔𝑔3 (7)

424
[https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/]
Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
 INDEPENDENT JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT & PRODUCTION (IJM&P)
http://www.ijmp.jor.br v. 12, n. 2, March-April 2021
ISSN: 2236-269X
DOI: 10.14807/ijmp.v12i2.1268

𝑢𝑢𝑗𝑗 , 𝑣𝑣𝑖𝑖 ≥ 0, ∀𝑗𝑗, 𝑖𝑖 (8)

𝑑𝑑𝑘𝑘 , 𝑑𝑑1− , 𝑑𝑑1+ , 𝑑𝑑2− , 𝑑𝑑2+ , 𝑑𝑑3− , 𝑑𝑑3+ ≥ 0 ∀𝑘𝑘 (9)

Here, ℎ0 ; the relative efficiency of the appraised decision-making unit, 𝑑𝑑0 ; the rate of
inefficiency of the appraised decision-making unit, 𝑑𝑑𝑘𝑘 ; deviation value for the kth decision-
making unit, 𝑦𝑦𝑗𝑗𝑗𝑗 ; the value of jth output for the kth decision-making unit, 𝑥𝑥𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 ; the value of ith
input for the kth decision-making unit, 𝑢𝑢𝑗𝑗 ; the weight of the jth output, 𝑣𝑣𝑖𝑖 ; the weight of the ith
input, d1− , d1+; the negative and positive deviations of the 1st goal, d−2 , d+2 ; the negative and
positive deviations of the 2nd goal, d−3 , d+3 ; the negative and positive deviations of the 3rd goal,
𝑀𝑀; the variable corresponding to the linearization of the objective function for the minimization
of the maximum deviation, 𝑔𝑔1 , 𝑔𝑔2 , 𝑔𝑔3 ; the desired value of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd goals, 𝜆𝜆1 , 𝜆𝜆2 , 𝜆𝜆3 ;
the weight of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd objectives in the objective function.

The study conducted in 2019 by Gholam et al. (2019)proposed a novel methodology

for target setting in mergers by using the GP and inverse DEA. The proposed model was
discussed in more detail through an illustrative example covering forty two banks in the
banking sector.

Torres-Ruiz and Ravindran (2019) analyzed the supplier selection process in 2019 by
applying the DEA and fuzzy GP models. The suppliers were assessed with the Malmquist
productivity index approach. Applied to a business manufacturing automotive spare parts, the
study stated that the proposed model was applicable to the appraisal, selection and follow-up
of the supplier.

The purpose of this study is to develop a solution to the multi-criteria DEA model
through the GP approach and to ensure an interactive assessment process within the business
with this approach. In the study, the efficiency was first assessed with the DEA-CCR for six
projects in an automotive supplier industry, and then, the study, focusing on the weighted GP
multi-criteria DEA model, proposed a knowledge system to appraise the efficiency of projects
and to be used instantly or periodically in the business.

In designing the knowledge system, the Weighted Goal Programming Multi-Criteria

Data Envelopment Analysis (WGPMCDEA) model which was proposed by Rubem et al.
(2017) was apllied. Goal values were designated for inefficient projects by interpreting the
results obtained after the solution. Different alternatives were tested for the targets attached to
each goal, and their results were interpreted.

425
[https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/]
Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
 INDEPENDENT JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT & PRODUCTION (IJM&P)
http://www.ijmp.jor.br v. 12, n. 2, March-April 2021
ISSN: 2236-269X
DOI: 10.14807/ijmp.v12i2.1268

2. DATA ENVELOPMENT ANALYSIS

DEA which is used to benchmark the relative efficiency across the businesses which
share the same targets appraises the efficiency of the decision-making units through
computation of the ratio of the weighted sum of outputs to the weighted sum of inputs by using
the observed inputs and outputs. This approach is a comparison instrument. It facilitates the
determination of the comparison partners by ensuring the selection of the most efficient
business among its peers in the same sector (Ross & Droge, 2002).

Information on what the magnitude of the necessary change for each input and each
output should be in the allotment and usage of resources is offered by the DEA to the business
manager in order to upgrade the performance of the decision-making unit to the level of
efficient decision-making units which are selected as the reference points (Üstündağ, 2009).

DEA was first applied by Farrell in his studies through the comparison of efficiency in
the case of multiple inputs and a single output in 1957. In 1978 Charnes, Cooper and Rhodes
developed a mathematical programming technique with the assumption of constant returns to
scale in order to analyze the total factor productivity measured as the ratio of the weighted sum
of inputs to the weighted sum of outputs, and established the CCR (Charnes, Cooper & Rhodes,
1978) model (Charnes, Cooper & Rhodes,1978; Banker, Charnes, & Cooper, 1984) established
the BCC (Banker, Charnes And Cooper, 1984) model under the assumption of the variable
returns to scale in conjunction with the CCR model. Banker and Morey developed the
‘Categorical DEA’ in 1986 in order to analyze not only the comparison of the performance of
the DMUs across their own peer group, but also across other peer groups. Subsequently,
focusing on the practical use of certain key topics, talked about the DEA technique
(Boussofiane; Dyson; Rhodes, 1991).

The below are the steps to be taken in the application of the DEA:

a) The selection of the decision-making units: At this stage, decision-making units need
to be homogenous units performing the same task. They should take part in the same
processes and be working under similar environmental conditions. If the number of
inputs is ‘m’ and the number of outputs is ‘p’, the minimum number of decision-making
units must be minimum ‘m+p+1’.

b) Determination of inputs and outputs: For all decision-making units, inputs and
outputs must be selected from common factors and in a way to affect the relative
426
[https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/]
Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
 INDEPENDENT JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT & PRODUCTION (IJM&P)
http://www.ijmp.jor.br v. 12, n. 2, March-April 2021
ISSN: 2236-269X
DOI: 10.14807/ijmp.v12i2.1268

efficiency. For all decision-making units, the number of inputs and outputs must be
positive, they should be obtained correctly, be reliable and there should be no deficiency
in the data.

c) Selection of the model: An output-oriented model can be developed in cases if the

control over the input is limited whereas an input-oriented model can be designed in
cases when the control over the output is limited. If there is orientation towards neither
outputs nor inputs, then the cumulative models must be selected.

d) Interpretation of the results: An efficiency ratio between 0 and 1 is calculated for

each decision-making unit. The decision-making units whose efficiency rate is 1 are
deemed as efficient whereas the decision-making units whose efficiency rate is below
1 are not relatively efficient. The efficiency scores talk about the distance from the
efficiency frontier.

In general, the CCR Method, BCC Method, Cumulative Method and GP Approach are
used in the DEA.

3. GOAL PROGRAMMING

Goal programming is an analytical approach dealing with the decision-making

problems in which all characteristics of the goals are well-defined and decision-making unit is
engaged with the minimization of the unattainable part of the goal (Türkoğlu, 2017). The GP
which is a deterministic and multivariate model ensures the selection of best solution among
the alternates rather than the goal optimization.

When solely an objective function is maximized or minimized in linear programming,

the minimization of the deviations of multiple objectives from goals is the primary purpose in
the GP. In the GP model, goal can be defined as an objective to attain a desired level whereas
the objective is expressed as the reflection of a general desire by the decision-making units
(Ignizio, 1985). For the solution to make sense, the goals, targets and constraints of the
decision-making unit must be specified correctly. An achievement function is formulated for
each goal, and a solution to minimize the deviations from these achievement functions is sought
(Hillier & Lierberman, 1995).

The GP was first introduced by CHARNES, COOPER and FERGUSON in a study on

the analysis of the salaries of business managers. Next, they developed a solution algorithm by
clearly defining the GP in 1961. This algorithm was further developed in 1965 by IJIRI and
then by Lee and Ignizio (1976, 1985, 1972). In its chronological development, successively,
427
[https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/]
Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
 INDEPENDENT JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT & PRODUCTION (IJM&P)
http://www.ijmp.jor.br v. 12, n. 2, March-April 2021
ISSN: 2236-269X
DOI: 10.14807/ijmp.v12i2.1268

the general structure of the problem was first evaluated, then the priority concept was analyzed,
and lastly research on the priority weights followed on. Also, research on the GP was further
expanded and advanced by scientists such as Ijiri, Ignizio, Romero, Jones and Tamiz. The GP
applications which remained limited in scope until the mid-1970s were extended to several
fields and so were further developed from mid-1970s until today. The mathematical
representation of the general GP model is formulated from Equation (10) to Equation (13)
below.

Objective function:

𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 ∑𝑘𝑘𝑖𝑖=1(𝑑𝑑𝑖𝑖+ + 𝑑𝑑𝑖𝑖− ) (10)

Constraints:

𝑓𝑓𝑖𝑖 (𝑥𝑥) + 𝑑𝑑𝑖𝑖− − 𝑑𝑑𝑖𝑖+ = 𝑏𝑏𝑖𝑖 , i = 1, … , k, (11)

𝑑𝑑𝑖𝑖− . 𝑑𝑑𝑖𝑖+ = 0, i = 1, … , k, (12)

𝑑𝑑𝑖𝑖− , 𝑑𝑑𝑖𝑖+ ≥ 0, i = 1, … , k (13)

Here, 𝑓𝑓𝑖𝑖 (𝑥𝑥); linear function of x (𝑥𝑥 ∈ 𝑋𝑋), 𝑏𝑏𝑖𝑖 ; the desired goal value, x; the variables in
goals, 𝑑𝑑𝑖𝑖+/− ; positive and negative deviations from the goals. Objective function is given in
Equation (3.1) in the model. Objective function is the sum of negative and positive deviations
from the goals and it needs to be minimized. As seen in Equation (10), if the goals are not
attained on 𝑓𝑓𝑖𝑖 (𝑥𝑥), then the deviations will have a value. Equation (11) indicates that the
multiplication of positive and negative deviations will be 0. The value of one of the two
deviations must be 0, the values for both deviations will be above 0, but both cannot differ from
0 simultaneously. The oldest and most common GP types used in the literature are below
(Ignizio & Romero, 2003):

● The weighted GP also known as Archimedean GP

● The lexicographic GP also known as pre-emptive GP

● The minmax GP also known as Chebyshev GP

4. A CASE STUDY

This study was conducted in the plants of Nursan Cable Equipment Industry and Trade
Corporation supplying the cables and cable equipment manufactured for wheeled land motor
vehicles such as passenger cars, light and heavy commercial vehicles to be produced by the
automotive industry (Polat, 2019). Main customer groups of the above company are

428
[https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/]
Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
 INDEPENDENT JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT & PRODUCTION (IJM&P)
http://www.ijmp.jor.br v. 12, n. 2, March-April 2021
ISSN: 2236-269X
DOI: 10.14807/ijmp.v12i2.1268

categorized as projects whereas the product to be manufactured for supplying each project is
the cable equipment. Even if their size and materials may differ, the cable equipment is
assumed to be homogenous by virtue of being manufactured with the same mode of production.
For the efficiency appraisal through the DEA, two inputs and three outputs are specified. Table
1 shows the relevant data:

Table 1: Decision-making Units and Input-Output Data

Outputs Inputs
Total Monthly Monthly Operator Customer Number of Production
Project Turnover Rate (%) Working Speeds Satisfaction Employees Area (m²)
s (%) (%) (unit)
𝒚𝒚𝟏𝟏 𝒚𝒚𝟐𝟐 𝒚𝒚𝟑𝟑 𝒙𝒙𝟏𝟏 𝒙𝒙𝟐𝟐
A 33 65 75 62 2310
B 43 92 100 65 440
C 7 43 77 17 255
D 5 40 74 14 414
E 7 50 87 18 286
F 5 50 86 7 110

a) 𝑦𝑦1 : Percentage value of the monthly sales turnover. The actual numbers were not
provided on grounds of confidentiality, and so percentage values were given.

b) 𝑦𝑦2 : Working pace of operators as percentages on a monthly basis. The sophistication

level of the product, the failure to supply materials on time, the interruptions due to the
placement of urgent orders and private needs of the operators are key factors associated
with the working pace of the operators.

c) 𝑦𝑦3 : This output value defined as the customer satisfaction was calculated taking into
account the customer complaints and shipment performance. If there is no customer
complaint and shipment performance score is high, customer is deemed to be satisfied.

d) 𝑥𝑥1 : The number of employees in the project-based production was specified as the input
value. For instance, sixty two employees were involved in Project A whereas 7
employees worked for Project F.

e) 𝑥𝑥2 : The land area allotted for each project. The land area remains fixed as long as no
new project is developed, no new tools, equipment and materials are provided or no
methodical changes are made.

4.1. Measuring the Efficiency through the Conventional DEA

The purpose of the DEA is to appraise the projects at hand, to categorize the projects in
terms of the level of their efficiency and to offer proposals in order to make inefficient projects

429
[https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/]
Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
 INDEPENDENT JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT & PRODUCTION (IJM&P)
http://www.ijmp.jor.br v. 12, n. 2, March-April 2021
ISSN: 2236-269X
DOI: 10.14807/ijmp.v12i2.1268

efficient. Under the assumption of constant returns to scale, input-oriented mathematical model
is formulated from Equation (14) to Equation (17):

Objective Function:

𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 ℎ𝑘𝑘 = ∑𝑠𝑠𝑗𝑗=1 𝑢𝑢𝑗𝑗 𝑦𝑦𝑗𝑗𝑗𝑗 (14)

Constraints:

∑𝑟𝑟𝑖𝑖=1 𝑣𝑣𝑖𝑖 𝑥𝑥𝑖𝑖 = 1 (15)

∑𝑠𝑠𝑗𝑗=1 𝑢𝑢𝑗𝑗 𝑦𝑦𝑗𝑗𝑗𝑗 − ∑𝑟𝑟𝑖𝑖=1 𝑣𝑣𝑖𝑖 𝑥𝑥𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 ≥ 0 (16)

𝑢𝑢𝑗𝑗 , 𝑣𝑣𝑖𝑖 ≥ 0 (17)

Here, ℎ𝑘𝑘 ; efficiency rate of the kth decision-making unit, 𝑢𝑢𝑗𝑗 ; the weight of jth output,
𝑣𝑣𝑖𝑖 ; the weight of ith input, 𝑦𝑦𝑗𝑗𝑗𝑗 ; the value of jth output for the kth decision-making unit, 𝑥𝑥𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 ; the
value of ith input for the kth decision-making unit. The problem was solved via DEAP Version
2.1 and Lingo, and Table 2 indicates the results.

Table 2: Results of CCR-I Model

Reference Weigth of
Projects Efficiency Ratio Target 𝒚𝒚𝟏𝟏 Target 𝒚𝒚𝟐𝟐 Target 𝒚𝒚𝟑𝟑 Target 𝒙𝒙𝟏𝟏 Target 𝒙𝒙𝟐𝟐
Project Reference Set
A 0,745 F 6,6 33 330 567 46,2 726
B 1,000* B 1 43 92 100 65 440
0,012 and
C 0,58 B and F 7 65 112 9,86 148
1,296
D 0,5 F 1 5 50 86 7 110
E 0,544 F 1,4 7 70 120 9,8 154
F 1,000* F 1 5 50 86 7 110

The results show that Project B and Project F are efficient, Project A is efficient at 0.745
level, Project C is efficient at 0.58 level, Project D is efficient at 0.50 level, Project E is efficient
at 0.54 level. For inefficient projects, the goals were specified on how to make the inefficient
projects efficient. Dark colored sections are relevant to the goal values whose existing levels
need to be changed for the inefficient projects. For instance, in Project D, the working pace of
operators should rise from 40% to 50%, customer satisfaction should grow from 74% to 86%,
the number of employees should drop from 14 to 7, and the land area should fall from 414 m2
to 110 m2. If all these measures are taken, Project D will also be among the efficient projects.

4.2. The GP Approach for the DEA and A Knowledge System Proposal

In view of the dynamic atmosphere in the company, it is natural to observe the

cancellation of certain projects or the start-up of new projects or the emergence of changes in
the values of inputs and outputs over time. It is necessary to have a dynamic system which will

430
[https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/]
Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
 INDEPENDENT JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT & PRODUCTION (IJM&P)
http://www.ijmp.jor.br v. 12, n. 2, March-April 2021
ISSN: 2236-269X
DOI: 10.14807/ijmp.v12i2.1268

analyze the efficiency taking into account all these issues. In order for the company to use
periodically as a useful tool to enhance the management process, the efficiency rates of the
projects of the company were computed with the GP approach by using the WGPMCDEA-
CCR model proposed in 2017 by Rubem et al., and a knowledge system was designed. In the
system devised by using the Solver Add-in in the MS Excel, it is possible to make calculations
by identifying 12 projects and inserting data for maximum 3 inputs and 3 outputs. This case
study was carried out by using 2 inputs, 3 outputs and 6 decision-making units.

Figure 1 indicates the general view of the knowledge system. It is possible to insert data
manually to the cells which are accompanied by sections for adding explanations, and the
system itself makes the calculations with no other interference or effort. In this respect, the
objective function is the minimization of the sum of positive deviations of the goals.

Figure 1: General View of the Knowledge System

The right-hand side values represent the goal values (𝑔𝑔1 , 𝑔𝑔2 , 𝑔𝑔3 ). The value of 𝑔𝑔1 can be
maximum 1 inasmuch as the inefficiency rate can be maximum 1, and it is specified as 1 in this
study. The value of 𝑔𝑔2 appertaining to the objective of minimizing the maximum deviation is
specified as 0.2 by the decision-making unit. The value of 𝑔𝑔3 appertains to the objective of
maximizing the sum of all deviations and is defined as 0.6 in compliance with the demand of
the decision-making unit. The weight of the deviations (λ) is specified as ‘one’ by the decision-
making unit.

431
[https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/]
Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
 INDEPENDENT JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT & PRODUCTION (IJM&P)
http://www.ijmp.jor.br v. 12, n. 2, March-April 2021
ISSN: 2236-269X
DOI: 10.14807/ijmp.v12i2.1268

Constraints were added and objective functions were defined in the Excel Solver and
inputted to the buttons with codes. Two solutions were stipulated in the system. The former
gives the detailed solution of project-based efficiency results and weights whereas the latter
computes simultaneously the efficiency of all decision-making units.

Figure 2: Calculation Results for Project C

For having the detailed solution for a single decision-making unit, it is possible to see
project-based results by inserting the number of the decision-making unit, that is, the project
number, into the section ‘n’. To illustrate, for the Project C which is numbered as 3, the detailed
results are displayed in Figure 2. The efficiency rate is approximately 0.58. The value of the
objective function is 2.66. The weight of monthly sales turnover (𝑢𝑢1 ) is 0.082, the weight of
the number of employees (𝑣𝑣1 ) is 0,059. All constraints were satisfied in the solution.

The button ‘Compute the Efficiency of All Decision-Making Units’ is clicked in order
to compute solely the efficiency ratio for the entire set of projects. When a quick solution is
sought and a snapshot on the current situation is needed to be viewed, just executing the button
‘Compute the Efficiency of All Decision-Making Units’ will be sufficient. Figure 3 displays
the efficiency calculation interface for all decision-making units and the results.

Figure 3: The Efficiency Calculation Interface for All Decision-Making Units

432
[https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/]
Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
 INDEPENDENT JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT & PRODUCTION (IJM&P)
http://www.ijmp.jor.br v. 12, n. 2, March-April 2021
ISSN: 2236-269X
DOI: 10.14807/ijmp.v12i2.1268

Certain divergences were observed between the result obtained using conventional
DEA (CCR-I) model and the result found using the WGPMCDEA-CCR model. The solutions
were compared in Table 3. While Project B is efficient in the conventional DEA model, it is
efficient at 0.93 level in the WGPMCDEA-CCR model. Only Project F is efficient in light of
the results obtained through the knowledge system. The reason for the similarity in both results
is that the goal values of the WGPMCDEA-CCR were assigned by the decision-making units
with the help of the results already obtained using the conventional DEA model.

Table 3: Results of the Comparison of the Conventional DEA Model to the WGPMCDEA-
CCR Model
Result of CCR-I Model Result of WGPMCDEA-CCR Model
Projects Efficiency Reference Weigth of Efficiency Reference Weigth of
Ratio Project Reference Set Ratio Project Reference Set
A 0.75 F 6.6 0.63 F 6.64
B 1* B 1 0.93 B and F 0.87 and 0.24
C 0.58 B and F 0.012 and 1.296 0.58 B and F 0.01 and 1.3
D 0.5 F 1 0.5 F 1
E 0.54 F 1.4 0.54 F 1.4
F 1* F 1 1* F 1

Table 4 indicated the supposed goal values and improvement percentages which were
computed via Excel Solver for each project on an individual basis. The Table presented the
supposed and actual values of inputs and outputs of all projects and improvement rates in
percentages (variations). The colored parts were described as the parts having variations in-
between and needing improvement. For example, the efficiency rate of Project C is 0.58, the
references selected for Project C are the Project B and Project F which are numbered as 2 and
6 and whose reference weights are 0.0121 and 1.296 respectively. To make Project C efficient,
the number of employees should be dropped by 47%, the working pace of operators should be
enhanced by 51% and customer satisfaction should grow by 45%.

Table 4: The Goal Values of the Project-based Input and Output Values.
%
Projects A Difference B % Dif. C % Dif. D % Dif. E % Dif. F % Dif.
(Dif.)
Actual 62 65 17 14 18 7
Input 1 - -9% -47% - - -
Target 62 59 9 14 18 7
44 41
Actual 2310 255 286 110
0 4
Input 2 -69% - - -73% -46% -
44 11
Target 726 255 154 110
0 0
Actual 33 43 7 5 7 5
Output 1 - - - - -
Target 33 43 7 5 7 5
Actual 65 92 43 40 50 50
Output 2 408% - 51% 25% 40% -
Target 330 92 65 50 70 50
10
Actual 75 77 74 87 86
0 -
Output 3 657% 6% 45% 16% 38%
10
Target 568 112 86 120 86
6

433
[https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/]
Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
 INDEPENDENT JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT & PRODUCTION (IJM&P)
http://www.ijmp.jor.br v. 12, n. 2, March-April 2021
ISSN: 2236-269X
DOI: 10.14807/ijmp.v12i2.1268

Knowledge system proposed for the business using the WGPMCDEA-CCR model has
a dynamic character and quite open to changes. The knowledge system will be quite
instrumental in ensuring the allocation of the unused resources of the completed projects to
other projects, the easy coordination of the supply of inputs necessary for the newly-developed
projects and the instant or periodic revision of efficiency.

4.3. Alternates of the goal values and interpretation of the results

The decision-making unit itself can either assign the goal values 𝑔𝑔1 , 𝑔𝑔2 and 𝑔𝑔3 which
are found using the WGPMCDEA-CCR model or can set the goal values as the decision
variable in the model. Hereby, both versions of the case were discussed consecutively:

• First Case: When goal values are set as the decision variable, the Excel Solver itself
defines the values for the goals. Table 5 shows these goal values which obtain a separate
value for each project.

Table 5: The Results When the Goal Values Are Set As the Decision Variable
Target values must be as below
Projects Ratio of Efficiency 𝑔𝑔1 𝑔𝑔2 𝑔𝑔3
A 0.63 0.3674 0.3674 0.6950
B 0.93 0.0738 0.2431 0.6615
C 0.58 0.4201 1.5874 3.0033
D 0.24 0.7576 4.7674 6.2352
E 0.54 0.4563 1.4882 2.8156
F 1* 0.0000 3.8324 7.2506

If the goal values are set as the decision variable, the goal value g1 ranges from
minimum 0 to maximum 1 as it theoretically appertains to the objective of maximizing the
efficiency rate whereas the goal values g 2 and g 3 become minimum 0 and there is no upper
bound for the goal values g 2 and g 3 . Here, the goal value g1 never becomes 1, and decision-
making unit is already efficient because inefficiency rate will be 0 when the goal value g1 is 0.
Also, as the goal value g 3 appertains to the objective of the sum of deviations, it will always be
greater than the goal value g 2 , and if the decision-making unit itself is to specify the goals, it
should do so by paying attention to this. The goal values specified for each project are the
minimum values, efficiency rates will not change if they get a higher value. However, if they
get smaller values than the numeric values of the model, the efficiency rates will change.

• Second Case: When the values are assigned by the decision-making unit to the goal
values, different alternatives can be created. Table 6 indicates some of them.

Table 6: The Efficiency Rates of the Projects When Different Goal Values are Assigned

434
[https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/]
Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
 INDEPENDENT JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT & PRODUCTION (IJM&P)
http://www.ijmp.jor.br v. 12, n. 2, March-April 2021
ISSN: 2236-269X
DOI: 10.14807/ijmp.v12i2.1268
Alternative Situations Desired Target Values of Criteria Efficiency Rates of Projects
No 𝑔𝑔1 𝑔𝑔2 𝑔𝑔3 A B C D E F
1 1 0.2 0.6 0.75 0.93 0.58 0.50 0.54 1.00
2 0.0001 0.2 0.6 0.75 0.93 0.58 0.50 0.54 1.00
3 1 0.5 0.6 0.75 0.93 0.58 0.50 0.54 1.00
4 1 0.2 10 0.75 0.93 0.58 0.50 0.54 1.00
5 1 1 2 0.63 0.93 0.58 0.50 0.54 1.00
6 1 5 10 0.63 0.93 0.58 0.24 0.54 1.00
7 1 30 50 0.63 0.93 0.58 0.24 0.54 1.00
8 0 30 50 0.75 1 0.58 0.5 0.54 1.00
9 1 5 5 0.63 0.93 0.58 0.33 0.54 1.00
10 1 5 6 0.63 0.93 0.58 0.26 0.54 1.00
11 1 2 7 0.63 0.93 0.58 0.43 0.54 1.00
12 0 1 2 0.75 1 0.58 0.5 0.54 1.00
13 0.05 1 2 0.75 0.95 0.58 0.5 0.54 1.00
14 0 0.4 0.8 0.75 0.98 0.58 0.5 0.54 1.00

The dark colored parts in Table 6 are the efficiency rates which differ from the existing
solution. Table 6 further displays what values the efficiency rates obtain when different values
are assigned by the decision-making unit to the goal values 𝑔𝑔1 , 𝑔𝑔2 and 𝑔𝑔3 . For instance, when
the inefficiency rate equals 0 in alternates numbered as 8 and 12 consecutively, that is, if 𝑔𝑔1 =
0, it is observed that Project B is efficient when the values higher than the supposed values are
assigned to the goal values 𝑔𝑔2 and 𝑔𝑔3 . For a more detailed discussion, the study by Polat (2019)
can be reviewed. In a nutshell, just as the goal values can be set as the decision variable, they
can also be assigned by the decision-making units. This choice will depend on the orientation
of the decision-making unit and efficiency rates will vary along with the goal values.

5. CONCLUSION

Based on linear programming, the DEA was an approach measuring the relative
efficiency rates of the decision-making units such as businesses, organizatios, projects which
used multiple inputs and multiple outputs and shared the same goals and targets. On the other
hand, the GP, a multi-criteria decision-making method, was a powerful tool for finding
solutions towards multiple objectives simultaneously in addition to its use for decision-making
with multiple objectives, and its application was quite widespread.

In this study, the GP approach for the multi-criteria DEA model was analyzed and a
case study was carried out in order to measure the efficiency of six projects developed in the
automotive supplier industry with two inputs and three outputs. The problem was also solved
using the GP approach for the multi-criteria DEA model and a knowledge system was proposed
for a general problem structure.

Following the solution, efficient projects were noted, and the size of the decrease in
inputs and the magnitude of the increase in outputs necessary to make the inefficient projects

435
[https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/]
Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
 INDEPENDENT JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT & PRODUCTION (IJM&P)
http://www.ijmp.jor.br v. 12, n. 2, March-April 2021
ISSN: 2236-269X
DOI: 10.14807/ijmp.v12i2.1268

efficient were specified. The results of the proposed system and the results of the conventional
DEA were compared and the divergence in the results was underlined. What type of solutions
were obtained either by the assignment of goal values by the decision-making units or the
allocation of the goal values as the decision variable and how the efficiency rates varied in the
case of different alternatives were all together revised.

A knowledge system was devised taking into consideration the high frequency of
change in the business atmosphere. As the knowledge system designed using the
WGPMCDEA-CCR model was fast and functional, it was possible for the decision-making
unit to make an appraisal by getting results immediately through the substitution of
approximate values for unattainable goal values. Formulating a mathematical model each time
was not required.

Alternative solutions could be produced by changing the goal values specified for
objectives. If an additional project was added to the portfolio of the business or if there was
any change in the existing projects, efficiency appraisal up to twelve projects and the efficiency
comparison among the projects could be successfully undertaken. Guiding the business
management in its decision-making process, this system would make it easier to reach a
decision over whether to take action or not for making the goals attainable and it would further
ensure the rational allotment of the resources from cancelled projects to the other projects.

A limited number of studies analyzed both the DEA and GP approaches together in the
past, and different mathematical models were suggested for these studies. The WGPMCDEA-
CCR model was also one of these studies. Although the WGPMCDEA-CCR model was
theoretically elucidated, it was not supported with quantitative examples. With this study, the
WGPMCDEA-CCR model was buttressed with a quantitative example, and a knowledge
system was proposed to enhance its interactive use.

In this study, the weights of objectives were assumed to be equal; however, it was
believed that it would be possible to conduct further studies by assigning a value to each weight
with a prospective method afterwards. Additionally, in the following studies, this study could
be enlarged to include also the undesirable output concept (quality errors, discard rates).

For all above-stated reasons, it is thought that the study will be a significant contribution
to the literature, and will be useful for the ensuing studies to be undertaken subsequently.

436
[https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/]
Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
 INDEPENDENT JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT & PRODUCTION (IJM&P)
http://www.ijmp.jor.br v. 12, n. 2, March-April 2021
ISSN: 2236-269X
DOI: 10.14807/ijmp.v12i2.1268

REFERENCES

Bal, H., & Örkçü, H. H. (2007) A Goal Programming Approach to Weight Dispersion in Data
Envelopment Analysis. G.U. Journal of Science, 20(4), 117-125.
Bal, H., Örkçü, H. H., & Çelebioğlu, S. (2010) Improving the Discrimination Power and
Weights Dispersion in the Data Envelopment Analysis. Computers & Operations
Research, 37(1), 99-107.
Banker, R., Charnes A. W., & Cooper, W. (1984) Some Models for Estimating Technical and
Scale Efficiency in Data Envelopment Analysis. Management Science, 30, 1078-1092.
Boussofiane, A., Dyson, R., & Rhodes, E. (1991) Applied Data Envelopment Analysis.
European Journal of Operational Research, 2(6), 1-15.
Charnes, A., Cooper, W. W., & Rhodes, E. (1978) Measuring the Efficiency of Decision
Making Units. European Journal of Operational Research, 2, 429-444.
Ghasemi, M. R., Ignatius, J., & Emrouznejad, A. (2014) A Bi-Objective Weighted Model for
Improving the Discrimination Power in MCDEA, European Journal of Operational
Research, 233, 640-650.
Gholam, R. A., & Saeed Al-Muharrami, M. T. (2019) A Combined Goal Programming and
İnverse DEA Method For Target Setting İn Mergers, Expert Systems with Applications,
115, p. 412-417.
Hillier F. S., & Lierberman, G. J. (1995) Introduction to Mathematical Programming,
McGraw-Hill, Singapore.
Ignizio, J. P. (1976) Goal Programming and Extensions, Lexington Books, Lexington.
Ignizio, J. P. (1985) Introduction to Linear Goal Programming, Duxbury Press.
Ignizio J. P., & Romero, C. (2003) Goal Programming, Encyclopedia of Information
Systems, 2, 489-500.
Ijiri, Y. (1965) Management Goals and Accounting for Control, Rand MC Nally, Chicago.
Izadikhah, M., Roostaee, R., & Hosseinzadeh, L. F. (2014) Using Goal Programming Method
To Solve Dea Problems With Value Judgments. Yugoslav Journal Of Operations
Research, 24(2), 267- 282.
Lee, S. M. (1972) Goal Programming for Decision Analysis, Auerback, Philadelphia.
Polat, T. (2019) Çok Ölçütlü Veri Zarflama Analizi Modeli için Ağırlıklı Hedef
Programlama Yaklaşımı ile Bilgi Sistemi Önerisi ve Bir Uygulama. Dissertation (Master
in Industrial Engineering with advisor Kiris, S.), Kutahya Dumlupinar University,Turkey.
Ross, A., & Droge, C. (2002) An Integrated Benchmarking Approach to Distribution Center
Performance Using DEA Modeling. Journal of Operations Management, 20, 19-32.
Rubem, A. P. S., Carlos, C. B. J., Mello, S., & Meza, L. A. (2017) A Goal Programming
Approach to Solve the Multiple Criteria DEA Model. European Journal of Operational
Research, v. 260, p. 134-139.
Torres R. A., & Ravindran, R. (2019) Use of Interval Data Envelopment Analysis, Goal
Programming and Dynamic Eco-Efficiency Assessment For Sustainable Supplier
Management. Computers & Industrial Engineering, v. 131, p. 211-226.

437
[https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/]
Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
 INDEPENDENT JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT & PRODUCTION (IJM&P)
http://www.ijmp.jor.br v. 12, n. 2, March-April 2021
ISSN: 2236-269X
DOI: 10.14807/ijmp.v12i2.1268

Türkoğlu, S. P. (2017) Karar Vermede Hedef Programlama Yöntemi ve Uygulamaları,

Osmaniye Korkut Ata Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 1(2), 29-
46.
Üstündağ, E. (2009) Veri Zarflama Analizi ile Verimliliğin Değerlendirilmesi: Çimento
Sektörü Üzerine Uygulama. Dissertation (Master in Statistics), Selcuk University, Turkey.
Zografidou, E., Petridis, K., Arabatzis, G., & Dey, P. K. (2016) Optimal Design of the
Renewable Energy Map of Greece Using Weighted Goal-Programming and Data
Envelopment Analysis. Computers & Operations Research, 66, 313-326.

438
[https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/]
Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0