Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
R. Bordley (2001)
Integrating Gap Analysis and Utility Theory in Service ResearchJournal of Service Research, 3
(1989)
Economic and Multi-attribute Evaluation of Advanced Manufacturing Systems,
(1998)
Benchmark your warehouse for future success,
M. Zairi (1998)
Benchmarking For Best Practice
(1994)
Reinventing the Audit: Frameworks for Change,
R. Camp (1989)
Benchmarking: The Search for Industry Best Practices That Lead to Superior Performance
W. Kolarik (1995)
Creating quality : concepts, systems, strategies, and tools
R. Keeney, H. Raiffa, D. Rajala (1977)
Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Trade-OffsIEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 9
David Ammons (1999)
A Proper Mentality for BenchmarkingPublic Administration Review, 59
Patricia Keehley, Steven Medlin, S. MacBride (1996)
Benchmarking for Best Practices in the Public Sector: Achieving Performance Breakthroughs in Federal, State, and Local Agencies
(1994)
Systems and Decision Making,
Hutton Barron, C. Schmidt (1988)
Sensitivity Analysis of Additive Multiattribute Value ModelsOper. Res., 36
M. Yasin (2002)
The theory and practice of benchmarking: then and nowBenchmarking: An International Journal, 9
(1994)
The warehouse performance index: A single-point metric for benchmarking warehouse performance,
(1996)
Benchmarking and Performance Improvement Tools for Manufacturing and Service Processes,” presented at the National Science Foundation Design and Manufacturing
J. Korpela, M. Tuominen (1996)
Benchmarking logistics performance with an application of the analytic hierarchy processIEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 43
Matthew Hinton, Graham Francis, J. Holloway (2000)
Best practice benchmarking in the UKBenchmarking: An International Journal, 7
F. Vernadat (1994)
Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Tradeoffs
R.S. Barr, L.M. Seiford
Benchmarking and performance improvement tools for manufacturing and service processes
M. Walls (1995)
Integrating Business Strategy and Capital Allocation: an Application of Multi-Objective Decision MakingThe Engineering Economist, 40
(1985)
Making Decisions,” Wiley, New York,NY
Purpose – To investigate the application of multi‐attribute utility theory (MAUT) to aid in the decision‐making process when performing benchmarking gap analysis.Design/methodology/approach – MAUT is selected to identify the overall best‐in‐class (BIC) performer for performance metrics involving inventory record accuracy within a public sector warehouse. A traditional benchmarking analysis is conducted on 14 industry warehouse participants to determine industry best practices for the four critical warehouse metrics of picking and inventory accuracy, storage speed, and order cycle time. Inventory and picking tolerances are also investigated in the study. A gap analysis is performed on the critical metrics and the absolute BIC is used to measure performance gaps for each metric. The gap analysis results are then compared to the MAUT utility values, and a sensitivity analysis is performed to compare the two methods.Findings – The results indicate that an approach based on MAUT is advantageous in its ability to consider all critical metrics in a benchmarking study. The MAUT approach allows the assignment of priorities and analyzes the subjectivity for these decisions, and provides a framework to identify one performer as best across all critical metrics.Research limitations/implications – This research study uses the additive utility theory (AUT) which is only one of multiple decision theory techniques.Practical implications – A new approach to determine the best performer in a benchmarking study.Originality/value – Traditional benchmarking studies use gap analysis to identify a BIC performer over a single critical metric. This research integrates a mathematically driven decision analysis technique to determine the overall best performer over multiple critical metrics.
Benchmarking: An International Journal – Emerald Publishing
Published: Jul 1, 2006
Keywords: Benchmarking; Performance measures; Utility theory; Sensitivity analysis; Gap analysis; Best practice
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.