Productivity Benchmarking Using Analytic Network Process (ANP) and Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA)
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Measuring productivity is the systematic process for both inter- and intra-organizational comparisons. The productivity measurement can be used to control and facilitate decision-making in manufacturing as well as service organizations. This study’s objective was to develop a decision support framework by integrating an analytic network process (ANP) and data envelopment analysis (DEA) approach to tackling productivity measurement and benchmarking problems in a manufacturing environment. The ANP was used to capture the interdependency between the criteria taking into consideration the ambiguity and vagueness. The nonparametric DEA approach was utilized to determine the input-oriented constant returns to scale (CRS) efficiency of different value-adding production units and to benchmark them. The proposed framework was implemented to benchmark the productivity of an apparel manufacturing company. By applying the model, industrial managers can gain benefits by identifying the possible contributing factors that play an important role in increasing the productivity of manufacturing organizations.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it