Open Access
This article is

- freely available
- re-usable

*Symmetry*
**2018**,
*10*(6),
221;
https://doi.org/10.3390/sym10060221

Article

A Hybrid Fuzzy Analytic Network Process (FANP) and Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) Approach for Supplier Evaluation and Selection in the Rice Supply Chain

^{1}

Department of Industrial Engineering and Management, National Kaohsiung University of Science and Technology, Kaohsiung 80778, Taiwan

^{2}

Department of Industrial Engineering and Management, Fortune Institute of Technology, Kaohsiung 83160, Taiwan

^{3}

Department of Industrial Systems Engineering, CanTho University of Technology, CanTho 900000, Vietnam

^{*}

Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.

Received: 18 May 2018 / Accepted: 12 June 2018 / Published: 14 June 2018

## Abstract

**:**

In the market economy, competition is typically due to the difficulty in selecting the most suitable supplier, one that is capable to help a business to develop a profit to the highest value threshold and capable to meet sustainable development features. In addition, this research discusses a wide range of consequences from choosing an effective supplier, including reducing production cost, improving product quality, delivering the product on time, and responding flexibly to customer requirements. Therefore, the activities noted above are able to increase an enterprise’s competitiveness. It can be seen that selecting a supplier is complex in that decision-makers must have an understanding of the qualitative and quantitative features for assessing the symmetrical impact of the criteria to reach the most accurate result. In this research, the multi-criteria group decision-making (MCGDM) approach was proposed to solve supplier selection problems. The authors collected data from 25 potential suppliers, and the four main criteria within contain 15 sub-criteria to define the most effective supplier, which has viewed factors, including financial efficiency guarantee, quality of materials, ability to deliver on time, and the conditioned response to the environment to improve the efficiency of the industry supply chain. Initially, fuzzy analytic network process (ANP) is used to evaluate and rank these criteria, which are able to be utilized to clarify important criteria that directly affect the profitability of the business. Subsequently, data envelopment analysis (DEA) models, including the Charnes Cooper Rhodes model (CCR model), Banker Charnes Cooper model (BCC model), and slacks-based measure model (SBM model), were proposed to rank suppliers. The result of the model has proposed 7/25 suppliers, which have a condition response to the enterprises’ supply requirements.

Keywords:

fuzzy analytic network process (FANP); data envelopment analysis (DEA); supplier selection; multi-criteria group decision-making (MCGDM)## 1. Introduction

The task of selecting suppliers becomes more important in today’s competitive and global environment when it is impractical or virtually impossible to create high-quality, low-cost, successful products without a vendor. For businesses today, vendor selection is one of the most important and indispensable components of the supply chain function of Florez–Lopez [1]. The enterprises’ expected goal of selecting a vendor is necessary to reduce the risk in buying, making an optimum decision, and establishing a sustainable alliance between buyers and suppliers [2]. Basically, choosing suppliers is a decision-making process because a business expects to obtain a supplier [3]. Additionally, it requires a powerful analytical approach, via utilizing decision-support tools, which is capable of addressing multiple criteria [4]. Incidentally, the supplier’s price includes many qualitative and qualitative conflicts.

The author represents two techniques, i.e., DEA and the FANP, which are used to design a method for evaluating suppliers. In order to obtain the accurate result as the chosen supplier based on the frontier point of the DEA model from input and output decision-makers (DMUs) [5]. The drawback of DEA, related to this study, is the requirement of data for various inputs and outputs to be in a quantitative format. This DEA limitation is addressed by analyzing the qualitative factors/attributes associated with the supplier using FANP. FANP is a more general form of the decentralized process, which includes the feedback and interdependencies of decision attributes and alternatives. This additional feature provides a more accurate and robust approach when modeling a complex decision-making environment [6].

The decision-making process is designed to provide a holistic approach in which the relevant factors and criteria are integrated into the FANP’s decentralized network. Different relationships are combined in these structures and then both judgment and logic are used to estimate the relative effect from which the overall response is derived [7]. The FANP model used here provides a unique quantitative value for vendor-specific qualitative factors and is based on buyers’ preferences and perceptions. This quantitative value from FANP for each supplier is used as a qualitative benefit in the DEA model to obtain the ranking or performance of different suppliers.

This research proposed hybrid FANP and DEA approaches for supplier selection in the rice supply chain, which also considers green issues under uncertain environment conditions. The aim of this research is to provide a useful guideline for supplier selection based on qualitative and quantitative factors (including the main criteria, such as financial, delivery services, qualitative factors, and environmental management systems) to improve the efficiency of supplier selection in the rice supply chain and other industries.

In the remainder of this paper, this research provides the platform data to further support the need of the development of a decision approach. Then, the synthetic supplier evaluation approach was applied to a case study of a company, which could be used for the explanation of the findings. Finally, this paper ends with a summary, and conclusions are made.

## 2. Literature Review

#### 2.1. Supplier Selection Methods

Aissaoui et al. [8] presented a literature review that covers the entire purchasing process, considered both parts and services outsourcing activities, and covers Internet-based procurement environments, such as electronic marketplace auctions. Govindan et al. [9] presented a literature review for multi-criteria decision-making approaches for green supplier evaluation and selection. Chai et al. [10] provided a systematic literature review on articles published from 2008 to 2012 on the application of DM techniques for supplier selection.

Wu and Blackhurst [11] proposed a methodology termed augmented DEA, which has enhanced discriminatory power over basic DEA models to rank suppliers. Amirteimoori and Khoshandam [12] developed a DEA model for evaluating the performance of suppliers and manufacturers in supply chain operations. Lin et al. [13] provided a MCDM model by combining the Delphi method and the ANP method for evaluating and selecting suppliers for the sustainable operation and development of enterprises in the aerospace industry. Galankashi et al. [14] proposed an integrated balanced scorecard (BSC) and fuzzy analytic hierarchical process (FAHP) model to select suppliers in the automotive industry. Kilincci and Onal [15] used a fuzzy AHP approach for supplier selection in a washing machine company.

Tyagi et al. [16] proposed fuzzy AHP and AHP methods to prioritize the alternatives of the supply chain performance system. Karsak and Dursun [17] proposed a fuzzy MCDM model including the quality function deployment (QFD), fusion of fuzzy information, and 2-tuple linguistic representation for supplier evaluation and selection. Chen et al. [18] proposed a hybrid AHP and TOPSIS for evaluating and ranking the potential suppliers. Guo et al. [19] used fuzzy MCDM approaches for green supplier selection in apparel manufacturing. Wu et al. [20] constructed a multiple criteria decision-making model for the selection of fishmeal suppliers. Hu et al. [21] proposed a hybrid fuzzy DEA/AHP methodology for ranking units in a fuzzy environment. He and Zhang [22] used a hybrid evaluation model based on factor analysis (FA), data envelopment analysis (DEA), with analytic hierarchy process (AHP) for a supplier selection from the perspective of a low-carbon supply chain.

Parkouhi et al. [23] used the fuzzy analytic network process and VlseKriterijuska Optimizacija I Komoromisno Resenje (VIKOR) techniques for supplier selection. Wan et al. [24] proposed a hybrid DEA and Grey Model (1,1) approach for partner selection in the supply chain of Vietnam’s textile and apparel industry. Wu et al. [25] used the fuzzy Delphi method, ANP, and TOPSIS for supplier selection. Rezaeisaray et al. [26] proposed a hybrid DEMATLE, FANP, and DEA model for outsourcing supplier selection in pipe and fittings manufacturing. Rouyendegh and Erol [27] applied the DEA-fuzzy ANP for department ranking at Iran Amirkabir University. Fuzzy set theory formalized by Zadeh [28] is an effective tool, which has been widely used in the supplier selection decision process because it provides a suitable language to transform imprecise criteria to precise criteria.

Junior et al. [29] presented a comparison between fuzzy AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS methods to supplier selection. The linear programming of data envelopment analysis (DEA), which is proposed by Charnes et al. [30], and is able to produce the result of measured efficiency without having specific weights for inputs and outputs or specify the form of the production function, is a nonparametric technique used to measure the relative efficiency of peer decision-making units with multiple inputs and outputs [31,32]. In the supplier’s evaluation and selection process, many researchers calculated the supplier’s performance by using the ratio of weighted outputs to weighted inputs [32]. Thus, the integrated FANP and DEA method is used to determine supplier selection criteria and select supplier in this paper.

Talluri et al. [33] provided vendor evaluation models by presenting a chance-constrained data envelopment analysis (CCDEA) approach in the presence of multiple performance measures that are uncertain. Saen [34] applied a DEA model for ranking suppliers in the presence of nondiscretionary factors. Saen [35] also proposed a new AR-IDEA model for supplier selection. Saen and Zohrehbandian [36] proposed a DEA approach for supplier selection. Saen [37] proposed an innovative method, which is based on imprecise data envelopment analysis (IDEA) to select the best suppliers in the presence of both cardinal and ordinal data. Lo Storto [38] proposed a double DEA framework to support decision making in the choice of advanced manufacturing technologies. Adler et al. [39] reviewed of ranking method in the data envelopment analysis context. Lo Storto [40] presented a peeling DEA-game cross efficiency procedure to classify suppliers.

Kuo et al. [41] developed a supplier selection system through integrating fuzzy AHP and fuzzy DEA on an auto lighting System Company in Taiwan. Kuo and Lin [42] used ANP and DEA for supplier selection.

Taibi and Atmani [43] proposed a MCDM model combining fuzzy AHP with GIS and decision rules for industrial site selection. Molinera et al. [44] used fuzzy ontologies and multi-granular linguistic modelling methods for solving MCGDM problems under environments with a high number of alternatives. Adrian et al. [45] proposed a conceptual model development of big data analytics implementation assessment effect on decision making.

#### 2.2. Criteria and Sub-Criteria for Supplier Selection

The initial criteria for the supplier set are developed based on a literature study.

Financial: The firm should require its suppliers to have a sound financial position. Financial strength can be a good indicator of the supplier’s long-term stability. A solid financial position also helps ensure that performance standards can be maintained and that products and services will continue to be available [48].

Delivery and service: A firm can use service performance criteria to evaluate the benefits provided by supplier services. When considering services, a firm needs to clearly define its expectations since there are few uniform, established service standards to draw upon. Since any purchase involves some degree of service, such as order processing, delivery, and support, a firm should always include some service criteria in its evaluation. If the supplier provides a solution combining products and services, the firm should be sure to adequately represent its service needs in the selection criteria [48]. The suppliers have to follow the predefined delivery schedule for achieving on-time delivery. All the manufacturers want to work with the supplier who can manage the supply chain system on time and has the ability for following the exact delivery schedule table [49].

Qualitative: Qualitative criteria are developed to measure important aspects of the supplier’s business: business experience and position among competitors, expert labor, technical capabilities and facilities, operational control, and quality [50].

Environmental management system: Due to increasing awareness about environmental degradation manufacturing companies and customers are both becoming alert of environmental protection [51]. This has led stakeholders of companies to ensure safe practices, like pollution control, reuse, recovery, etc. It includes criteria like pollution control: resource consumption of raw materials, use of environmentally friendly technology and materials, design capability for reduced consumption of materials/energy, reuse, and recycling of materials. To reduce the harm to the environment, organizations should also consider factors like permit requirements, compliance requirements, strategic considerations, climatic considerations, and government policy [52,53].

There are four main criteria and some sub-criteria, as shown in Table 1.

## 3. Material and Methodology

#### 3.1. Research Development

Figure 1 illustrates the selection process, which is sequentially presented in three steps. In the first step, the decision-maker examines the material, interviews the experts, and surveys managers to determine the criteria and sub-criteria affecting to decision making. In the second step data are then processed using the FANP method to rank the criteria. Results from the FANP method are used for the input and output of the DEA model. The DEA model is implemented in the final stage.

**Step 1**: Determining evaluation criteria and sub-criteria

Determine the key criteria and sub-criteria for a comprehensive assessment of the potential supplier. At this stage, the identification of key criteria and sub-criteria is based on a review of the literature and scientific reports related to the content of the research to determine the necessary criteria for the topic [50]. After identifying the groups of criteria required, the decision-maker should select the potential supplier that matches the set criteria. Here, the criteria are defined as four main criteria and 15 sub-criteria, as shown in Figure 2.

**Step 2**: Implementing the FANP technique

Incorporating hybrid fuzzy set theory into the ANP model is the most effective tool for addressing complex problems of decision-making, which has a connection with various qualitative criteria [37]. As can be seen from the solution algorithm in this technique, as presented in Figure 3, at first, the decision-making hierarchical structure is determined to assist the selection [71].

**Step 3**: Implementation of the DEA model

In this study, the FANP and DEA techniques for efficiency measurement have advantages over other fuzzy ANP approaches. In this step, several DEA models, including the Charnes–Cooper–Rhodes model (CCR model), Banker–Charnes–Cooper model (BCC model), Slacks-Based Measure model (SBM model), and Super Slacks-Based Measure model (Super SBM model) are applied to rank suppliers and potential suppliers.

#### 3.2. Methodology

#### 3.2.1. Fuzzy Set Theory

Fuzzy set was proposed by Zadeh to solve problems existing in uncertain environments. Fuzzy sets are functions that show the dependence degree of one fuzzy number on a set number. A tilde (~) is placed above any symbol representing a fuzzy set number. If $\tilde{A}$ is a TFN, each value of the membership function is between [0, 1] and can be explained, as shown in Equation (1):

$${\mu}_{\tilde{A}}(x)=\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{(x-l)}{(m-l)}& l\le x\le m\\ \frac{(u-x)}{(u-m)}& m\le x\le u\\ 0& 0.W\end{array}$$

Each degree of membership includes a left- and right-side representation of a TFN, as shown here:

$$\tilde{N}=\text{}({\mathrm{N}}^{1(\mathrm{y})},{\mathrm{N}}^{\mathrm{r}(\mathrm{y})})\text{}=\text{}(1\text{}-\text{}(m\text{}-\text{}l)\mathrm{y},\text{}u\text{}+\text{}(m\text{}-\text{}u)\mathrm{y}),\mathrm{y}\in \left[0,\text{}1\right].$$

A TFN is shown in Figure 2.

#### 3.2.2. Fuzzy Analytic Network Process

ANP does not require a strict hierarchical structure, such as AHP. It allows elements to control, and be controlled, by different levels or clusters of attributes. Several control elements are also present at the same level. Interdependence between factors and their level is defined as a systematic approach to feedback or interactions between elements.

During the ANP process, the elements will be compared pairwise using the expert rating scale, from which the weighting matrix is established. The weights are then adjusted by defining the product of the super matrix.

The AHP method provides a structured framework to set priorities for each level of the hierarchy by using pairwise comparisons quantitated with a priority scale of 1–9, as shown. In contrast, the ANP approach allows for more complex relationships between the elements and their ranks. The 1–9 scale for AHP is shown in Table 2.

It is clear that the disadvantage of ANP in dealing with the impression and objectiveness in the pairwise comparison process has been improved in the fuzzy analytic network process. The FANP applies a range of values to incorporate the decision-makers’ uncertainly [38], whereas the ANP model shows a crisp value. The author assigns the fuzzy conversion scale of this formula, which will be used in the Saaty [72] fuzzy prioritization approach, as shown in Table 2, where O

_{ab}= (${\mathrm{O}}_{\mathrm{ab}}^{\mathrm{x}},{\mathrm{O}}_{\mathrm{ab}}^{\mathrm{o}},{\mathrm{O}}_{\mathrm{ab}}^{\mathrm{v}}$) is a triangular fuzzy number with the core ${\mathrm{O}}_{\mathrm{ab}}^{\mathrm{o}}$, the support [${\mathrm{O}}_{\mathrm{ab}}^{\mathrm{x}},{\mathrm{O}}_{\mathrm{ab}}^{\mathrm{v}}$], and the triangular fuzzy number, as shown in Figure 3.The 1–9 fuzzy conversion scale is shown in Table 3:

The reversed degree to O

_{ab}expressing the non-preference is also expressed by a triangular fuzzy number: (1/${O}_{ab}^{v}$, 1/${O}_{ab}^{o},\text{}1/{O}_{ab}^{x}$. ). By the way, the weights of criteria from the fuzzy Saaty’s matrix can be divided into four steps [73]:- Fuzzy synthetic extension calculation will transformed into TNT, called fuzzy synthetic extensions ${K}_{a}({k}_{a}^{x},{k}_{a}^{o},{k}_{a}^{uv})$. using Equations (2)–(4) [74]:$${K}_{a}={\sum}_{b=1}^{n}{O}_{ab}\u2a02{({\sum}_{a=1}^{n}{\sum}_{b=1}^{n}{O}_{ab})}^{-1}$$$$\sum}_{j=1}^{n}{O}_{ab}=\left({\displaystyle \sum}_{b=1}^{n}{M}_{ab}^{x},{\displaystyle \sum}_{j=1}^{n}{O}_{ab}^{o},{\displaystyle \sum}_{b=1}^{n}{O}_{ab}^{v}\right)$$$${O}_{ab}^{-1}=1/{O}_{ab}^{v},1/{O}_{ab}^{o},1/{O}_{ab}^{x}$$$$O\u2a02\mathrm{N}=({O}_{x}.{N}_{x},{O}_{0}.{N}_{0},{O}_{v}.{N}_{v})$$
_{x}, O_{o}, O_{v}) and (N_{x}, N_{0}, N_{v}). - Weights of criteria are addressed by using relations of the fuzzy-valued. In this step, fuzzy synthetic extensions are blurred by using the min fuzzy extension of the valued relation ≤ given by Equation (5), and weights W
_{i}are calculated (for more detail, see [75]):$${\mathrm{Q}}_{\mathrm{a}}=mi{n}_{b}\left\{\frac{{k}_{b}^{b}-{k}_{a}^{v}}{({k}_{a}^{o}-{k}_{a}^{v})-({k}_{b}^{o}-{k}_{b}^{x})}\right\}$$ - The standardization of the weights. If we expect to obtain the sum of weights within one matrix equal to 1, final weights w
_{i}are solved using Equation (7):$${q}_{i}={Q}_{i}/{\sum}_{a=1}^{n}{Q}_{a}$$ - An assessment of a Saaty’s matrix consistency. In the line with [74], a consistency of the matrix is sufficient if inequality from Equation (8) holds:$$RT=\frac{CT}{RR}=\frac{\overline{\lambda}-n}{(n-1).RR}\le 0.1$$

#### 3.3. Data Envelopment Analysis

#### 3.3.1. Charnes-Cooper-Rhodes Model (CCR Model)

Charnes, Cooper, and Rhodes (1978) [30] proposed a basic DEA model, called the CCR model:

$$\begin{array}{cc}& \underset{f.g}{\mathrm{max}}\text{}\mathsf{\gamma}\text{}=\frac{{f}^{V}{y}_{0}}{{g}^{V}{x}_{0}}\\ \mathrm{S}.\mathrm{t}.& \\ & {f}^{V}{y}_{b}-{g}^{V}{x}_{b}\text{}\le 0,\text{}b=1,\text{}2,\dots ,n\\ & f\ge 0\\ & g\ge 0\end{array}$$

Due to constraints, the optimal value $\mathsf{\gamma}$* is a maximum of 1.

DMU

_{0}is efficient if ${\gamma}^{*}=1$ and have at least one optimal f* > 0 and g* > 0. In addition, the fractional program can be presented as follows [76]:
$$\begin{array}{cc}& \underset{g.f}{\mathrm{min}}\text{}\gamma ={g}^{v}{y}_{0}\\ \mathrm{S}\mathrm{t}.& \\ & {g}^{v}{x}_{0}-1=0\\ & {f}^{v}{y}_{j}-{g}^{v}{x}_{j}\le 0,j=1,2,\cdots ,n\\ & g\ge 0\\ & f\ge 0\end{array}$$

The Farrell [77] model of Equation (10) with variable $\gamma $ and a nonnegative vector $\beta ={\beta}_{1},{\beta}_{2},{\beta}_{3},\dots ,{\beta}_{n}$ is expressed as [76].

$$\begin{array}{cc}& max{\displaystyle \sum _{i=1}^{m}}{d}_{i}^{-}+{\displaystyle \sum _{r=1}^{s}}{d}_{r}^{+}\\ \mathrm{S}.\mathrm{t}& \\ & {\displaystyle \sum _{j=1}^{n}}{x}_{ij}{\beta}_{j}+{d}_{i}^{-}=\gamma {x}_{i0},\text{}i=1,\text{}2,\dots ,p\\ & {\displaystyle \sum _{j=1}^{n}}{y}_{rj}{\beta}_{j}-{d}_{r}^{+}={y}_{r0},\text{}r=1,\text{}2,\dots ,q\\ & {\beta}_{j}\ge 0,\text{}j=1,\text{}2,\dots ,n\\ & {d}_{i}^{-}\ge 0,i=1,2,\dots ,p\\ & {d}_{r}^{+}\ge 0,r=1,2,\dots ,q\end{array}$$

Equation (11) has a feasible solution, ${\gamma}^{*}=1,{\beta}_{0}^{*}=1,{\beta}_{j}^{*}=0,(j\ne 0),\text{}\mathrm{which}$ effects the optimal value ${\gamma}^{*}$ not greater than 1. The process will be repeated for each DMUj, j = 1, 2, …, n. DMUs are inefficient when ${\gamma}^{*}$ < 1, while DMUs are boundary points if ${\gamma}^{*}=1$. We avoid the weakly efficient frontier point by invoking a linear program as follows [76]:

$$\begin{array}{cc}& max{\displaystyle \sum _{i=1}^{m}}{d}_{i}^{-}+{\displaystyle \sum _{r=1}^{d}}{d}_{r}^{+}\\ \mathrm{S}.\mathrm{t}& \\ & {\displaystyle \sum _{j=1}^{n}}{x}_{ij}{\beta}_{j}+{d}_{i}^{-}=\gamma {x}_{i0},\text{}i=1,\text{}2,\dots ,p\\ & {\displaystyle \sum _{j=1}^{n}}{y}_{rj}{\beta}_{j}-{d}_{r}^{+}={y}_{r0},\text{}r=1,\text{}2,\dots ,q\\ & {\beta}_{j}\ge 0,\text{}j=1,\text{}2,\dots ,n\\ & {d}_{i}^{-}\ge 0,i=1,2,\dots ,p\\ & {d}_{r}^{+}\ge 0,r=1,2,\dots ,q\end{array}$$

In this case, note that the choices the ${d}_{i}^{-}$ and ${d}_{r}^{+}$ do not affect the optimal ${\gamma}^{*}$. The performance of DMU

_{0}achieves 100% efficiency if, and only if, both (1) ${\gamma}^{*}=1$ and (2) ${d}_{i}^{-*}$ = ${d}_{r}^{+}=0.$ The performance of DMU_{0}is weakly efficient if, and only if, both (1)$\text{}{\gamma}^{*}=1$ and (2) ${d}_{i}^{-*}\ne 0$ and ${d}_{r}^{+}\ne 0$ for i or r in optimal alternatives. Thus, the preceding development amounts to solving the problem as follows [76]:
$$\begin{array}{cc}& min\theta -\alpha \left({\displaystyle \sum _{i=1}^{m}}{d}_{i}^{-}+{\displaystyle \sum _{r=1}^{d}}{d}_{r}^{+}\right)\\ \mathrm{S}.\mathrm{t}& \\ & {\displaystyle \sum _{j=1}^{n}}{x}_{ij}{\beta}_{j}+{d}_{i}^{-}=\gamma {x}_{i0},\text{}i=1,\text{}2,\dots ,p\\ & {\displaystyle \sum _{j=1}^{n}}{y}_{rj}{\beta}_{j}-{d}_{r}^{+}={y}_{r0},\text{}r=1,\text{}2,\dots ,q\\ & {\beta}_{j}\ge 0,\text{}j=1,\text{}2,\dots ,n\\ & {d}_{i}^{-}\ge 0,i=1,2,\dots ,p\\ & {d}_{r}^{+}\ge 0,r=1,2,\dots ,q\end{array}$$

In this case, ${d}_{i}^{-}$ and ${d}_{r}^{+}$ variables will be used to convert the inequalities into equivalent equations. This is similar to solving Equation (11) in two stages by first minimizing $\gamma $ and then fixing $\gamma ={\gamma}^{*}$ as in Equation (12). This would reset the objective from max to min, as in Equation (9), to obtain [76]:

$$\begin{array}{cc}& \underset{g.f}{\mathrm{max}}\text{}\gamma =\frac{{g}^{V}{x}_{0}}{{f}^{V}{y}_{j}}\\ \mathrm{S}.\mathrm{t}& \\ & {g}^{V}{x}_{0}\le {g}^{V}{y}_{j},\text{}j=1,\text{}2,\dots ,n\\ & g\ge \epsilon 0\\ & f\ge \epsilon 0\end{array}$$

If the α > 0 and the non-Archimedean element is defined, the input models are similar to Equations (10) and (13), as follows [76]:
and:

$$\begin{array}{cc}& \underset{g.f}{\mathrm{max}}\text{}\gamma ={g}^{V}{x}_{0}\\ \mathrm{S}.\mathrm{t}& \\ & {f}^{V}{y}_{0}=1\\ & {g}^{V}{x}_{o}-{f}^{V}{y}_{j}\ge 0,j=1,2,\dots ,n\\ & g\ge \epsilon 0\\ & f\ge \epsilon 0\end{array}$$

$$\begin{array}{cc}& max\varphi -\epsilon \left({\displaystyle \sum _{i=1}^{m}}{d}_{i}^{-}+{\displaystyle \sum _{r=1}^{d}}{d}_{r}^{+}\right)\\ \mathrm{S}.\mathrm{t}& \\ & {\displaystyle \sum _{j=1}^{n}}{x}_{ij}{\beta}_{j}+{d}_{i}^{-}={x}_{i0},\text{}i=1,\text{}2,\dots ,p\\ & {\sum}_{j=1}^{n}{y}_{rj}{\beta}_{j}-{d}_{r}^{+}=\varnothing {y}_{r0},\text{}r=1,\text{}2,\dots ,q\\ & {\beta}_{j}\ge 0,\text{}j=1,\text{}2,\dots ,n\\ & {d}_{i}^{-}\ge 0,i=1,2,\dots ,p\\ & {d}_{r}^{+}\ge 0,r=1,2,\dots ,q\end{array}$$

The input-oriented CCR (CCR-I) has the dual multiplier model, expressed as [76]:

$$\begin{array}{cc}& \mathrm{max}z={\displaystyle \sum _{r=1}^{q}}{g}_{r}{y}_{r0}\\ \mathrm{S}.\mathrm{t}& \\ & {\displaystyle \sum _{r=1}^{q}}{g}_{r}{y}_{rj}-{\displaystyle \sum _{r=1}^{q}}{f}_{r}{y}_{rj}\le 0\\ & {\displaystyle \sum _{i=1}^{p}}{f}_{i}{x}_{i0}=1\\ & {g}_{r},{f}_{i}\ge \epsilon >0\end{array}$$

The output-oriented CCR (CCR-O) has the dual multiplier model, expressed as [76]:

$$\begin{array}{cc}& \mathrm{min}q={\displaystyle \sum _{i=1}^{p}}{f}_{i}{x}_{i0}\\ \mathrm{S}.\mathrm{t}& \\ & {\displaystyle \sum _{i=1}^{p}}{f}_{i}{x}_{ij}-{\displaystyle \sum _{r=1}^{q}}{g}_{r}{y}_{rj}\le 0\\ & {\displaystyle \sum _{r=1}^{q}}{g}_{r}{y}_{r0}=1\\ & {g}_{r},{f}_{i}\ge \epsilon >0\end{array}$$

#### 3.3.2. Banker–Charnes–Cooper Model (BCC Model)

Banker et al. proposed the input-oriented BBC model (BCC-I) [30], which is able to assess the efficiency of DMU

_{0}by solving the following linear program [76]:
$$\begin{array}{cc}& {\gamma}_{B}=min\gamma \\ \mathrm{S}.\mathrm{t}& \\ & {\displaystyle \sum _{j=1}^{n}}{x}_{ij}{\beta}_{j}+{d}_{i}^{-}=\gamma {x}_{i0},\text{}i=1,\text{}2,\dots ,p\\ & {\displaystyle \sum _{j=1}^{n}}{y}_{rj}{\beta}_{j}-{d}_{r}^{+}={y}_{r0},\text{}r=1,\text{}2,\dots ,q\\ & {\displaystyle \sum _{k=1}^{n}}{\beta}_{k}=1\\ & {\beta}_{k}\ge 0,k=1,2,\dots ,n\end{array}$$

We avoid the weakly efficient frontier point by invoking the linear program as follows [76]:

$$\begin{array}{cc}& max{\displaystyle \sum _{i=1}^{m}}{d}_{i}^{-}+{\displaystyle \sum _{r=1}^{d}}{d}_{r}^{+}\\ \mathrm{S}.\mathrm{t}& \\ & {\displaystyle \sum _{j=1}^{n}}{x}_{ij}{\beta}_{j}+{d}_{i}^{-}=\gamma {x}_{i0},\text{}i=1,\text{}2,\dots ,p\\ & {\displaystyle \sum _{j=1}^{n}}{y}_{rj}{\beta}_{j}-{d}_{r}^{+}={y}_{r0},\text{}r=1,\text{}2,\dots ,q\\ & {\displaystyle \sum _{k=1}^{n}}{\beta}_{k}=1\\ & {\beta}_{k}\ge 0,\text{}k=1,\text{}2,\dots ,n\\ & {d}_{i}^{-}\ge 0,i=1,2,\dots ,p\\ & {d}_{r}^{+}\ge 0,r=1,2,\dots ,q\end{array}$$

Therefore, this is the first multiplier form to solve the problem as follows [76]:

$$\begin{array}{cc}& min\gamma -\epsilon \left({\displaystyle \sum _{i=1}^{m}}{d}_{i}^{-}+{\displaystyle \sum _{r=1}^{d}}{d}_{r}^{+}\right)\\ \mathrm{S}.\mathrm{t}& \\ & {\displaystyle \sum _{j=1}^{n}}{x}_{ij}{\beta}_{j}+{d}_{i}^{-}=\gamma {x}_{i0},\text{}i=1,\text{}2,\dots ,p\\ & {\displaystyle \sum _{j=1}^{n}}{y}_{rj}{\beta}_{j}-{d}_{r}^{+}={y}_{r0},\text{}r=1,\text{}2,\dots ,q\\ & {\displaystyle \sum _{k=1}^{n}}{\beta}_{k}=1\\ & {\beta}_{k}\ge 0,\text{}k=1,\text{}2,\dots ,n\\ & {d}_{i}^{-}\ge 0,i=1,2,\dots ,p\\ & {d}_{r}^{+}\ge 0,r=1,2,\dots ,q\end{array}$$

The linear program in Equation (17) gives us the second multiplier form, which is expressed as [76]:

$$\begin{array}{cc}& \underset{g.f,{f}_{0}}{\mathrm{max}}\text{}{\gamma}_{B}={f}^{V}{y}_{0}-{f}_{0}\\ \mathrm{S}.\mathrm{t}& \\ & {g}^{V}{x}_{0}=1\\ & {f}^{V}{y}_{j}-{g}^{V}{x}_{j}-{f}_{0}\le 0,j=1,2,\dots ,n\\ & g\ge 0\\ & f\ge 0\end{array}$$

If g and f, which are mentioned in Equation (22), are vectors, the scalar ${v}_{0}$ may be positive or negative (or zero). Thus, the equivalent BCC fractional program is obtained from the dual program in Equation (22) as [76]:

$$\begin{array}{cc}& \underset{g.f}{\mathrm{max}}\text{}\gamma =\frac{{f}^{V}{y}_{0}-{f}_{0}}{{g}^{V}{x}_{0}}\\ \mathrm{S}.\mathrm{t}& \\ & \frac{{f}^{V}{y}_{j}-{f}_{0}}{{g}^{V}{x}_{j}}\le 1,\text{}j=1,\text{}2,\dots ,n\\ & g\ge 0\\ & f\ge 0\end{array}$$

The DMU

_{0}can be called BCC-efficient if an optimal solution $({\gamma}_{B}^{*},\text{}{d}^{-*},{d}^{+*})\text{}\mathrm{is}$ claimed in this two-phase process for Equation (17) satisfies ${\gamma}_{B}^{*}=1$ and has no slack ${d}^{-*}=\text{}{d}^{+*}$ = 0, then. The improved activity $({\gamma}^{*}x-\text{}{d}^{-*},y+{d}^{+*})$ also can be illustrated as BCC-efficient [76].The output-oriented BCC model (BCC–O) is:

$$\begin{array}{cc}& \mathrm{max}\eta \\ \mathrm{S}.\mathrm{t}& \\ & {\displaystyle \sum _{j=1}^{n}}{x}_{ij}{\beta}_{j}+{d}_{i}^{-}=\gamma {x}_{i0},\text{}i=1,\text{}2,\dots ,p\\ & {\displaystyle \sum _{j=1}^{n}}{y}_{rj}{\beta}_{j}-{d}_{r}^{+}=\eta {y}_{r0},\text{}r=1,\text{}2,\dots ,q\\ & {\displaystyle \sum _{k=1}^{n}}{\beta}_{k}=1\\ & {\beta}_{k}\ge 0,\text{}k=1,\text{}2,\dots ,n\end{array}$$

From Equation (24), we have the associate multiplier form, which is expressed as [76]:

$$\begin{array}{cc}& \underset{g.f,{g}_{0}}{\mathrm{min}}{f}^{V}{y}_{0}-{f}_{0}\\ \mathrm{S}.\mathrm{t}& \\ & {f}^{V}{y}_{0}=1\\ & {g}^{V}{x}_{j}-{f}^{V}{y}_{j}-{f}_{0}\le 0,\text{}j=1,\text{}2,\dots ,n\\ & g\ge 0\\ & f\ge 0\end{array}$$

f

_{0}is the scalar associated with ${{\displaystyle \sum}}_{k=1}^{n}{\beta}_{k}=1$. In conclusion, the authors achieve the equivalent (BCC) fractional programming formulation for Equation (25) [76]:
$$\begin{array}{cc}& \underset{g.f,{g}_{0}}{\mathrm{min}}\frac{{g}^{V}{x}_{0}-{f}_{0}}{{f}^{V}{y}_{0}}\\ \mathrm{S}.\mathrm{t}& \\ & \frac{{f}^{V}{x}_{j}-{f}_{0}}{{f}^{V}{y}_{j}}\le 1,\text{}j=1,\text{}2,\dots ,n\\ & g\ge 0\\ & f\ge 0\end{array}$$

#### 3.3.3. Slacks-Based Measure Model (SBM Model)

#### Input-Oriented SBM (SBM-I-C)

The input-oriented SBM under a constant-returns-to-scale assumption [76] is described as follows:

$$\begin{array}{cc}& {\rho}_{I}^{*}=\text{}\underset{\beta ,{d}^{-},{d}^{+}}{\mathrm{min}}1-\text{}\frac{1}{m}{\displaystyle \sum _{i=1}^{m}}\frac{{d}_{i}^{-}}{{x}_{ih}}\\ \mathrm{S}.\mathrm{t}& \\ & {x}_{ic}={\displaystyle \sum _{j=1}^{m}}{x}_{ic}{\beta}_{i}+\text{}{d}_{i}^{-}\text{},\text{}i=1,\text{}2,\text{}\dots m\\ & {y}_{rc}={\displaystyle \sum _{j=1}^{m}}{y}_{rc}{\beta}_{i}-\text{}{d}_{r}^{+}\text{},\text{}i=1,\text{}2,\text{}\dots d\\ & {\beta}_{j}\ge 0,\text{}k\text{}(\forall j),\text{}{d}_{i}^{-}\ge 0\text{}(\forall j),{d}_{r}^{+}\ge 0\text{}(\forall j)\end{array}$$

The DMUs in the reference set R of $({x}_{c},\text{}{y}_{c})$ are SBM-input-efficient. In addition, the SBM-input-efficiency score must is lower than the CCR efficiency score.

#### Output-Oriented SBM (SBM-O-C)

The output-oriented SBM efficiency ${\rho}_{O}^{*}$ of DMU

_{c}= (x_{c}, y_{c}) is defined by [SBM-O-C] [76]:
$$\begin{array}{cc}& \raisebox{1ex}{$1$}\!\left/ \!\raisebox{-1ex}{${\rho}_{O}^{*}$}\right.=\underset{\lambda ,{s}^{-},{s}^{+}}{\mathrm{max}}1+\frac{1}{s}{{\displaystyle \sum}}_{r=1}^{s}\frac{{s}_{r}^{+}}{{y}_{rh}}\\ \mathrm{S}.\mathrm{t}.& \\ & {x}_{ic}={\displaystyle \sum _{j=1}^{n}}{x}_{ij}{\beta}_{j}+{d}_{j}^{-}(i=1,..m)\\ & {y}_{ic}={\sum}_{j=1}^{n}{y}_{ij}{\beta}_{j}+{d}_{i}^{+}(i=1,\dots m)\\ & {\beta}_{j}\ge 0(\forall j),{d}_{i}^{-}\ge 0(\forall i),{d}_{i}^{+}\ge 0(\forall r)\\ \mathrm{The}\mathrm{optimal}\mathrm{solution}& \mathrm{of}[\mathrm{SBM}-\mathrm{O}-\mathrm{C}]{\beta}^{*},{d}^{-*},{d}^{+*}).\end{array}$$

#### 3.3.4. Super-Slacks-Based Measure Model (Super SBM Model)

Tone’s super SBM model [78] has proposed a slacks-based measure of efficiency (SBM model) that measures the efficiency of the units under evaluation using slack variables only. The super efficiency SBM model removes the evaluated unit DMUq from the set of units and looks for a DMU* with inputs x

_{i}*, i = 1, ..., m, and outputs y_{k}*, k = 1, ..., r, being SBM (and CCR) efficient after this removal. The super SBM model is formulated as follow:
$$\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{minimize}{\theta}_{q}^{SBM}=& \frac{\frac{1}{p}{{\displaystyle \sum}}_{i=1}^{m}{x}_{i}^{*}/{x}_{i0}}{\frac{1}{q}{{\displaystyle \sum}}_{k=1}^{r}{y}_{k}^{*}/{y}_{k0}}\\ & \mathrm{S}.\mathrm{t}\end{array}$$

$$\sum _{j=1}^{n}}{x}_{ij}{\beta}_{j}+{d}_{i}^{-}=\gamma {x}_{i0},\text{}i=1,\text{}2,\dots ,p\phantom{\rule{0ex}{0ex}}{\displaystyle \sum _{j=1}^{n}}{y}_{rj}{\beta}_{j}-{d}_{r}^{+}={y}_{r0},\text{}r=1,\text{}2,\dots ,q\phantom{\rule{0ex}{0ex}}{x}_{i}^{*}\ge {x}_{i0},\text{}i=1,\text{}2,\dots ,n\phantom{\rule{0ex}{0ex}}{y}_{k}^{*}\le {y}_{k0},\text{}k=1,\text{}2,\dots ,n\phantom{\rule{0ex}{0ex}}{\beta}_{k}\ge 0,\text{}k=1,\text{}2,\dots ,n\phantom{\rule{0ex}{0ex}}{d}_{i}^{-}\ge 0,i=1,2,\dots ,p\phantom{\rule{0ex}{0ex}}{d}_{r}^{+}\ge 0,r=1,2,\dots ,q$$

The numerator in the ratio in Equation (29) can be explained as the distance of units DMUq and DMU* in input space and the average reduction rate of inputs of DMU* to inputs of DMUq.

## 4. Case Study

In this research, the authors collected 25 suppliers (DMU) in Vietnam. Information about the suppliers is shown in Table 4.

The data collection of the FANP and hierarchical structure are introduced in Figure 4.

A fuzzy comparison matrix for all criteria is shown in Table 5.

During the defuzzification, we obtain the coefficients α = 0.5 and β = 0.5 (Tang and Beynon) [80]. In it, α represents the uncertain environment conditions, and β represents the attitude of the evaluator is fair.

$${\mathrm{g}}_{0.5,0.5}(\overline{{a}_{EMS,FS}})=\left[(0.5\times 6.5)+(1-0.5)\times 7.5\right]=7\phantom{\rule{0ex}{0ex}}{\mathrm{f}}_{0.5}({L}_{EMS,FS})=(7-6)\times 0.5+6=6.5\phantom{\rule{0ex}{0ex}}{\mathrm{f}}_{0.5}({U}_{EMS,FS})=8-(8-7)\times 0.5=7.5\phantom{\rule{0ex}{0ex}}{\mathrm{g}}_{0.5,0.5}(\overline{{a}_{EMS,FS}})=\text{}1/7$$

The remaining calculations are similar to the above, as well as the fuzzy number priority points. The real number priorities when comparing the main criteria pairs are presented in Table 6.

We calculate the maximum individual values as follows:
with the number of criteria is 4, we obtain n = 4, and λ

$$GM1={(1\times 1/7\times 1/8\times 1/2)}^{1/4}=0.03073\phantom{\rule{0ex}{0ex}}GM2={(7\times 1\times 1/6\times 2)}^{1/4}=1.2359\phantom{\rule{0ex}{0ex}}GM3={(8\times 6\times 1\times 5)}^{1/4}=3.9359\phantom{\rule{0ex}{0ex}}GM4={(2\times 1/2\times 1/5\times 1)}^{1/4}=0.6687\phantom{\rule{0ex}{0ex}}\sum GM=GM1+GM2+GM3+GM4=6.1478$$

$${\omega}_{1}=\frac{0.3073}{6.1478}=0.0499\phantom{\rule{0ex}{0ex}}{\omega}_{2}=\frac{1.2359}{6.1478}=0.2010\phantom{\rule{0ex}{0ex}}{\omega}_{3}=\frac{3.9359}{6.1478}=0.6402\phantom{\rule{0ex}{0ex}}{\omega}_{4}=\frac{0.6687}{6.1478}=0.1087$$

$$\left[\begin{array}{c}\begin{array}{ccc}1& 1/7& \begin{array}{cc}1/8& 1/2\end{array}\end{array}\\ \begin{array}{ccc}7& 1& \begin{array}{cc}1/6& 2\end{array}\end{array}\\ \begin{array}{c}\begin{array}{cc}8& \begin{array}{ccc}6& 1& 5\end{array}\end{array}\\ \begin{array}{ccc}2& 1/2& \begin{array}{cc}1/5& 1\end{array}\end{array}\end{array}\end{array}\right]\times \left[\begin{array}{c}0.0499\\ 0.2010\\ \begin{array}{c}0.6402\\ 0.1087\end{array}\end{array}\right]=\left[\begin{array}{c}0.2129\\ 0.8744\\ \begin{array}{c}2.7889\\ 0.4370\end{array}\end{array}\right]\phantom{\rule{0ex}{0ex}}\left[\begin{array}{c}0.2129\\ 0.8744\\ \begin{array}{c}2.7889\\ 0.4370\end{array}\end{array}\right]/\left[\begin{array}{c}0.0499\\ 0.2010\\ \begin{array}{c}0.6402\\ 0.1087\end{array}\end{array}\right]=\left[\begin{array}{c}4.2665\\ 4.3502\\ \begin{array}{c}4.3562\\ 4.0202\end{array}\end{array}\right]$$

_{max}and CI are calculated as follows:
$${\lambda}_{max}=\frac{4.2665+4.3502+4.3562+4.0202}{4}=4.2482$$

$$CI=\frac{4.2482-4}{4-1}=0.0827$$

For CR, with n = 4 we obtain RI = 0.9:

$$CR=\frac{0.0827}{1.12}=0.0919$$

We have CR = 0.0919 ≤ 0.1, so the pairwise comparison data is consistent and does not need to be re-evaluated. The results of the pair comparison between the main criteria are presented in Table 7, Table 8, Table 9, Table 10 and Table 11.

Based on how the hierarchical structure was built, the pairwise comparison matrix was built through completing a questionnaire. Then, the received data to calculate the weight of supplier’s indices and to ensure the accuracy of judged inconsistency rate and other constraints are presented.

In summary, a graphic of the DEA model for analysis of DMUs (suppliers) along with three inputs and three outputs is shown in Figure 4. The results of the FANP model for the ranking of various suppliers on qualitative attributes are utilized in the output qualitative benefits of the DEA model [71,81]. In our situation, inputs are those factors that organizations would consider as an improvement if they were decreased in value (i.e., smaller values are better), whereas outputs are those factors that organizations would consider as improvements if they were increased in value (i.e., larger is better). This is a standard approach when seeking to use DEA as a discrete alternative multiple criteria decision-making tool [71]. There are three inputs and three outputs, as shown in Figure 5.

To aid in reducing scaling errors associated with the mathematical programming software packages, the dataset is mean normalized for each factor, i.e., each value in each column is divided by that column’s mean score. This normalization procedure does not change the efficiency scores of the ratio-based DEA models. As previously mentioned, to help model the analysis as inputs and outputs, instead of the standard productivity efficiency measurement approach, assume that the inputs are those factors that improve as their values decrease and the outputs are those values that improve as their values increase [71]. Raw data are provided by the case organization, as shown in Table 12.

#### 4.1. Isotonicity Test

The variables of input and output for the correlation coefficient matrix should comply with the isotonicity premise. In other words, the increase of an input will not cause the decreasing output of another item. The results of the Pearson correlation coefficient test are shown in Table 13.

Based on the results of Pearson correlation test, the results of all correlation coefficients are positive, thus meeting a basic assumption of the DEA model. Hence, we do not to change the input and output.

#### 4.2. Results and Discussion

Supplier evaluation and selection have been identified as important issues that could affect the efficiency of a supply chain. It can be seen that selecting a supplier is complicated in that decision-makers must understand qualitative and quantitative features for assessing the symmetrical impact of the criteria to reach the most accurate result.

For the performance in an empirical study, the authors collected data from 25 suppliers in Vietnam. A hierarchical structure to select the best suppliers is built with four main criteria (including 15 sub-criteria). Completion of a questionnaire for analyzing the FANP model is done by interviewing experts, and surveying the managers and company’s databases. The ANP model is combined with a fuzzy set, to evaluate the supplier selection criteria and define the priorities of each supplier, which are able to be utilized to clarify important criteria that directly affect the profitability of the business. Then, several DEA models are proposed for ranking suppliers. As a result, DMU 1, DMU 5, DMU 10, DMU 16, DMU 19, DMU 22, and DMU 23 are identified as efficient in all nine models, as shown in Table 7 [78], which have a conditioned response to the enterprises’ supply requirements. Whereas for other DMUs, there were differences in the results, so the next research should include an improvement or review of data inputs to produce appropriate outputs, so that suppliers remain efficient. This integration model supports a great deal of corporate decision-making because of the effectiveness and the complication of this model, for exactly choosing the most suitable supplier. The ranking list of 25 DMUs as shown in Table 14.

The optimal weights and the slacks for each DMU using nine DEA models (CCR, BCC, and SBM, Super SBM) are shown from Table A1, Table A2, Table A3, Table A4, Table A5, Table A6, Table A7, Table A8, Table A9, Table A10, Table A11, Table A12, Table A13, Table A14, Table A15, Table A16, Table A17 and Table A18 in appendix section.

## 5. Conclusions

Many studies have applied the MCDM approach to various fields of science and engineering, and their numbers have been increasing over the past years. The fuzzy MCDM model has been applied to supplier selection problems. Although some studies have considered a review of applications of MCDM approaches in this field, little work has focused on this problem in a fuzzy environment. This is a reason why hybrid ANP with fuzzy logic and DEA is proposed in this study.

Initially, we proposed the ANP model combined with a fuzzy set, to evaluate supplier selection criteria and define a priority of each supplier, which are able to be utilized to clarify important criteria that directly affect the profitability of the business. The FANP can be used for ranking suppliers but the number of supplier selections is practically limited because of the number of pairwise comparisons that need to be made, and a disadvantage of the FANP approach is that input data, expressed in linguistic terms, depend on the experience of decision-makers and, thus, involves subjectivity. This is a reason why several DEA models are proposed for ranking suppliers in the final stage. The DEA model can handle hundreds of suppliers with multiple inputs and outputs for the best supplier rating. The FANP-DEA integration model supports a great deal of corporate decision-making because of the effectiveness and complication of this model, for exactly choosing the most suitable supplier. Finally, this research will provide a potential suppliers list, which has a conditioned response to the enterprises’ supply requirements.

The main contribution of this research is to develop complete approaches for supplier evaluation and selection of the rice supply chain as a typical example. This is a useful proposed model on an academic and practical front. The FANP-DEA method not only provides reasonable results but also allows the decision-maker to visualize the impact of different criteria in the final result. Furthermore, this integrated model may offer valuable insights, as well as provide methods for other sectors to select and evaluate suppliers. This model can also be applied to many different industries for future research directions.

For improving these MCDM model, outlier detection and the curse of dimensionality of the DEA model will be considered in future research. Moreover, different methodologies, such as the preference ranking organization method for enrichment of evaluations (PROMETHEE), fuzzy data envelopment analysis (FDEA), etc., can also been combined for different scenarios.

## Author Contributions

In this research, C.-N.W. contributed to generating the research ideas and designing the theoretical verifications, and reviewed the manuscript; V.T.N. contributed the research ideas, designed the framework, collected data, analyzed the data, and summarized and wrote the manuscript; D.H.D. collected data, analyzed the data, wrote the manuscript; and H.T.D. wrote and formatted the manuscript.

## Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

## Appendix A

DMU | Score | Rank | V (1) | V (2) | V (3) | U (1) | U (2) | U (3) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

DMU 1 | 1 | 1 | 0.312446 | 0 | 1.25 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 4.57 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 0 | 1.41 × ${10}^{-2}$ |

DMU 2 | 0.4245 | 25 | 9.96 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 1.25 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 2.05 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 0 | 1.68 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 0 |

DMU 3 | 0.5329 | 23 | 0.121082 | 1.51 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 2.49 × ${10}^{-4}$ | 0 | 2.05 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 0 |

DMU 4 | 0.4876 | 24 | 0 | 2.12 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 7.97 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 0 | 0.021246 | 0 |

DMU 5 | 1 | 1 | 7.31 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 4.55 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 0 | 5.74 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 0 | 1.76 × ${10}^{-2}$ |

DMU 6 | 0.6428 | 22 | 0.124062 | 1.57 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 2.79 × ${10}^{-4}$ | 6.24 × ${10}^{-4}$ | 2.11 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 0 |

DMU 7 | 0.9708 | 9 | 0 | 2.02 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 7.59 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 0 | 2.02 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 0 |

DMU 8 | 0.79 | 21 | 0.105865 | 1.37 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 0 | 2.51 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 1.78 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 0 |

DMU 9 | 0.7934 | 20 | 0.333333 | 0 | 0 | 0.10656 | 1.37 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 0 |

DMU 10 | 1 | 1 | 0.303641 | 0 | 2.97 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 0.097177 | 1.41 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 1.34 × ${10}^{-3}$ |

DMU 11 | 0.9529 | 11 | 0 | 0 | 3.33 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 0.186293 | 6.31 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 0 |

DMU 12 | 1 | 1 | 0.136388 | 1.71 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 0 | 0 | 2.27 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 0 |

DMU 13 | 0.8941 | 13 | 0.118819 | 1.54 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 0 | 2.82 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 2.00 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 0 |

DMU 14 | 0.8845 | 16 | 8.30 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 0 | 1.67 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 0.139719 | 4.74 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 0 |

DMU 15 | 0.8357 | 19 | 1.53 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 2.29 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 2.72 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 2.77 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 1.64 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 0 |

DMU 16 | 1 | 1 | 0.112767 | 1.49 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 6.21 × ${10}^{-4}$ | 0 | 2.00 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 0 |

DMU 17 | 0.9683 | 10 | 8.09 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 2.11 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 0 | 2.32 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 1.88 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 0 |

DMU 18 | 0.858 | 18 | 0 | 2.33 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 3.91 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 2.59 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 1.67 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 0 |

DMU 19 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 3.18 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 0 | 0.134811 | 0 | 0 |

DMU 20 | 0.8967 | 12 | 0 | 2.44 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 4.10 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 2.71 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 1.75 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 0 |

DMU 21 | 0.8909 | 14 | 0 | 2.53 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 4.25 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 2.81 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 0.018109 | 0 |

DMU 22 | 1 | 1 | 0.25 | 0 | 0 | 0.145707 | 0 | 0 |

DMU 23 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1.20 × ${10}^{-4}$ | 1.92 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 0.10872 | 4.31 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 0 |

DMU 24 | 0.8906 | 15 | 1.85 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 2.69 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 0 | 3.52 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 4.82 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 7.86 × ${10}^{-3}$ |

DMU 25 | 0.8705 | 17 | 0 | 2.36 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 3.96 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 2.62 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 1.69 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 0 |

DMU | Score | Rank | LT | UP | PC | QB | NI | RE |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

DMU 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |

DMU 2 | 0.4245 | 25 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.012 | 0 | 0.001 |

DMU 3 | 0.5329 | 23 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.558 | 0 | 0.006 |

DMU 4 | 0.4876 | 24 | 0.064 | 0 | 0 | 0.531 | 0 | 3.114 |

DMU 5 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |

DMU 6 | 0.6428 | 22 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.275 |

DMU 7 | 0.9708 | 9 | 0.995 | 0 | 0 | 2.588 | 0 | 2.98 |

DMU 8 | 0.79 | 21 | 0 | 0 | 2.474 | 0 | 0 | 0.221 |

DMU 9 | 0.7934 | 20 | 0 | 19.826 | 2.518 | 0 | 0 | 0.001 |

DMU 10 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |

DMU 11 | 0.9529 | 11 | 1.906 | 69.61 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3.945 |

DMU 12 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |

DMU 13 | 0.8941 | 13 | 0 | 0 | 3.512 | 0 | 0 | 4.416 |

DMU 14 | 0.8845 | 16 | 0 | 16.896 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1.959 |

DMU 15 | 0.8357 | 19 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.231 |

DMU 16 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |

DMU 17 | 0.9683 | 10 | 0 | 0 | 22.934 | 0 | 0 | 1.983 |

DMU 18 | 0.858 | 18 | 0.222 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3.722 |

DMU 19 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |

DMU 20 | 0.8967 | 12 | 0.034 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 6.509 |

DMU 21 | 0.8909 | 14 | 0.489 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3.554 |

DMU 22 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |

DMU 23 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |

DMU 24 | 0.8906 | 15 | 0 | 0 | 13.043 | 0 | 0 | 0 |

DMU 25 | 0.8705 | 17 | 0.116 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2.629 |

DMU | Score | Rank | V (1) | V (2) | V (3) | U (1) | U (2) | U (3) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

DMU 1 | 1 | 1 | 0.219376 | 9.79 × ${10}^{-4}$ | 3.76 × ${10}^{-5}$ | 0 | 2.27 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 0 |

DMU 2 | 0.4245 | 25 | 0.234678 | 2.93 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 4.82 × ${10}^{-4}$ | 0 | 3.97 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 0 |

DMU 3 | 0.5329 | 23 | 0.227195 | 2.84 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 4.66 × ${10}^{-4}$ | 0 | 3.84 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 0 |

DMU 4 | 0.4876 | 24 | 0 | 4.35 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 1.63 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 0 | 4.36 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 0 |

DMU 5 | 1 | 1 | 9.80 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 2.85 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1.87 × ${10}^{-2}$ |

DMU 6 | 0.6428 | 22 | 0.193011 | 2.44 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 4.34 × ${10}^{-4}$ | 9.71 × ${10}^{-4}$ | 3.28 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 0 |

DMU 7 | 0.9708 | 9 | 0 | 2.08 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 7.82 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 0 | 2.08 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 0 |

DMU 8 | 0.79 | 21 | 0.134006 | 1.74 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 0 | 3.18 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 2.26 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 0 |

DMU 9 | 0.7934 | 20 | 0.420146 | 0 | 0 | 0.134312 | 1.73 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 0 |

DMU 10 | 1 | 1 | 0.333333 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1.69 × ${10}^{-2}$ |

DMU 11 | 0.9529 | 11 | 0 | 0 | 3.50 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 0.195497 | 6.63 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 0 |

DMU 12 | 1 | 1 | 0.136388 | 1.71 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 0 | 0 | 2.27 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 0 |

DMU 13 | 0.8941 | 13 | 0.132886 | 1.72 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 0 | 3.16 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 2.24 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 0 |

DMU 14 | 0.8845 | 16 | 0 | 0 | 2.83 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 0.157959 | 5.35 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 0 |

DMU 15 | 0.8357 | 19 | 1.83 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 2.74 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 3.26 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 0.033178 | 1.97 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 0 |

DMU 16 | 1 | 1 | 0.116963 | 1.52 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 0 | 2.78 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 1.97 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 0 |

DMU 17 | 0.9683 | 10 | 8.36 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 2.18 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 0 | 2.40 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 1.94 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 0 |

DMU 18 | 0.858 | 18 | 0 | 2.72 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 4.56 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 3.02 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 1.94 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 0 |

DMU 19 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 3.18 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 0 | 0.134811 | 0 | 0 |

DMU 20 | 0.8967 | 12 | 0 | 2.72 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 4.57 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 3.02 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 0.019468 | 0 |

DMU 21 | 0.8909 | 14 | 0 | 2.84 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 4.77 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 3.16 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 2.03 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 0 |

DMU 22 | 1 | 1 | 8.23 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 2.15 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 0 | 2.36 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 1.91 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 0 |

DMU 23 | 1 | 1 | 6.40 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 1.37 × ${10}^{-4}$ | 1.27 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 0.114556 | 0 | 2.49 × ${10}^{-3}$ |

DMU 24 | 0.8906 | 15 | 2.08 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 3.02 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 0 | 3.96 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 5.41 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 8.82 × ${10}^{-3}$ |

DMU 25 | 0.8705 | 17 | 0 | 2.71 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 4.54 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 3.01 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 1.94 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 0 |

No. | DMU | Score | Rank | LT | UP | PC | QB | NI | RE |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

1 | DMU 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |

2 | DMU 2 | 0.4245 | 25 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.029 | 0 | 0.002 |

3 | DMU 3 | 0.5329 | 23 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1.047 | 0 | 0.012 |

4 | DMU 4 | 0.4876 | 24 | 0.131 | 0 | 0 | 1.09 | 0 | 6.387 |

5 | DMU 5 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |

6 | DMU 6 | 0.6428 | 22 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.428 |

7 | DMU 7 | 0.9708 | 9 | 1.025 | 0 | 0 | 2.665 | 0 | 3.07 |

8 | DMU 8 | 0.79 | 21 | 0 | 0 | 3.132 | 0 | 0 | 0.279 |

9 | DMU 9 | 0.7934 | 20 | 0 | 24.989 | 3.174 | 0 | 0 | 0.002 |

10 | DMU 10 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |

11 | DMU 11 | 0.9529 | 11 | 2 | 73.049 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4.14 |

12 | DMU 12 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |

13 | DMU 13 | 0.8941 | 13 | 0 | 0 | 3.928 | 0 | 0 | 4.939 |

14 | DMU 14 | 0.8845 | 16 | 0 | 19.102 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2.214 |

15 | DMU 15 | 0.8357 | 19 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.277 |

16 | DMU 16 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |

17 | DMU 17 | 0.9683 | 10 | 0 | 0 | 23.686 | 0 | 0 | 2.048 |

18 | DMU 18 | 0.858 | 18 | 0.259 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4.338 |

19 | DMU 19 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |

20 | DMU 20 | 0.8967 | 12 | 0.037 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 7.259 |

21 | DMU 21 | 0.8909 | 14 | 0.549 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3.989 |

22 | DMU 22 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |

23 | DMU 23 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |

24 | DMU 24 | 0.8906 | 15 | 0 | 0 | 14.645 | 0 | 0 | 0 |

25 | DMU 25 | 0.8705 | 17 | 0.133 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3.019 |

DMU | Score | Rank | V (1) | V (2) | V (3) | U (0) | U (1) | U (2) | U (3) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

DMU 1 | 1 | 1 | 0.333333 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 9.02 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 0 | 1.13 × ${10}^{-2}$ |

DMU 2 | 0.7047 | 25 | 0.120608 | 9.27 × ${10}^{-4}$ | 4.87 × ${10}^{-4}$ | 0.7047 | 0 | 0 | 0 |

DMU 3 | 0.8647 | 22 | 0.148001 | 1.14 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 5.97 × ${10}^{-4}$ | 0.8647 | 0 | 0 | 0 |

DMU 4 | 0.9274 | 15 | 2.67 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 1.57 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 9.71 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 0.9274 | 0 | 0 | 0 |

DMU 5 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 4.68 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 0 | 0 | 5.84 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 0 | 1.76 × ${10}^{-2}$ |

DMU 6 | 0.8847 | 20 | 0.151411 | 1.16 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 6.11 × ${10}^{-4}$ | 0.8847 | 0 | 0 | 0 |

DMU 7 | 0.9792 | 12 | 0 | 1.81 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 9.41 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 0.2364 | 0 | 1.55 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 0 |

DMU 8 | 0.792 | 24 | 0.106413 | 1.36 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 0 | 0.03772 | 0 | 1.88 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 0 |

DMU 9 | 1 | 1 | 0.165486 | 1.47 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 0 | 0.9636 | 1.12 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 0 | 0 |

DMU 10 | 1 | 1 | 0.132633 | 1.68 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 2.98 × ${10}^{-4}$ | 0 | 6.68 × ${10}^{-4}$ | 2.25 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 0 |

DMU 11 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 3.33 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 0.1448 | 0.179671 | 4.14 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 0 |

DMU 12 | 1 | 1 | 0.244753 | 7.67 × ${10}^{-4}$ | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3.06 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 1.47 × ${10}^{-2}$ |

DMU 13 | 0.9087 | 16 | 0.10788 | 1.53 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 9.40 × ${10}^{-4}$ | 0.297 | 1.77 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 1.23 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 0 |

DMU 14 | 1 | 1 | 4.61 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 7.35 × ${10}^{-4}$ | 1.46 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 0.5676 | 8.40 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 0 | 0 |

DMU 15 | 0.8389 | 23 | 0.017621 | 2.74 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 0 | 0.34973 | 3.02 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 2.44 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 0 |

DMU 16 | 1 | 1 | 7.04 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 2.05 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1.35 × ${10}^{-2}$ |

DMU 17 | 0.9747 | 13 | 0.115365 | 1.68 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 0 | 0.2037 | 1.85 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 1.49 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 0 |

DMU 18 | 0.8811 | 21 | 0 | 1.76 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 7.86 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 0.5174 | 2.40 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 5.68 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 0 |

DMU 19 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 3.18 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 0 | 0 | 0.134811 | 0 | 0 |

DMU 20 | 0.9679 | 14 | 1.71 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 1.79 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 7.96 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 0.6404 | 0.027225 | 4.53 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 0 |

DMU 21 | 0.8998 | 18 | 0 | 1.87 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 0.008356 | 0.5501 | 2.55 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 6.04 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 0 |

DMU 22 | 1 | 1 | 7.72 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 2.21 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 0 | 0 | 0.145707 | 0 | 0 |

DMU 23 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2.00 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 0 | 0.117199 | 0 | 2.15 × ${10}^{-3}$ |

DMU 24 | 0.8989 | 19 | 2.05 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 2.66 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 0 | 0.6047 | 0.04485 | 0 | 0 |

DMU 25 | 0.9038 | 17 | 1.23 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 1.68 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 7.35 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 0.5734 | 2.54 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 4.40 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 0 |

DMU | Score | Rank | LT | UP | PC | QB | NI | RE |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

DMU 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |

DMU 2 | 0.7047 | 25 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.717 | 11.736 | 15.648 |

DMU 3 | 0.8647 | 22 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1.331 | 13.962 | 18.622 |

DMU 4 | 0.9274 | 15 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.74 | 17.793 | 23.721 |

DMU 5 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |

DMU 6 | 0.8847 | 20 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.381 | 9.551 | 12.733 |

DMU 7 | 0.9792 | 12 | 1.076 | 0 | 0 | 2.021 | 0 | 1.311 |

DMU 8 | 0.792 | 24 | 0 | 0 | 8.479 | 0.782 | 0 | 2.928 |

DMU 9 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.001 | 0.001 |

DMU 10 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |

DMU 11 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0.002 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |

DMU 12 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |

DMU 13 | 0.9087 | 16 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1.281 |

DMU 14 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.001 | 0.001 |

DMU 15 | 0.8389 | 23 | 0 | 0 | 1.157 | 0 | 0 | 0.626 |

DMU 16 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |

DMU 17 | 0.9747 | 13 | 0 | 0 | 19.705 | 0 | 0 | 0.379 |

DMU 18 | 0.8811 | 21 | 0.033 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2.897 |

DMU 19 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |

DMU 20 | 0.9679 | 14 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2.287 |

DMU 21 | 0.8998 | 18 | 0.424 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3.248 |

DMU 22 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |

DMU 23 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |

DMU 24 | 0.8989 | 19 | 0 | 0 | 12.923 | 0 | 0.546 | 0.724 |

DMU 25 | 0.9038 | 17 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1.467 |

DMU | Score | Rank | V (0) | V (1) | V (2) | V (3) | U (1) | U (2) | U (3) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

DMU 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0.333333 | 0 | 0 | 0.106578 | 2.16 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 8.66 × ${10}^{-3}$ |

DMU 2 | 0.504 | 24 | 1.98413 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3.97 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 0 |

DMU 3 | 0.5349 | 23 | 0.0769 | 0.216938 | 2.78 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 0 | 0 | 3.84 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 0 |

DMU 4 | 0.4928 | 25 | -0.6658 | 0 | 5.08 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 2.65 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 0 | 4.36 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 0 |

DMU 5 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2.49 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 9.37 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 0 | 2.50 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 0 |

DMU 6 | 0.6448 | 22 | 0.06573 | 0.185448 | 2.38 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 0 | 0 | 3.28 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 0 |

DMU 7 | 0.9727 | 12 | -0.3183 | 0 | 2.43 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 1.27 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 0 | 2.08 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 0 |

DMU 8 | 0.8909 | 20 | 0.55846 | 0 | 1.64 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 0 | 0 | 2.27 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 0 |

DMU 9 | 0.9997 | 11 | -26.435 | 4.540095 | 4.02 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 0 | 0.308632 | 0 | 0 |

DMU 10 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0.133527 | 1.67 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 2.74 × ${10}^{-4}$ | 0 | 2.26 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 0 |

DMU 11 | 1 | 1 | -0.1694 | 0 | 0 | 3.90 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 0.2101 | 4.84 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 0 |

DMU 12 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0.242562 | 7.86 × ${10}^{-4}$ | 0 | 0 | 2.27 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 0 |

DMU 13 | 0.8958 | 18 | 0.04537 | 0.127989 | 1.64 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 0 | 0 | 2.27 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 0 |

DMU 14 | 1 | 1 | -1.3128 | 0.106691 | 1.70 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 3.38 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 0.194235 | 0 | 0 |

DMU 15 | 0.8909 | 20 | 0.38995 | 0 | 2.20 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 0 | 2.11 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 2.10 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 0 |

DMU 16 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2.81 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 3.35 × ${10}^{-4}$ | 3.48 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 0 | 1.09 × ${10}^{-2}$ |

DMU 17 | 0.9683 | 13 | 0 | 0.083582 | 2.18 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 0 | 2.40 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 1.94 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 0 |

DMU 18 | 0.8911 | 19 | 0.38077 | 0 | 2.15 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 0 | 2.06 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 2.05 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 0 |

DMU 19 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1.92 × ${10}^{-4}$ | 0.018792 | 0.134811 | 0 | 0 |

DMU 20 | 0.9106 | 16 | -1.9554 | 5.23 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 5.47 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 0.02431 | 8.31 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 1.38 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 0 |

DMU 21 | 0.9374 | 15 | 0.55694 | 0 | 1.64 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 0 | 0 | 2.27 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 0 |

DMU 22 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 7.72 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 2.21 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 0 | 0.145707 | 0 | 0 |

DMU 23 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 6.11 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 1.20 × ${10}^{-4}$ | 1.31 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 0.10872 | 4.31 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 0 |

DMU 24 | 0.9456 | 14 | 1.05747 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4.77 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 1.59 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 0 |

DMU 25 | 0.8987 | 17 | 1.11266 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5.02 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 1.68 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 0 |

DMU | Score | Rank | LT | UP | PC | QB | NI | RE |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

DMU 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |

DMU 2 | 0.504 | 24 | 1 | 40.546 | 30 | 2.792 | 0 | 7.633 |

DMU 3 | 0.5349 | 23 | 0 | 0 | 8.652 | 3.321 | 0 | 6.618 |

DMU 4 | 0.4928 | 25 | 0.219 | 0 | 0 | 0.387 | 0 | 4.289 |

DMU 5 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |

DMU 6 | 0.6448 | 22 | 0 | 0 | 7.211 | 1.73 | 0 | 5.505 |

DMU 7 | 0.9727 | 12 | 1.042 | 0 | 0 | 2.529 | 0 | 2.679 |

DMU 8 | 0.8909 | 20 | 1 | 0 | 29.417 | 2.947 | 0 | 7.185 |

DMU 9 | 0.9997 | 11 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.014 | 0.018 |

DMU 10 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |

DMU 11 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0.003 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |

DMU 12 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |

DMU 13 | 0.8958 | 18 | 0 | 0 | 9.249 | 0.641 | 0 | 7.057 |

DMU 14 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.001 | 0.002 |

DMU 15 | 0.8909 | 20 | 0.883 | 0 | 17.796 | 0 | 0 | 5.95 |

DMU 16 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |

DMU 17 | 0.9683 | 13 | 0 | 0 | 23.686 | 0 | 0 | 2.048 |

DMU 18 | 0.8911 | 19 | 0.991 | 0 | 9.472 | 0 | 0 | 7.238 |

DMU 19 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |

DMU 20 | 0.9106 | 16 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 6.369 |

DMU 21 | 0.9374 | 15 | 1 | 0 | 7.081 | 0.694 | 0 | 5.413 |

DMU 22 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |

DMU 23 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |

DMU 24 | 0.9456 | 14 | 0.246 | 14.506 | 22.457 | 0 | 0 | 1.871 |

DMU 25 | 0.8987 | 17 | 0.635 | 2.642 | 6.353 | 0 | 0 | 4.847 |

DMU | Score | Rank | V (1) | V (2) | V (3) | U (1) | U (2) | U (3) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

DMU 1 | 1 | 1 | 15.13416 | 9.60 × ${10}^{-4}$ | 6.67 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 0.583152 | 0 | 0.747719 |

DMU 2 | 0.3666 | 25 | 6.67 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 8.52 × ${10}^{-4}$ | 4.76 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 0 | 9.58 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 3.73 × ${10}^{-3}$ |

DMU 3 | 0.4732 | 23 | 8.33 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 1.00 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 6.67 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 0 | 1.82 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 0 |

DMU 4 | 0.4537 | 24 | 8.33 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 1.04 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 8.33 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 2.58 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 1.78 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 0 |

DMU 5 | 1 | 1 | 8.33 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 6.08 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 6.67 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 0 | 0 | 3.68 × ${10}^{-2}$ |

DMU 6 | 0.569 | 22 | 8.33 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 1.07 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 6.67 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 0 | 1.17 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 5.22 × ${10}^{-3}$ |

DMU 7 | 0.8934 | 9 | 6.67 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 1.88 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 8.33 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 0 | 2.52 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 0 |

DMU 8 | 0.6873 | 20 | 6.67 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 1.43 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 4.76 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 0 | 1.92 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 0 |

DMU 9 | 0.6775 | 21 | 0.111111 | 9.70 × ${10}^{-4}$ | 6.67 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 3.08 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 1.77 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 0 |

DMU 10 | 1 | 1 | 0.111111 | 9.41 × ${10}^{-4}$ | 5.479046 | 10.57818 | 1.577778 | 1.061762 |

DMU 11 | 0.7471 | 18 | 6.67 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 1.04 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 1.11 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 9.77 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 1.09 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 0 |

DMU 12 | 0.9036 | 8 | 17.93597 | 0.111646 | 4.76 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 0 | 1.111111 | 0.747719 |

DMU 13 | 0.8148 | 13 | 8.33 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 9.79 × ${10}^{-4}$ | 6.67 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 2.21 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 1.65 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 0 |

DMU 14 | 0.8334 | 12 | 8.33 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 1.06 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 8.33 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 0.081691 | 1.18 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 0 |

DMU 15 | 0.7229 | 19 | 6.67 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 1.00 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 5.56 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 1.30 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 1.54 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 0 |

DMU 16 | 1 | 1 | 8.33 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 9.50 × ${10}^{-4}$ | 3.575827 | 7.933635 | 0.823944 | 0.796321 |

DMU 17 | 0.8534 | 11 | 8.33 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 1.04 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 4.69 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 5.55 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 0.011673 | 0 |

DMU 18 | 0.7683 | 17 | 6.67 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 9.67 × ${10}^{-4}$ | 6.67 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 1.7 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 1.56 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 0 |

DMU 19 | 1 | 1 | 6.67 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 0.280893 | 6.67 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 6.346908 | 0.946667 | 0 |

DMU 20 | 0.8856 | 10 | 8.33 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 9.74 × ${10}^{-4}$ | 8.33 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 2.73 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 1.72 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 0 |

DMU 21 | 0.8027 | 15 | 6.67 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 1.67 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 6.67 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 0 | 2.24 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 0 |

DMU 22 | 1 | 1 | 3.741093 | 1.07 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 0.705214 | 6.346908 | 0 | 0.119497 |

DMU 23 | 1 | 1 | 6.67 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 9.75 × ${10}^{-4}$ | 8.86 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 0.683238 | 0 | 0 |

DMU 24 | 0.789 | 16 | 6.67 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 9.87 × ${10}^{-4}$ | 4.76 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 5.19 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 0.0104 | 0 |

DMU 25 | 0.8106 | 14 | 6.67 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 9.80 × ${10}^{-4}$ | 6.67 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 6.56 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 1.04 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 0 |

DMU | Score | Rank | LT | UP | PC | QB | NI | RE |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

DMU 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |

DMU 2 | 0.3666 | 25 | 3.293 | 189.987 | 52.929 | 0.401 | 0 | 0 |

DMU 3 | 0.4732 | 23 | 2.237 | 124.289 | 32.368 | 0.979 | 0 | 0.005 |

DMU 4 | 0.4537 | 24 | 2.393 | 142.194 | 23.93 | 0 | 0 | 0.652 |

DMU 5 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |

DMU 6 | 0.569 | 22 | 1.937 | 69.166 | 29.373 | 0.506 | 0 | 0 |

DMU 7 | 0.8934 | 9 | 1.266 | 0 | 2.659 | 2.324 | 0 | 1.809 |

DMU 8 | 0.6873 | 20 | 1.903 | 0 | 39.031 | 1.414 | 0 | 1.419 |

DMU 9 | 0.6775 | 21 | 0.486 | 105.988 | 24.86 | 0 | 0 | 3.722 |

DMU 10 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |

DMU 11 | 0.7471 | 18 | 2.278 | 89.21 | 0.732 | 0 | 0 | 3.636 |

DMU 12 | 0.9036 | 8 | 0 | 0 | 20.238 | 0.812 | 0 | 0 |

DMU 13 | 0.8148 | 13 | 0.716 | 11.392 | 17.161 | 0 | 0 | 3.672 |

DMU 14 | 0.8334 | 12 | 0.895 | 67.605 | 2.466 | 0 | 0 | 0.982 |

DMU 15 | 0.7229 | 19 | 1.57 | 29.523 | 25.705 | 0 | 0 | 6.417 |

DMU 16 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |

DMU 17 | 0.8534 | 11 | 0.17 | 8.524 | 26.32 | 0 | 0 | 2.441 |

DMU 18 | 0.7683 | 17 | 1.504 | 32.315 | 15.037 | 0 | 0 | 6.328 |

DMU 19 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |

DMU 20 | 0.8856 | 10 | 0.509 | 30.41 | 5.088 | 0 | 0 | 6.305 |

DMU 21 | 0.8027 | 15 | 1.48 | 0 | 14.8 | 1.534 | 0 | 6.598 |

DMU 22 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |

DMU 23 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |

DMU 24 | 0.789 | 16 | 1.116 | 31.378 | 22.191 | 0 | 0 | 0.565 |

DMU 25 | 0.8106 | 14 | 1.358 | 36.497 | 9.463 | 0 | 0 | 3.803 |

DMU | Score | Rank | V (1) | V (2) | V (3) | U (1) | U (2) | U (3) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

DMU 1 | 1 | 1 | 272.1957 | 0 | 0 | 7.006445 | 7.57 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 13.45895 |

DMU 2 | 0.2795 | 24 | 0.715473 | 0 | 0 | 0.247666 | 1.32 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 9.92 × ${10}^{-3}$ |

DMU 3 | 0.2564 | 25 | 0.975128 | 0 | 0 | 0.404384 | 1.28 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 9.61 × ${10}^{-3}$ |

DMU 4 | 0.4089 | 23 | 0 | 4.22 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 2.72 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 0.189276 | 1.45 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 1.09 × ${10}^{-2}$ |

DMU 5 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 2.67 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 0 | 0.332568 | 8.32 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 9.42 × ${10}^{-2}$ |

DMU 6 | 0.4189 | 22 | 0.477617 | 0 | 9.54 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 0.207723 | 1.09 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 8.21 × ${10}^{-3}$ |

DMU 7 | 0.7104 | 20 | 0 | 1.74 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 2.01 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 0.12946 | 6.94 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 4.89 × ${10}^{-3}$ |

DMU 8 | 0.4919 | 21 | 0.087746 | 4.65 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 0 | 0.165879 | 7.57 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 5.68 × ${10}^{-3}$ |

DMU 9 | 0.7822 | 18 | 0.356897 | 6.04 × ${10}^{-4}$ | 0 | 0.102877 | 1.02 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 7.65 × ${10}^{-3}$ |

DMU 10 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 69.73439 | 134.0896 | 20 | 13.45895 |

DMU 11 | 0.8709 | 11 | 0 | 0 | 3.94 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 9.18 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 1.02 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 7.63 × ${10}^{-3}$ |

DMU 12 | 1 | 1 | 405.5784 | 1.320418 | 0 | 1.220084 | 20 | 13.45895 |

DMU 13 | 0.8021 | 14 | 0.27006 | 4.89 × ${10}^{-4}$ | 0 | 0.082931 | 7.56 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 5.67 × ${10}^{-3}$ |

DMU 14 | 0.7971 | 15 | 3.51 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 3.06 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 3.77 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 6.47 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 9.56 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 7.17 × ${10}^{-3}$ |

DMU 15 | 0.7845 | 17 | 3.77 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 3.27 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 0 | 7.15 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 7.75 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 5.81 × ${10}^{-3}$ |

DMU 16 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 60.44946 | 134.0896 | 13.71082 | 13.45895 |

DMU 17 | 0.9518 | 9 | 0.139904 | 1.53 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 0 | 0.054432 | 7.57 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 5.68 × ${10}^{-3}$ |

DMU 18 | 0.7918 | 16 | 3.88 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 2.32 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 5.36 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 7.07 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 7.56 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 5.67 × ${10}^{-3}$ |

DMU 19 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 5.980267 | 0 | 134.0896 | 20 | 5.66 × ${10}^{-3}$ |

DMU 20 | 0.857 | 12 | 3.88 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 2.33 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 5.37 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 7.09 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 7.57 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 5.67 × ${10}^{-3}$ |

DMU 21 | 0.7152 | 19 | 0 | 9.07 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 1.29 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 0.102574 | 5.44 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 5.66 × ${10}^{-3}$ |

DMU 22 | 1 | 1 | 79.70503 | 0 | 14.9138 | 134.0896 | 7.59 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 2.457001 |

DMU 23 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 5.24 × ${10}^{-4}$ | 7.74 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 0.453676 | 7.59 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 5.69 × ${10}^{-3}$ |

DMU 24 | 0.8857 | 10 | 2.68 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 2.95 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 0 | 5.08 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 7.73 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 5.80 × ${10}^{-3}$ |

DMU 25 | 0.838 | 13 | 3.27 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 2.44 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 3.98 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 6.01 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 7.75 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 5.81 × ${10}^{-3}$ |

DMU | Score | Rank | LT | UP | PC | QB | NI | RE |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

DMU 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |

DMU 2 | 0.2795 | 24 | 0 | 0.95 | 7.5 | 7.233 | 29.712 | 39.612 |

DMU 3 | 0.2564 | 25 | 0 | 20 | 0 | 6.039 | 17.9 | 23.87 |

DMU 4 | 0.4089 | 23 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3.84 | 22.72 | 35.674 |

DMU 5 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |

DMU 6 | 0.4189 | 22 | 0 | 0.2 | 0 | 5.258 | 13.48 | 17.97 |

DMU 7 | 0.7104 | 20 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2.914 | 1.175 | 4.571 |

DMU 8 | 0.4919 | 21 | 0 | 0 | 15.281 | 5.847 | 4.183 | 5.569 |

DMU 9 | 0.7822 | 18 | 0 | 0 | 0.88 | 0.498 | 11.043 | 14.979 |

DMU 10 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |

DMU 11 | 0.8709 | 11 | 2 | 48.724 | 0 | 0 | 5.332 | 12.325 |

DMU 12 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |

DMU 13 | 0.8021 | 14 | 0 | 0 | 7.325 | 1.818 | 4.256 | 11.262 |

DMU 14 | 0.7971 | 15 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.484 | 9.84 | 18.013 |

DMU 15 | 0.7845 | 17 | 0 | 0 | 6.997 | 3.036 | 3.715 | 4.948 |

DMU 16 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |

DMU 17 | 0.9518 | 9 | 0 | 0 | 22.974 | 0.463 | 1.118 | 2.995 |

DMU 18 | 0.7918 | 16 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2.562 | 4.532 | 8.386 |

DMU 19 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |

DMU 20 | 0.857 | 12 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.799 | 4.673 | 13.202 |

DMU 21 | 0.7152 | 19 | 0.044 | 0 | 0 | 3.877 | 0 | 0.095 |

DMU 22 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |

DMU 23 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |

DMU 24 | 0.8857 | 10 | 0 | 0 | 16.147 | 1.215 | 4.357 | 5.804 |

DMU 25 | 0.838 | 13 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1.744 | 4.97 | 8.617 |

No. | DMU | Score | Rank | V (1) | V (2) | V (3) | U (1) | U (2) | U (3) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

1 | DMU 1 | 1 | 1 | 15.13416 | 9.60 x ${10}^{-4}$ | 6.67 x ${10}^{-3}$ | 0.583152 | 0 | 0.747719 |

2 | DMU 2 | 0.3666 | 25 | 6.67 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 8.52 × ${10}^{-4}$ | 4.76 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 0 | 9.58 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 3.73 × ${10}^{-3}$ |

3 | DMU 3 | 0.4732 | 23 | 8.33 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 1.00 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 6.67 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 0 | 1.82 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 0 |

4 | DMU 4 | 0.4537 | 24 | 8.33 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 1.04 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 8.33 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 2.58 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 1.78 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 0 |

5 | DMU 5 | 1 | 1 | 8.33 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 6.08 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 6.67 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 0 | 0 | 3.68 × ${10}^{-2}$ |

6 | DMU 6 | 0.569 | 22 | 8.33 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 1.07 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 6.67 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 0 | 1.17 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 5.22 × ${10}^{-3}$ |

7 | DMU 7 | 0.8934 | 9 | 6.67 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 1.88 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 8.33 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 0 | 2.52 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 0 |

8 | DMU 8 | 0.6873 | 20 | 6.67 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 1.43 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 4.76 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 0 | 1.92 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 0 |

9 | DMU 9 | 0.6775 | 21 | 0.111111 | 9.70 × ${10}^{-4}$ | 6.67 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 3.08 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 1.77 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 0 |

10 | DMU 10 | 1 | 1 | 0.111111 | 9.41 × ${10}^{-4}$ | 5.479046 | 10.57818 | 1.577778 | 1.061762 |

11 | DMU 11 | 0.7471 | 18 | 6.67 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 1.04 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 1.11 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 9.77 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 1.09 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 0 |

12 | DMU 12 | 0.9036 | 8 | 17.93597 | 0.111646 | 4.76 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 0 | 1.111111 | 0.747719 |

13 | DMU 13 | 0.8148 | 13 | 8.33 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 9.79 × ${10}^{-4}$ | 6.67 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 2.21 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 1.65 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 0 |

14 | DMU 14 | 0.8334 | 12 | 8.33 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 1.06 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 8.33 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 0.081691 | 1.18 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 0 |

15 | DMU 15 | 0.7229 | 19 | 6.67 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 1.00 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 5.56 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 1.30 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 1.54 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 0 |

16 | DMU 16 | 1 | 1 | 8.33 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 9.50 × ${10}^{-4}$ | 3.575827 | 7.933635 | 0.823944 | 0.796321 |

17 | DMU 17 | 0.8534 | 11 | 8.33 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 1.04 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 4.69 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 5.55 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 0.011673 | 0 |

18 | DMU 18 | 0.7683 | 17 | 6.67 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 9.67 × ${10}^{-4}$ | 6.67 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 1.73 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 1.56 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 0 |

19 | DMU 19 | 1 | 1 | 6.67 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 0.280893 | 6.67 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 6.346908 | 0.946667 | 0 |

20 | DMU 20 | 0.8856 | 10 | 8.33 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 9.74 × ${10}^{-4}$ | 8.33 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 2.73 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 1.72 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 0 |

21 | DMU 21 | 0.8027 | 15 | 6.67 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 1.67 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 6.67 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 0 | 2.24 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 0 |

22 | DMU 22 | 1 | 1 | 3.741093 | 1.07 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 0.705214 | 6.346908 | 0 | 0.119497 |

23 | DMU 23 | 1 | 1 | 6.67 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 9.75 × ${10}^{-4}$ | 8.86 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 0.683238 | 0 | 0 |

24 | DMU 24 | 0.789 | 16 | 6.67 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 9.87 × ${10}^{-4}$ | 4.76 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 5.19 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 0.0104 | 0 |

25 | DMU 25 | 0.8106 | 14 | 6.67 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 9.80 × ${10}^{-4}$ | 6.67 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 6.56 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 1.04 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 0 |

No. | DMU | Score | Rank | LT | UP | PC | QB | NI | RE |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

1 | DMU 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |

2 | DMU 2 | 0.3666 | 25 | 3.293 | 189.987 | 52.929 | 0.401 | 0 | 0 |

3 | DMU 3 | 0.4732 | 23 | 2.237 | 124.289 | 32.368 | 0.979 | 0 | 0.005 |

4 | DMU 4 | 0.4537 | 24 | 2.393 | 142.194 | 23.93 | 0 | 0 | 0.652 |

5 | DMU 5 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |

6 | DMU 6 | 0.569 | 22 | 1.937 | 69.166 | 29.373 | 0.506 | 0 | 0 |

7 | DMU 7 | 0.8934 | 9 | 1.266 | 0 | 2.659 | 2.324 | 0 | 1.809 |

8 | DMU 8 | 0.6873 | 20 | 1.903 | 0 | 39.031 | 1.414 | 0 | 1.419 |

9 | DMU 9 | 0.6775 | 21 | 0.486 | 105.988 | 24.86 | 0 | 0 | 3.722 |

10 | DMU 10 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |

11 | DMU 11 | 0.7471 | 18 | 2.278 | 89.21 | 0.732 | 0 | 0 | 3.636 |

12 | DMU 12 | 0.9036 | 8 | 0 | 0 | 20.238 | 0.812 | 0 | 0 |

13 | DMU 13 | 0.8148 | 13 | 0.716 | 11.392 | 17.161 | 0 | 0 | 3.672 |

14 | DMU 14 | 0.8334 | 12 | 0.895 | 67.605 | 2.466 | 0 | 0 | 0.982 |

15 | DMU 15 | 0.7229 | 19 | 1.57 | 29.523 | 25.705 | 0 | 0 | 6.417 |

16 | DMU 16 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |

17 | DMU 17 | 0.8534 | 11 | 0.17 | 8.524 | 26.32 | 0 | 0 | 2.441 |

18 | DMU 18 | 0.7683 | 17 | 1.504 | 32.315 | 15.037 | 0 | 0 | 6.328 |

19 | DMU 19 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |

20 | DMU 20 | 0.8856 | 10 | 0.509 | 30.41 | 5.088 | 0 | 0 | 6.305 |

21 | DMU 21 | 0.8027 | 15 | 1.48 | 0 | 14.8 | 1.534 | 0 | 6.598 |

22 | DMU 22 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |

23 | DMU 23 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |

24 | DMU 24 | 0.789 | 16 | 1.116 | 31.378 | 22.191 | 0 | 0 | 0.565 |

25 | DMU 25 | 0.8106 | 14 | 1.358 | 36.497 | 9.463 | 0 | 0 | 3.803 |

No. | DMU | Score | V (1) LT | V (2) UP | V (3) PC | U (1) QB | U (2) NI | U (3) RE |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

1 | DMU 1 | 1 | 0.7774838 | 9.60 × ${10}^{-4}$ | 6.67 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 0.2139225 | 4.25 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 5.68 × ${10}^{-3}$ |

2 | DMU 2 | 0.269326 | 6.67× ${10}^{-2}$ | 8.52 × ${10}^{-4}$ | 4.76 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 6.67 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 3.56 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 2.67 × ${10}^{-3}$ |

3 | DMU 3 | 0.251235 | 8.33 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 1.00 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 6.67 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 0.1015951 | 3.22 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 2.41 × ${10}^{-3}$ |

4 | DMU 4 | 0.401049 | 8.33 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 1.04 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 8.33 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 7.59 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 5.82 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 4.37 × ${10}^{-3}$ |

5 | DMU 5 | 1 | 8.33 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 9.26 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 6.67 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 1.1563198 | 8.32 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 0.3546177 |

6 | DMU 6 | 0.418778 | 8.33 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 1.07 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 6.67 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 8.70 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 4.58 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 3.44 × ${10}^{-3}$ |

7 | DMU 7 | 0.662241 | 6.67 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 9.65 × ${10}^{-4}$ | 8.33 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 8.57 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 4.60 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 3.24 × ${10}^{-3}$ |

8 | DMU 8 | 0.448251 | 6.67 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 9.72 × ${10}^{-4}$ | 4.76 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 7.44 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 3.39 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 2.55 × ${10}^{-3}$ |

9 | DMU 9 | 0.641302 | 0.1111111 | 9.70 × ${10}^{-4}$ | 6.67 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 6.60 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 6.54 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 4.90 × ${10}^{-3}$ |

10 | DMU 10 | 1 | 1.2031017 | 9.41 × ${10}^{-4}$ | 1.11 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 0.3587726 | 6.42 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 5.64 × ${10}^{-3}$ |

11 | DMU 11 | 0.703643 | 6.67 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 1.04 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 1.11 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 0.0585784 | 7.16 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 5.37 × ${10}^{-3}$ |

12 | DMU 12 | 1 | 66.742332 | 0.2530347 | 4.76 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 0.1143864 | 6.5315673 | 5.68 × ${10}^{-3}$ |

13 | DMU 13 | 0.753682 | 8.33 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 9.79 × ${10}^{-4}$ | 6.67 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 6.25 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 5.69 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 4.27 × ${10}^{-3}$ |

14 | DMU 14 | 0.771137 | 8.33 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 1.90 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 8.33 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 0.1013309 | 7.37 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 5.53 × ${10}^{-3}$ |

15 | DMU 15 | 0.694923 | 6.67 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 1.00 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 5.56 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 4.97 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 5.38 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 4.04 × ${10}^{-3}$ |

16 | DMU 16 | 1 | 8.33 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 9.50 × ${10}^{-4}$ | 8.33 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 6.10 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 6.67 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 4.49 × ${10}^{-3}$ |

17 | DMU 17 | 0.837507 | 8.33 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 1.55 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 4.69 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 7.19 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 6.34 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 4.76 × ${10}^{-3}$ |

18 | DMU 18 | 0.73634 | 6.67 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 9.67 × ${10}^{-4}$ | 6.67 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 5.21 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 5.56 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 4.17 × ${10}^{-3}$ |

19 | DMU 19 | 1 | 6.67 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 4.73 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 6.67 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 0.1230422 | 7.55 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 1.54 × ${10}^{-2}$ |

20 | DMU 20 | 0.849581 | 8.33 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 9.74 × ${10}^{-4}$ | 8.33 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 6.02 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 6.43 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 4.82 × ${10}^{-3}$ |

21 | DMU 21 | 0.669586 | 6.67 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 1.07 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 6.67 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 6.87 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 5.06 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 3.79 × ${10}^{-3}$ |

22 | DMU 22 | 1 | 8.33 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 1.98 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 6.67 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 9.00 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 7.59 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 0.0056912 |

23 | DMU 23 | 1 | 0.428732 | 9.75E-04 | 7.86 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 0.7697859 | 7.59 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 5.69 × ${10}^{-3}$ |

24 | DMU 24 | 0.769097 | 6.67 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 1.54 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 4.76 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 6.75 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 5.95 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 4.46 × ${10}^{-3}$ |

25 | DMU 25 | 0.772696 | 6.67 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 1.55 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 6.67 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 8.13 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 5.99 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 4.49 × ${10}^{-3}$ |

No. | DMU | Score | Excess | Excess | Excess | Shortage | Shortage | Shortage |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

LT | UP | PC | QB | NI | RE | |||

S−(1) | S−(2) | S−(3) | S+(1) | S+(2) | S+(3) | |||

1 | DMU 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |

2 | DMU 2 | 0.269326 | 0 | 0.95 | 7.5 | 7.232975 | 29.7125 | 39.6125 |

3 | DMU 3 | 0.251235 | 0 | 20 | 0 | 6.0388 | 17.9 | 23.87 |

4 | DMU 4 | 0.401049 | 0.3351382 | 0 | 3.351382 | 3.2435436 | 22.86077 | 37.47481 |

5 | DMU 5 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |

6 | DMU 6 | 0.418778 | 0 | 0.2 | 0 | 5.2584 | 13.48 | 17.97 |

7 | DMU 7 | 0.662241 | 1.16 | 8.436 | 1.6 | 2.669008 | 0 | 3.128 |

8 | DMU 8 | 0.448251 | 0.609475 | 0 | 15.11844 | 5.523653 | 4.18894 | 5.578262 |

9 | DMU 9 | 0.641302 | 0.384 | 114.1114 | 23.84 | 0.3322442 | 0 | 4.9922 |

10 | DMU 10 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |

11 | DMU 11 | 0.703643 | 2 | 56.925 | 0 | 9.27x${10}^{-2}$ | 4.72 | 12.025 |

12 | DMU 12 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |

13 | DMU 13 | 0.753682 | 0.4704 | 30.96584 | 14.704 | 0.8005335 | 0 | 6.73232 |

14 | DMU 14 | 0.771137 | 0.3550889 | 0 | 2.330154 | 0 | 9.940403 | 19.28401 |

15 | DMU 15 | 0.694923 | 1.2108863 | 0 | 22.10886 | 0.513919 | 4.343921 | 13.02279 |

16 | DMU 16 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |

17 | DMU 17 | 0.837507 | 0.1015444 | 0 | 26.30323 | 0 | 1.253382 | 4.748504 |

18 | DMU 18 | 0.73634 | 1.4704 | 34.96584 | 14.704 | 0.1084335 | 0 | 6.74232 |

19 | DMU 19 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |

20 | DMU 20 | 0.849581 | 9.80E-02 | 0 | 0.980336 | 0.6245277 | 4.71458 | 13.72903 |

21 | DMU 21 | 0.669586 | 1.4571103 | 0 | 14.5711 | 1.5883816 | 0.136121 | 6.949176 |

22 | DMU 22 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |

23 | DMU 23 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |

24 | DMU 24 | 0.769097 | 0.8652768 | 0 | 22.12846 | 0 | 4.613784 | 9.059744 |

25 | DMU 25 | 0.772696 | 1.0669574 | 0 | 9.390053 | 0 | 5.366362 | 13.68358 |

No. | DMU | Score | V (1) LT | V (2) UP | V (3) PC | U (1) QB | U (2) NI | U (3) RE |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

1 | DMU 1 | 1 | 2.2055847 | 2.40 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 6.67 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 8.96 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 0.3318029 | 5.68E-03 |

2 | DMU 2 | 0.269326 | 6.67 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 8.52 × ${10}^{-4}$ | 4.76 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 6.67 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 3.56 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 2.67 × ${10}^{-3}$ |

3 | DMU 3 | 0.251235 | 8.33 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 1.00 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 6.67 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 0.1015951 | 3.22 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 2.41 × ${10}^{-3}$ |

4 | DMU 4 | 0.45679 | 8.33 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 5.91 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 2.56 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 8.65 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 6.63 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 4.98 × ${10}^{-3}$ |

5 | DMU 5 | 1 | 0.1763621 | 2.58 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 6.67 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 0.3325684 | 7.64 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 5.90 × ${10}^{-2}$ |

6 | DMU 6 | 0.418778 | 8.33 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 1.07 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 6.67 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 8.70 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 4.58 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 3.44 × ${10}^{-3}$ |

7 | DMU 7 | 0.677494 | 6.67 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 4.83 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 2.28 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 8.77 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 4.70 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 3.31 × ${10}^{-3}$ |

8 | DMU 8 | 0.448556 | 6.67 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 9.72 × ${10}^{-4}$ | 4.76 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 7.44 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 8.89 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 2.55 × ${10}^{-3}$ |

9 | DMU 9 | 0.999453 | 9.7808186 | 7.58 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 6.67 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 0.1028212 | 1.02 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 7.64 × ${10}^{-3}$ |

10 | DMU 10 | 1 | 0.1111111 | 9.41 × ${10}^{-4}$ | 8.65 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 0.1086236 | 7.53 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 4.40 × ${10}^{-2}$ |

11 | DMU 11 | 1 | 6.67 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 1.04 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 9.61 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 0.3550234 | 1.02 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 7.63 × ${10}^{-3}$ |

12 | DMU 12 | 1 | 17.038047 | 0.2170056 | 4.76 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 0.1143864 | 2.9286539 | 5.68 × ${10}^{-3}$ |

13 | DMU 13 | 0.762943 | 8.33 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 2.10 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 6.67 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 6.33 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 5.76 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 4.32 × ${10}^{-3}$ |

14 | DMU 14 | 1 | 0.2244187 | 1.37 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 5.83 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 0.2180815 | 9.56 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 7.17 × ${10}^{-3}$ |

15 | DMU 15 | 0.712474 | 6.67 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 2.15 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 5.56 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 5.10 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 5.52 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 4.14 × ${10}^{-3}$ |

16 | DMU 16 | 1 | 8.33 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 9.50 × ${10}^{-4}$ | 8.33 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 6.10 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 6.67 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 4.49 × ${10}^{-3}$ |

17 | DMU 17 | 0.849109 | 8.33 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 2.52 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 4.69 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 4.62 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 6.43 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 4.82 × ${10}^{-3}$ |

18 | DMU 18 | 0.744086 | 6.67 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 2.43 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 6.67 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 5.26 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 5.62 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 4.22 × ${10}^{-3}$ |

19 | DMU 19 | 1 | 6.67 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 4.73 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 6.67 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 0.1230422 | 7.55 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 1.54 × ${10}^{-2}$ |

20 | DMU 20 | 0.876299 | 8.33 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 4.66 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 1.94 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 6.21 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 6.63 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 4.97 × ${10}^{-3}$ |

21 | DMU 21 | 0.693331 | 6.67 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 5.64 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 6.67 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 0.0711174 | 3.10 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 3.93 × ${10}^{-3}$ |

22 | DMU 22 | 1 | 8.33 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 1.98 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 6.67 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 9.00 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 7.59 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 0.0056912 |

23 | DMU 23 | 1 | 0.428732 | 9.75 × ${10}^{-4}$ | 7.86 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 0.7697859 | 7.59 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 5.69 × ${10}^{-3}$ |

24 | DMU 24 | 0.778043 | 6.67 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 9.87 × ${10}^{-4}$ | 4.76 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 0.0835919 | 6.02 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 4.51 × ${10}^{-3}$ |

25 | DMU 25 | 0.78211 | 6.67 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 2.83 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 6.67 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 4.70 × ${10}^{-2}$ | 6.06 × ${10}^{-3}$ | 4.55 × ${10}^{-3}$ |

No. | DMU | Score | Excess | Excess | Excess | Shortage | Shortage | Shortage |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

LT | UP | PC | QB | NI | RE | |||

S−(1) | S−(2) | S−(3) | S+(1) | S+(2) | S+(3) | |||

1 | DMU 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |

2 | DMU 2 | 0.269326 | 1 | 79.05 | 20 | 5.5172 | 18.73 | 24.97 |

3 | DMU 3 | 0.251235 | 0 | 20 | 0 | 6.0388 | 17.9 | 23.87 |

4 | DMU 4 | 0.45679 | 0.2190489 | 0 | 0 | 2.1999675 | 23.619423 | 35.781249 |

5 | DMU 5 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |

6 | DMU 6 | 0.418778 | 0 | 0.2 | 0 | 5.2584 | 13.48 | 17.97 |

7 | DMU 7 | 0.677494 | 0.9193048 | 0 | 0 | 2.8828591 | 0.1189338 | 2.3581649 |

8 | DMU 8 | 0.448556 | 1 | 29.86573 | 20.16474 | 4.8305226 | 0 | 0.1191433 |

9 | DMU 9 | 0.999453 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 8.57 x${10}^{-4}$ | 2.24 x${10}^{-2}$ | 2.98 x${10}^{-2}$ |

10 | DMU 10 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |

11 | DMU 11 | 1 | 8.79 x${10}^{-5}$ | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5.42 x${10}^{-4}$ |

12 | DMU 12 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |

13 | DMU 13 | 0.762943 | 4.00 x${10}^{-5}$ | 0 | 7.325987 | 1.8174772 | 4.2561312 | 11.262405 |

14 | DMU 14 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3.01 x${10}^{-3}$ | 4.01 x${10}^{-3}$ |

15 | DMU 15 | 0.712474 | 1.00004 | 0 | 15.19612 | 1.4748294 | 4.0633 | 9.3821192 |

16 | DMU 16 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |

17 | DMU 17 | 0.849109 | 0 | 0 | 22.97534 | 0.4625961 | 1.118287 | 2.9958335 |

18 | DMU 18 | 0.744086 | 1.00004 | 0 | 8.364948 | 0.9798395 | 4.8867805 | 12.906691 |

19 | DMU 19 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |

20 | DMU 20 | 0.876299 | 6.41x${10}^{-2}$ | 0 | 0 | 0.3194245 | 4.9366059 | 13.23423 |

21 | DMU 21 | 0.693331 | 1.00004 | 0 | 0.621362 | 3.2900805 | 0 | 0.4775992 |

22 | DMU 22 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |

23 | DMU 23 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |

24 | DMU 24 | 0.778043 | 1 | 16.87501 | 22.16234 | 0 | 2.1325378 | 4.4913542 |

25 | DMU 25 | 0.78211 | 1.00004 | 0 | 7.196117 | 0.3049694 | 5.2773 | 12.528119 |

## References

- Flórez-López, R. Strategic supplier selection in the added-value perspective: A CI approach. Inf. Sci. Int. J.
**2007**, 177, 1169–1179. [Google Scholar] - Chen, C.T.; Lin, C.T.; Huang, S.F. A fuzzy approach for supplier evaluation and selection in supply chain management. Int. J. Prod. Econ.
**2006**, 102, 289–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Wu, C.; Barnes, D. A literature review of decision-making models and approaches for partner selection in agile supply chains. J. Purch. Supply Manag.
**2011**, 17, 256–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Bhattacharya, A.; Geraghty, J.; Young, P. Supplier selection paradigm: An integrated hierarchical QFD methodology under multiple-criteria environment. Appl. Soft Comput.
**2010**, 10, 1013–1027. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Liu, J.; Ding, F.-Y.; Lall, V. Using data envelopment analysis to compare suppliers for supplier selection and performance improvement. Supply Chain Manag. Int. J.
**2000**, 5, 143–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Saaty, T.L. Decision Making with Dependence and Feedback: The Analytic Network Process; RWS Publications: Pittsburgh, PA, USA, 1996. [Google Scholar]
- Agarwal, A.; Shankar, R. Analyzing alternatives for improvement in supply chain performance. Work Study
**2002**, 51, 32–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Aissaoui, N.; Haouari, M.; Hassini, E. Supplier selection and order lot sizing modeling: A review. Comp. Oper. Res.
**2007**, 34, 3516–3540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Govindan, K.; Rajendran, S.; Sarkis, J.; Murugesan, P. Multi criteria decision making approaches for green supplier evaluation and selection: A literature review. J. Clean. Prod.
**2015**, 98, 66–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Chai, J.; Liu, J.N.K.; Ngai, E. Application of decision-making techniques in supplier selection: A systematic review of literature. Expert Syst. Appl.
**2013**, 40, 3872–3885. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Wu, T.; Blackhurst, J. Supplier evaluation and selection: An augmented DEA approach. Int. J. Prod. Res.
**2009**, 47, 4593–4608. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Amirteimoori, A.; Khoshandam, L. A Data Envelopment Analysis Approach to Supply Chain Efficiency. Adv. Decis. Sci.
**2011**, 2011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Lin, C.-T.; Hung, K.-P.; Hu, S.-H. A Decision-Making Model for Evaluating and Selecting Suppliers for the Sustainable Operation and Development of Enterprises in the Aerospace Industry. Sustainability
**2018**, 10, 735. [Google Scholar] - Galankashi, M.R.; Helmi, S.A.; Hashemzahi, V. Supplier selection in automobile industry: A mixed balanced scorecard–fuzzy AHP approach. Alex. Eng. J.
**2016**, 55, 93–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Kilincci, O.; Onal, S.A. Fuzzy AHP approach for supplier selection in a washing machine company. Expert Syst. Appl.
**2011**, 38, 9656–9664. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Tyagi, M.; Kumar, P.; Kumar, D. Permutation of fuzzy AHP and AHP methods to prioritizing the alternatives of supply chain performance system. Int. J. Ind. Eng. Theory Appl. Pract.
**2015**, 22, 24. [Google Scholar] - Karsak, E.E.; Dursun, M. An integrated fuzzy MCDM approach for supplier evaluation and selection. Comput. Ind. Eng.
**2015**, 82, 82–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Chen, H.M.W.; Chou, S.-Y.; Luu, Q.D.; Yu, T.H.-K. A Fuzzy MCDM Approach for Green Supplier Selection from the Economic and Environmental Aspects. Math. Probl. Eng.
**2016**, 2016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Guo, Z.G.; Liu, H.; Zhang, D.; Yang, J. Green Supplier Evaluation and Selection in Apparel Manufacturing Using a Fuzzy Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Approach. Sustainability
**2017**, 9, 650. [Google Scholar][Green Version] - Wu, T.-H.; Chen, C.-H.C.; Mao, N.; Lu, S.-T. Fishmeal Supplier Evaluation and Selection for Aquaculture Enterprise Sustainability with a Fuzzy MCDM Approach. Symmetry
**2017**, 9, 286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Hu, C.-K.; Liu, F.-B.; Hu, C.-F. A Hybrid Fuzzy DEA/AHP Methodology for Ranking Units in a Fuzzy Environment. Symmetry
**2017**, 9, 273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - He, X.; Zhang, J. Supplier Selection Study under the Respective of Low-Carbon Supply Chain: A Hybrid Evaluation Model Based on FA-DEA-AHP. Sustainability
**2018**, 10, 564. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Parkouhi, S.V.; Ghadikolaei, A.S. A resilience approach for supplier selection: Using Fuzzy Analytic Network Process and grey VIKOR techniques. J. Clean. Prod.
**2017**, 161, 431–451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Wang, C.-N.; Nguyen, H.-K.; Liao, R.-Y. Partner Selection in Supply Chain of Vietnam’s Textile and Apparel Industry: The Application of a Hybrid DEA and GM (1,1) Approach. Math. Probl. Eng.
**2017**, 2017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Wu, C.-M.; Hsieh, C.-L.; Chang, K.-L. A Hybrid Multiple Criteria Decision Making Model for Supplier Selection. Math. Probl. Eng.
**2013**, 2013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Rezaeisaray, M.; Ebrahimnejad, S.; Khalili-Damghani, K. A novel hybrid MCDM approach for outsourcing supplier selection: A case study in pipe and fittings manufacturing. J. Model. Manag.
**2016**, 11, 536–559. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Rouyendegh, B.D.; Erol, S. The DEA—FUZZY ANP Department Ranking Model Applied in Iran Amirkabir University. Acta Polytech. Hung.
**2010**, 7, 103–114. [Google Scholar] - Zadeh, L. Fuzzy sets. Inf. Contr.
**1965**, 8, 338–353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version] - Junior, F.R.L.; Osiro, L.; Carpinetti, L.C.R. A comparison between Fuzzy AHP and Fuzzy TOPSIS methods to supplier selection. Appl. Soft Comp.
**2014**, 21, 194–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Charnes, A.; Cooper, W.; Rhodes, E. Measuring the efficiency of decision making units. Eur. J. Oper. Res.
**1978**, 2, 429–444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Rouyendegh, B.D.; Oztekin, A.O.; Ekong, J.; Dag, A. Measuring the efficiency of hospitals: A fully-ranking DEA–FAHP approach. Ann. Oper. Res.
**2016**. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Mohaghar, A.; Fathi, M.R.; Jafarzadeh, A.H. A Supplier Selection Method Using AR- DEA and Fuzzy VIKOR. Int. J. Ind. Eng. Theory Appl. Pract.
**2013**, 20, 387–400. [Google Scholar] - Talluri, S.; Narasimhan, R.; Nair, A. Vendor performance with supply risk: A chance-constrained DEA approach. Int. J. Prod. Econ.
**2006**, 100, 212–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Saen, R.F. Restricting Weights in Supplier Selection Decisions in the presence of Dual-Role factors. Appl. Math. Model.
**2010**, 2, 229–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Saen, R.F. Supplier selection by the new AR-IDEA model. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Tech.
**2008**, 39, 1061–1070. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Farzipoor, R.; Zohrehbandian, M. A Data Envelopment Analysis Approach to Supplier Selection in Volume Discount Environments. Int. J. Procure. Manag.
**2008**, 1, 472–488. [Google Scholar] - Saen, R.F. Suppliers Selection in the Presence of Both Cardinal and Ordinal Data. Eur. J. Oper. Res.
**2007**, 183, 741–747. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Storto, C.L. A double-DEA framework to support decision-making in the choice of advanced manufacturing technologies. Manag. Decis.
**2018**, 56, 488–507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Adler, N.; Friedman, L.; Sinuany-Stern, Z. Review of ranking methods in the data envelopment analysis context. Eur. J. Oper. Res.
**2002**, 140, 249–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Storto, C.L. A peeling DEA-game cross efficiency procedure to classify suppliers. In Proceedings of the 21st Innovative Manufacturing Engineering and Energy International Conference (IManE 2017), Iasi, Romania, 25–26 May 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Kuo, R.J.; Lee, L.Y.; Hu, T.-L. Developing a supplier selection system through integrating fuzzy AHP and fuzzy DEA: A case study on an auto lighting system company in Taiwan. Prod. Plan. Control
**2010**, 21, 468–484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Kuo, R.J.; Lin, Y.J. Supplier selection using analytic network process and data envelopment analysis. Int. J. Prod. Res.
**2011**, 50, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Taibi, A.; Atmani, B. Combining Fuzzy AHP with GIS and Decision Rules for Industrial Site Selection. Int. Interact. Multimed. Artif. Intell.
**2017**, 4, 60–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Morente-Molinera, J.; Kou, G.; González-Crespo, R.; Corchado, J.; Herrera-Viedma, E. Solving multi-criteria group decision making problems under environments with a high number of alternatives using fuzzy ontologies and multi-granular linguistic modelling methods. Knowl. Based Syst.
**2017**, 137, 54–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Adrian, C.; Abdullah, R.; Atan, R.; Jusoh, Y.Y. Conceptual Model Development of Big Data Analytics Implementation Assessment Effect on Decision-Making. Int. J. Interact. Multimed. Artif. Intell.
**2018**, 5, 101–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Staníčková, M.; Melecký, L. Assessment of efficiency in Visegrad countries and regions using DEA models. Ekonomická Revue Cent. Eur. Rev. Econ.
**2012**, 15, 145–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version] - Schaar, D.; Sherry, L. Comparison of Data Envelopment Analysis Methods Used in Airport Benchmarking. In Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Research In Air Transportation, Fairfax, VA, USA, 1–4 June 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Kahraman, C.; Cebeci, U.; Ulukan, Z. Multi-criteria supplier selection using fuzzy AHP. Logist. Inf. Manag.
**2003**, 16, 382–394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Hsu, C.-W.; Hu, A.H. Applying hazatdous substance management to supplier selection using analytic network process. J. Clean. Prod.
**2009**, 17, 255–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Banaeian, N.; Mobli, H.; Nielsen, I.E.; Omid, M. Criteria definition and approaches in green supplier selection—A case study for raw material and packaging of food industry. Prod. Manuf. Res.
**2015**, 3, 149–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Frosch, R. Industrial Ecology: Minimising the Impact of Industrial Waste. Phys. Today
**1994**, 47, 63–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Mani, V.; Agarwal, R.; Sharma, V. Supplier selection using social sustainbility: AHP based approach in India. Int. Strateg. Manag. Rev.
**2014**, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Grover, R.; Grover, R.; Rao, V.B.; Kejriwal, K. Supplier Selection Using Sustainable Criteria in Sustainable Supply Chain Management. Int. J. Econ. Manag. Eng.
**2016**, 10, 1775–1780. [Google Scholar] - Ho, W.; Xu, X.; Dey, P.K. Multi-criteria decision making approaches for supplier evaluation and selection: A literature review. Eur. J. Oper. Res.
**2010**, 202, 16–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Dickson, G. An analysis of vendor selection systems and decisions. J. Purch.
**1966**, 2, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Weber, C.C.J.; Weber, B.W. Vendor selection criteria and methods. Eur. J. Oper. Res.
**1991**, 50, 2–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Handfield, R.B. US Global Sourcing: Patterns of Development. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag.
**1994**, 14, 40–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Choi, T.Y.; Hartley, J.L. An exploration of supplier selection practices across the supply chain. J. Oper. Manag.
**1996**, 14, 333–343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Verma, R.; Pullman, M.E. An Analysis of the Supplier Selection Process. Omega
**1998**, 26, 739–750. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Bharadwaj, N. Investigating the decision criteria used in electronic components procurement. Ind. Mark. Manag.
**2004**, 33, 317–323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Kannan, D.; Khodaverdi, R.; Olfat, L.; Jafarian, A.; Diabat, A. Integrated fuzzy multi criteria decision making method and multi-objective programming approach for supplier selection and order allocation in a green supply chain. J. Clean. Prod.
**2013**, 47, 355–367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Chu, T.-C.; Varma, R. Evaluating suppliers via a multiple levels multiple criteria decision making method under fuzzy environment. Comput. Ind. Eng.
**2012**, 62, 653–660. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Tam, M.; Tummala, V.R. An Application of the AHP in Vendor Selection of a Telecommunications System. Omega Int. J. Manag. Sci.
**2001**, 29, 171–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Shahgholian, K. A model for supplier selection based on fuzzy multi-criteria group decision making. Afr. J. Bus. Manag.
**2012**, 6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Dzever, S.; Merdji, M.; Saives, A. Purchase decision making and buyer-seller relationship development in the french food processing industry. Supply Chain Manag. Int. J.
**2001**, 6, 216–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Bevilacqua, M.; Petroni, A. From traditional purchasing to supplier management: A fuzzy logic-based approach to supplier selection. Int. J. Logist. Res. Appl.
**2002**, 5, 235–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Rezaei, J.; Ortt, R. Multi-criteria supplier segmentation using a fuzzy preference relations based ahp. Eur. J. Oper. Res.
**2013**, 225, 75–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Roshandel, J.; Miri-Nargesi, S.S.; Hatami-Shirkouhi, L. Evaluating and selecting the supplier in detergent production industry using hierarchical fuzzy topsis. Appl. Math. Model.
**2013**, 37, 10170–10181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Govindaraju, R.; Akbar, M.I.; Gondodiwiryo, L.; Simatupang, T. The Application of a Decision-making Approach based on Fuzzy ANP and TOPSIS for Selecting a Strategic Supplier. J. Eng. Technol. Sci.
**2015**, 47, 406–425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Nielsen, I.E.; Banaeian, N.; Golińska, P.; Mobli, H.; Omid, M. Green supplier selection criteria: From a literature review to a flexible framework for determination of suitable criteria. Logist. Oper. Supply Chain Manag. Sustain.
**2014**, 79–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Sarkis, J. A methodological framework for evaluating environmentally conscious manufacturing programs. Comput. Ind. Eng.
**1999**, 36, 793–810. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Saaty, T.L. Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. Int. J. Services Sci.
**2008**, 1, 83–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Zhu, K.J.; Jing, Y.; Chang, D. A discussion on extent analysis method and applications of fuzzy AHP. Eur. J. Oper. Res.
**1999**, 116, 450–456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Tang, Y.C.; Lin, T. Application of the fuzzy analytic hierarchy process to the lead-free equipment selection decision. Int. J. Bus. Syst. Res.
**2011**, 5, 35–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Fiedler, M.; Nedoma, J.; Ramik, J.; Rohn, J.; Karel, Z. Linear Optimization Problems with Inexact Data, 1st ed.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Wen, M. Uncertain Data Envelopment Analysis. In Uncertainty and Operations Research; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Farrell, M.J. The Measurement of Productive Efficiency. J. R. Stat. Soc.
**1957**, 120, 253–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Tone, K. A slacks-based measure of efficiency in data envelopment analysis. Eur. J. Oper. Res.
**2001**, 130, 498–509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version] - Pastor, J.T.; Ruiz, J.L.; Sirvent, I. An enhanced DEA Russell graph efficiency measure. Eur. J. Oper. Res.
**1999**, 115, 596–607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Tang, Y.-C.; Beynon, M.J. Application and Development of a Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process within a Capital Investment Study. J. Econ. Manag.
**2005**, 1, 207–230. [Google Scholar] - Shang, J.; Sueyoshi, T. A unified framework for the selection of a flexible manufacturing system. Eur. J. Oper. Res.
**1995**, 85, 297–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

Criteria | Sub-Criteria | Researcher |
---|---|---|

Financial | Capital and financial power of supplier company | Ho et al. [54], Dickson [55], Weber et al. [56] |

Proposed raw material price | Banaeian et al. [50], Dickson [55], Weber et al. [56], Ho et al. [54] | |

Transportation cost to the geographical location | Dickson [55], Weber et al. [56] | |

Delivery and service | Communication system | Dickson [55], Weber et al. [56] |

Lead time | Handfield [57], Choi & Hartley [58], Verma & Pullman [59], Bharadwa [60], Kannan et al. [61], Chu & Varma [62], Tam & Tummala [63], Shahgholian et al. [64] | |

Production capacity | Kannan [61], Dickson [55], Weber et al. [56] | |

After sales service | Dzever et al. [65], Choi & Hartley [58], Bevilacqua & Petroni [66], Bharadwaj [60], Rezaei & Ortt [67], Roshandel et al. [68] | |

Qualitative | Business experience and position among competitors | Banaeian et al. [50], Dickson [55], Weber et al. [56] |

Expert labor, technical capabilities and facilities | Banaeian et al. [50], Dickson [55], Weber et al. [56] | |

Operational control | Dickson [55], Weber et al. [56] | |

Quality | Grover et al. [55], Dickson [55] | |

Environmental management system | Environmental friendly technology | Rajesri Govindaraju et al. [69], Grover et al. [53] |

Environmental planning | Banaeian et al. [50], Nielsen et al. [70] | |

Environmentally friendly material | Grover et al. [53] | |

Environmental prerequisite | Banaeian et al. [50] |

**Table 2.**The 1–9 scale for AHP [6].

Importance Intensity | Definition |
---|---|

1 | Equally importance |

3 | Moderate importance |

5 | Strongly more importance |

7 | Very strong more importance |

9 | Extremely importance |

2, 4, 6, 8 | Intermediate values |

**Table 3.**The 1–9 fuzzy conversion scale [72].

Importance Intensity | Triangular Fuzzy Scale |
---|---|

1 | (1, 1, 1) |

2 | (1, 1, 2) |

3 | (1, 2, 3) |

4 | (2, 3, 4) |

5 | (3, 4, 5) |

6 | (4, 5, 6) |

7 | (5, 6, 7) |

8 | (7, 8, 9) |

9 | (9, 9, 9) |

No | Company Name | Address | Turnover (USD) | Employees | Market Geographical Area | Symbol |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

1 | An Gia Phu Food and Cereal Limited Liability Company | Vinh Long Province, Vietnam | 616,894 | 25 | Vietnam | DMU 1 |

2 | VINA Fragrant Rice Limited Liability Company | Can Tho City, Vietnam | 877,662 | 39 | Vietnam | DMU 2 |

3 | Thai Hung Cereal Co-operative Company | Can Tho City, Vietnam | 616,309 | 31 | Vietnam | DMU 3 |

4 | Sang Mai Agricultural Production Limited Liability Company | Hai Phong Provice, Vietnam | 686,350 | 39 | Vietnam | DMU 4 |

5 | FAS Vietnam Cereal Limited Liability Company | Vinh Long Province, Vietnam | 729,349 | 24 | Vietnam | DMU 5 |

6 | S1000 Food Commercial and Service Limited Liability Company | Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam | 590,814 | 21 | Vietnam | DMU 6 |

7 | Khau Thien Thanh Phat Production and Commercial Export-Import Company | Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam | 3,180,926 | 121 | Vietnam, Malaysia, Japan, Australia | DMU 7 |

8 | Gia Son Phat Commercial and Service Limited Liability Company | Kien Giang, Vietnam | 613,654 | 33 | Vietnam | DMU 8 |

9 | VILACONIC Cereal Joint Stock Company | Nghe An Province, Vietnam | 717,780 | 31 | Vietnam | DMU 9 |

10 | Binh Minh Cereal Joint Stock Company | Can Tho City, Vietnam | 658,272 | 26 | Vietnam | DMU 10 |

11 | Phu Thai Huong Joint Stock Company | Long An Province, Vietnam | 1.347,621 | 57 | Vietnam | DMU 11 |

12 | Long Tra Agroforestry Food Production Limited Liability Company | Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam | 4,650,698 | 234 | Vietnam, Asia | DMU 12 |

13 | Huong Chien Rice Production Limited Liability Company | Long An Province, Vietnam | 674,388 | 18 | Vietnam | DMU 13 |

14 | Loc Troi Joint Stock Incorporated Company | An Giang Province, Vietnam | 3,077,786 | 179 | Vietnam, Lao, Cambodia | DMU 14 |

15 | Ngoc Oanh Rice Private Business | Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam | 502,448 | 23 | Vietnam | DMU 15 |

16 | Khanh Tam Rice Private Business | Ho Chi Minh City Vietnam | 589,577 | 16 | Vietnam | DMU 16 |

17 | Thien Ngoc Cereal Limited Liability Company | Long An Province, Vietnam | 1,094,880 | 31 | Vietnam | DMU 17 |

18 | Xuyen Giang Commercial and Service Limited Liability Company | Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam | 1,475,431 | 59 | Vietnam | DMU 18 |

19 | Viet Lam Commercial and Service Limited Liability Company | Vinh Long Province, Vietnam | 1,502,043 | 42 | Vietnam | DMU 19 |

20 | Long An Export-Production Joint Stock Company | Ha Noi City, Vietnam | 2,125,825 | 89 | Vietnam, EU | DMU 20 |

21 | Phat Tai Limited Liability Company | Dong Thap Province, Vietnam | 1,054,156 | 29 | Vietnam | DMU 21 |

22 | Thai Binh Rice Joint Stock Company | Thai Binh Province, Vietnam | 1,777,244 | 51 | Vietnam | DMU 22 |

23 | Angimex Kitoku Limited Liability Company | Tien Giang Province, Vietnam | 1,098,978 | 38 | Vietnam | DMU 23 |

24 | Hoa Lua Rice Commercial Limited Liability Company | Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam | 1,029,622 | 59 | Vietnam | DMU 24 |

25 | Phuong Quan Production Limited Liability Company | Long An Province, Vietnam | 1,733,256 | 61 | Vietnam | DMU 25 |

Criteria | FS | EMS | FI | QU |
---|---|---|---|---|

FS | (1, 1, 1) | (1/8, 1/7, 1/6) | (1/9, 1/8, 1/7) | (1/3, 1/2, 1) |

EMS | (6, 7, 8) | (1, 1, 1) | (1/6, 1/5, 1/4) | (1, 2, 3) |

FI | (7, 8, 9) | (4, 5, 6) | (1, 1, 1) | (4, 5, 6) |

QU | (1, 2, 3) | (1/3, 1/2, 1) | (1/6, 1/5, 1/4) | (1, 1, 1) |

Criteria | FS | EMS | FI | QU |
---|---|---|---|---|

FS | 1 | 1/7 | 1/8 | 1/2 |

EMS | 7 | 1 | 1/6 | 2 |

FI | 8 | 6 | 1 | 5 |

QU | 2 | 1/2 | 1/5 | 1 |

Criteria | FS | EMS | FI | QU | Weight |
---|---|---|---|---|---|

FS | (1, 1, 1) | (1/8, 1/7, 1/6) | (1/9, 1/8, 1/7) | (1/3, 1/2, 1) | 0.04929 |

EMS | (6, 7, 8) | (1, 1, 1) | (1/7, 1/6, 1/5) | (1, 2, 3) | 0.20144 |

FI | (7, 8, 9) | (5, 6, 7) | (1, 1, 1) | (4, 5, 6) | 0.64816 |

QU | (1, 2, 3) | (1/3, 1/2, 1/1) | (1/6, 1/5, 1/4) | (1, 1, 1) | 0.10111 |

Total | 1 | ||||

CR = 0.09480 |

Criteria | CFB | RPMP | TCOOL | Weight |
---|---|---|---|---|

CFB | (1, 1, 1) | (1/5, 1/4, 1/3) | (3, 4, 5) | 0.2290 |

RPMP | (3, 4, 5) | (1, 1, 1) | (6, 7, 8) | 0.6955 |

TCOOL | (1/5, 1/4, 1/3) | (1/8, 1/7, 1/6) | (1, 1, 1) | 0.0754 |

Total | 1 | |||

CR = 0.07348 |

Criteria | CS | LT | PC | ASS | Weight |
---|---|---|---|---|---|

CS | (1, 1, 1) | (1/9, 1/8, 1/7) | (1/5, 1/4, 1/3) | (2, 3, 4) | 0.0924 |

LT | (7, 8, 9) | (1, 1, 1) | (1/3, 1/2, 1) | (6, 7, 8) | 0.3956 |

PC | (3, 4, 5) | (1, 2, 3) | (1, 1, 1) | (7, 8, 9) | 0.4672 |

ASS | (1/4, 1/3, 1/2) | (1/8, 1/7, 1/6) | (1/9, 1/8, 1/7) | (1, 1, 1) | 0.0448 |

Total | 1 | ||||

CR = 0.09456 |

Criteria | PEP | ETCT | OC | QA | Weight |
---|---|---|---|---|---|

PEP | (1, 1, 1) | (2, 3, 4) | (4, 5, 6) | (1/5, 1/4, 1/3) | 0.2136 |

ETCT | (1/4, 1/3, 1/2) | (1, 1, 1) | (1/4, 1/3, 1/2) | (1, 1, 1) | 0.0436 |

OC | (1/6, 1/5, 1/4) | (2, 3, 4) | (1, 1, 1) | (1/9, 1/8, 1/7) | 0.0791 |

QA | (3, 4, 5) | (1, 1, 1) | (7, 8, 9) | (1, 1, 1) | 0.6638 |

Total | 1 | ||||

CR = 0.09005 |

Criteria | EFT | EP | EFM | ENR | Weight |
---|---|---|---|---|---|

EFT | (1, 1, 1) | (1/9, 1/9, 1/9) | (1/6, 1/5, 1/4) | (1/6, 1/5, 1/4) | 0.0445 |

EP | (9, 9, 9) | (1, 1, 1) | (1, 2, 3) | (5, 6, 7) | 0.5345 |

EFM | (4, 5, 6) | (1/3, 1/2, 1) | (1, 1, 1) | (3, 4, 5) | 0.3009 |

ENR | (4, 5, 6) | (1/7, 1/6, 1/5) | (1/5, 1/4, 1/3) | (1, 1, 1) | 0.1201 |

Total | 1 | ||||

CR = 0.0838 |

**Table 12.**Raw data provided by case organization used to assess the relative efficiency of various suppliers.

A Supplier (DMU) | Input | Output | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

LT (Days) | UP (USD) | PC (Tons) | QB (%) | NI (USD) | RE (USD) | |

DMU 1 | 3 | 347.3 | 50 | 3.7221 | 44.03 | 58.71 |

DMU 2 | 5 | 391.45 | 70 | 1.3459 | 25.20 | 33.60 |

DMU 3 | 4 | 332.4 | 50 | 0.8243 | 26.03 | 34.70 |

DMU 4 | 4 | 321.5 | 40 | 1.7611 | 22.95 | 30.60 |

DMU 5 | 4 | 213.5 | 50 | 1.0023 | 40.05 | 53.40 |

DMU 6 | 4 | 312.6 | 50 | 1.6047 | 30.45 | 40.60 |

DMU 7 | 5 | 345.3 | 40 | 2.5748 | 48.00 | 68.20 |

DMU 8 | 5 | 342.9 | 70 | 2.0095 | 44.03 | 58.71 |

DMU 9 | 3 | 343.6 | 50 | 3.2401 | 32.70 | 43.60 |

DMU 10 | 3 | 354.1 | 30 | 3.0687 | 44.29 | 59.05 |

DMU 11 | 5 | 320.10 | 30 | 4.0040 | 32.78 | 43.70 |

DMU 12 | 3 | 346.30 | 70 | 2.9141 | 44.02 | 58.70 |

DMU 13 | 4 | 340.60 | 50 | 4.0194 | 44.12 | 58.83 |

DMU 14 | 4 | 315.05 | 40 | 5.1484 | 34.88 | 46.50 |

DMU 15 | 5 | 332.40 | 60 | 4.6604 | 43.02 | 57.36 |

DMU 16 | 4 | 350.90 | 40 | 5.4623 | 50.00 | 74.30 |

DMU 17 | 4 | 320.00 | 71 | 6.1238 | 44.01 | 58.68 |

DMU 18 | 5 | 344.60 | 50 | 4.7115 | 44.12 | 58.82 |

DMU 19 | 5 | 314.03 | 50 | 7.4178 | 44.15 | 58.86 |

DMU 20 | 4 | 342.30 | 40 | 4.7039 | 44.06 | 58.75 |

DMU 21 | 5 | 310.80 | 50 | 3.2497 | 44.15 | 58.86 |

DMU 22 | 4 | 312.40 | 50 | 6.8631 | 43.93 | 58.57 |

DMU 23 | 5 | 342.00 | 50 | 7.4577 | 43.92 | 58.56 |

DMU 24 | 5 | 337.60 | 70 | 6.5602 | 43.11 | 57.48 |

DMU 25 | 5 | 340.10 | 50 | 5.5501 | 43.02 | 57.36 |

Inputs/Outputs | LT | UP | PC | QB | NI | RE |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

LT | 1 | 0.02484 | 0.16149 | 0.24257 | 0.0776 | 0.07681 |

UP | 0.02484 | 1 | 0.14105 | 0.09301 | 0.00725 | 0.03435 |

PC | 0.16149 | 0.14105 | 1 | 0.01713 | 0.04728 | 0.00201 |

QB | 0.24257 | 0.09301 | 0.01713 | 1 | 0.54664 | 0.51879 |

NI | 0.0776 | 0.00725 | 0.04728 | 0.54664 | 1 | 0.98863 |

RE | 0.07681 | 0.03435 | 0.00201 | 0.51879 | 0.98863 | 1 |

Supplier | CCR-I | CCR-O | BCC-I | BCC-O | SBM-I-C | SBM-O-C | Super SBM-I-C | Super SBM-AR-C | Super SBM-AR-V |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

DMU 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |

DMU 2 | 25 | 25 | 25 | 24 | 25 | 24 | 25 | 24 | 24 |

DMU 3 | 23 | 23 | 22 | 23 | 23 | 25 | 23 | 25 | 25 |

DMU 4 | 24 | 24 | 15 | 25 | 24 | 23 | 24 | 23 | 21 |

DMU 5 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |

DMU 6 | 22 | 22 | 20 | 22 | 22 | 22 | 22 | 22 | 23 |

DMU 7 | 9 | 9 | 12 | 12 | 9 | 20 | 9 | 19 | 20 |

DMU 8 | 21 | 21 | 24 | 20 | 20 | 21 | 20 | 21 | 22 |

DMU 9 | 20 | 20 | 1 | 11 | 21 | 18 | 21 | 20 | 11 |

DMU 10 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |

DMU 11 | 11 | 11 | 1 | 1 | 18 | 11 | 18 | 16 | 1 |

DMU 12 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 8 | 1 | 8 | 1 | 1 |

DMU 13 | 13 | 13 | 16 | 18 | 13 | 14 | 13 | 14 | 16 |

DMU 14 | 16 | 16 | 1 | 1 | 12 | 15 | 12 | 12 | 1 |

DMU 15 | 19 | 19 | 23 | 20 | 19 | 17 | 19 | 17 | 18 |

DMU 16 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |

DMU 17 | 10 | 10 | 13 | 13 | 11 | 9 | 11 | 10 | 13 |

DMU 18 | 18 | 18 | 21 | 19 | 17 | 16 | 17 | 15 | 17 |

DMU 19 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |

DMU 20 | 12 | 12 | 14 | 16 | 10 | 12 | 10 | 9 | 12 |

DMU 21 | 14 | 14 | 18 | 15 | 15 | 19 | 15 | 18 | 19 |

DMU 22 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |

DMU 23 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |

DMU 24 | 15 | 15 | 19 | 14 | 16 | 10 | 16 | 13 | 15 |

DMU 25 | 17 | 17 | 17 | 17 | 14 | 13 | 14 | 11 | 14 |

© 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).