a study on performance measurement of a plastic packaging organization's manufacturing system...

PICMET 2007 Proceedings, 5-9 August, Portland, Oregon - USA © 2007 PICMET

A Study on Performance Measurement of a Plastic Packaging Organization'sManufacturing System by AHP Modeling

Gul Tekin Temur, Bahar Emeksizoglu, Sitki GozluIstanbul Technical University, Faculty of Management, Istanbul, TURKEY

Abstract--By the effect of globalization, products, services,capital, technology, and people began to circulate more freely inthe world. As a conclusion, in order to achieve and gain anadvantage against competitors, manufacturing firms had toadopt themselves to changing conditions and evaluate theircritical performance criteria. In this study, the aim is todetermine general performance criteria and their characteristicsand classifications from previous studies and evaluateperformance criteria for a plastic packaging organization byutilizing Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) modeling. A specificmanufacturing organization, operating in the Turkish plasticpackaging sector has been selected and the manufacturingperformance criteria have been determined for that specificorganization. Finally, the selected criteria have been assessedaccording to their relative importance by utilizing AHPapproach and Expert Choice (EC) software program.

As a result of this study, operating managers chose cost,quality, customer satisfaction and time factors as criteria forthis organization. As the findings of the study indicate, themanufacturing organization operating in the plastic packagingsector, overviews its operations and measures its manufacturingperformance basically on those four criteria and their subcriteria. Finally, relative importance of those main measuresand their sub criteria are determined in consideration to plasticpackaging sector.

I. INTRODUCTION

With the global changes in the twentieth century,manufacturing sector found itself in a position that somefactors affect them apart from their internal relations. Beforethese changes, manufacturing firms viewed themselves as aclosed system instead of an open system focusing basicallyon efficiency. Hence, the performance measures ofmanufacturing process have become important. Companiesbegan to focus on customer value as a whole besidesconverting just input to output value for competitiveadvantage [7]. Managing performance measurement factorsin a manufacturing company often increases profitability inthe system and provides many competitive advantages. Byusing acceptable performance measures, company managershave become more capable to distribute resources moreeffectively and focus on long term achievements [19]. Everymeasure of a system is not always performance, itseffectiveness on performance changes on the basis of certaincriteria. According to Tangen [19], if some criteria (that arelisted below) cannot be formed, performance measurescannot be achieved. These basic criteria are [22] thefollowing:

* Strategic objectives of a company and the measures mustbe related to each other and all employees should beaware of corporate goals.

* Timely, relevant and correct feedbacks from a long andshort-term perspective should be provided by measures.

* Measurements should be evaluated easily bycomprehensible ways.

* Both financial and non-financial measures shouldcomplete the measurement.

For gaining competitive advantages, it is necessary for acompany to position itself in the sector, to utilize frombenchmarking methods and to measure its performance basedon these criteria that help for the development of efficiency ininternal and external operations [22]. This study focuses onperformance decision process and relative strengths ofperformance criteria in the plastic sector. Because evaluationof manufacturing performance is a critical factor that enablescompetitive advantage in packaging sector, performancecriteria of a plastic packaging company is investigated.

II. LITERATURE REVIEW

A. Performance and MeasureIn today's competitive environment, after the

development of e-commerce, the firms begin to struggleagainst competitors on issues such as product quality,delivery speed, reliability, customer satisfaction, service aftersales etc. In this pursuit, the firms compare their capacitywith respect to their products and services that they supply tomarkets. In making this comparison, some variables arefound to defining the performance of the firm [9]. In thatcase, performance of a firm depends on certain variables,which indicate the output or the result of a work period. Itshows the achievement level of business objectives. On thispoint, Akal (2000) suggested that a business performance canbe defined as "evaluation of all efforts for companyobjectives." On the other hand, the measurement of businessperformance is a series of operations to determine the successlevel of the predetermined aims [22]. In manufacturingsystems, the primary performance variables are related tooutput. This is evaluated with respect to criteria such asthroughput time (total time spent in manufacturing system),output quantity, cycle time (time to finish a fixed work) andoutput ratio (output that is achieved from total input).Measuring these criteria effectively is necessary to improvemanufacturing system performance. It aims to determine theareas that needs improvement and also provides necessaryresources [9].

1256

PICMET 2007 Proceedings, 5-9 August, Portland, Oregon - USA © 2007 PICMET

B. Performance Measurement System Design andCharacteristics

As Neely and others defined, performance measurementsystem is the process of quantifying action, wheremeasurement is the process of quantification of the actionleading to performance [12]. The performance measurementof a company can be defined as the sum of each strategy ofits characteristics' related functions such as finance,marketing, manufacturing etc. [3].

Performance measurement system involves performancemeasures that are related to system, improvements of goalsand strategies and also provision of feedback [4]. After newproduction management systems come into existence,performance measurement systems are adapted to the criteriaof production management systems, which should integratefirms' goals with accounting systems and manufacturingstrategies [20]. Performance measurement systemcharacteristics' definition differs widely in the literature, butin general there are three short-term measures as shownbelow [1]:(a) A financial performance indicator, named also 'business

performance',(b) A technical performance indicator, named also

'productivity measurement', and(c) An efficiency indicator, named also 'human contribution

measurement'.

Another important point is that when choosing anacceptable series of performance measures, it is important tokeep a balance among them so that one set of performancedimension will not affect the others' in a negative way.

C. Performance MeasuresPerformance measures are the criteria that are used to

give support to management in the achievement of goals forguiding and improving the decision making process incompanies [4]. Although these measures can be classifiedinto different categories, performance measures shouldgenerally have some common characteristics in order to beeffective such as the following [19]:* The performance measures should emerge from strategic

objectives providing that behavior of staff is dependenton the goal of company.

* The performance measures should ensure feedback thatis accurate, timely and relevant.

* The performance measures should not differ much andinclude both financial and non-financial measures

* The performance measures should be understood by theusers.

Companies use performance measures to evaluate andimprove manufacturing processes in order to reach theirgoals. These performance measures can be examined in twodifferent groups according to their historical development [5].Between 1880s and 1980s companies were focused onfinancial measures mostly. After 1980s, because of the effectof globalization and increased competition, companies startedto change their view from financial to mostly areas such asquality and flexibility. Development and diffusion of newproduction management techniques caused this shift fromtraditional performance measures through non-traditionalperformance measures [5]. That means in the late 1980s, abroader view of performance measures began to appear in theliterature. As a result, criticisms against traditionalperformance measurement approach have been demonstrated[6].

D. Traditional Performance MeasuresAs mentioned above, traditional performance measures

are based on management accounting systems and itsmeasures such as return on investment, return on sales, andmainly productivity that have not been designed and modifiedmuch since 1920s [11].

Lack of relevance, lack of flexibility, and impediment toprogress can be counted as three main criticisms againsttraditional performance measures. Lack of relevance meansthat financial measures and reports are not relevant tostrategic control that is important for tracing performance inareas such as quality, speed and flexibility. Lack of flexibilitymeans that traditional measures are based on objectivity andconsistency as expected. Today, management must be able todesign and modify the measures according to its strategiesand goals in fast changing world. Lastly, impediment toprogress means, as traditional measures do not account forintangibles and focus on labor costs, it can createshortcomings in determining improvement projects whileignoring flexibility [11].

E. Non-Traditional Performance MeasuresAs increase of global competition, measures related to

manufacturing strategy and primarily non-financial measureshave came into existence. Those measures provideinformation to management in decision-making and also tooperators in the form of simple measures. They are flexibleso that can be designed or modified according to changingenvironment. There is also view that nontraditionalperformance measures are better predictors for determininglong-term performance [8, 11]. Those measures determinethis long-term performance measure through focusing oncustomer satisfaction and non-financial areas such as quality,flexibility, and speed [8]. The summary of differencesbetween traditional and nontraditional performance measuresis illustrated in Table 1.

1257

PICMET 2007 Proceedings, 5-9 August, Portland, Oregon - USA 2007 PICMET

F. Selection ofManufacturing Performance CriteriaIn manufacturing systems, manufacturing process

functions and functions depending on time factors should beconstructed together. Nearly 40-50 years ago, it was a

common belief that only cost and quality outputs could beutilized in manufacturing. After the development of new

manufacturing systems, delivery and flexibility of outputswere added to the list. During 1990s, innovativeness was

also considered as an important performance output. Finally,cost, quality, performance, delivery, flexibility, and

innovativeness were introduced as performance outputs inmanufacturing systems [3]. In today's manufacturingenvironment, it is widely accepted in literature that the keydimensions of manufacturing's performance are quality,delivery speed, delivery reliability, price (cost), andflexibility (performance measurement design), which are

defined by many different sub measurement factors. Thesedifferent sub measures of cost, quality, time and flexibilityare shown in Table 2 [13].

TABLE 2. DIFFERENT SUB MEASURES OF COST, QUALITY, TIME, AND FLEXIBILITY [13].MANUFACTURING OUTPUT MEASURESCOST Unit product cost, unit labor cost, unit material cost, total manufacturing overhead cost, inventory turnover

(raw material, WIP, finished goods), machine capacity, direct and indirect labor productivityQUALITY Internal failure (scrap, rework) and external failure (field or systems failure) cost, warranty, cost, quality of

incoming materialsPERFORMANCE Number of standard and advance features, product resale price, no. of engineering changes, mean time

between failuresDELIVERY Delivery time, Master Production Schedule performance, inventory accuracy, average lateness, percent of

on time deliveryFLEXIBILITY No. of products in the line, No. of available options, Minimum size order, average production lot size,

average volume fluctuations that occur over a time period divided by the capacity limit. Number of partsproduced by a machine, possibility of producing parts on different machines

INNOVATIVENESS No. ofnew products introduced per year, lead time to new design, level ofR&D investment, consistencyof investment over time

In this paper, the assessment and analysis ofmanufacturing performance are concerned with factors suchas cost, time, quality, and customer satisfaction. Theseperformance indicators are selected because they indicate theimportant aspects of the plastic packaging company' s

manufacturing performance. They are usually fairly easy tomeasure or estimate [1].

Cost is one of the main performance measures becauseeach manufactured product has a cost, low price can mostlybe provided by reducing cost and so that profit opportunity isachieved [3]. Time performance measurement generallydepends on delivery time. The reliability of delivery showsthe success in manufacturing meeting orders in the promisedtime. In today's business environment, timely delivery andsmall lot production are the requirements of themanufacturing systems, namely just in time (JIT)manufacturing has become popular [3]. The purpose ofdelivery measure is to measure the delivery of the product on

time and with no defects in the product, packaging, andtransportation arrangement. This indicator also focuses on themeasurement of the receipt of raw materials and othersupplies on time and with no defects in the product,packaging, transport arrangement or supportingdocumentation. Hence, suppliers can dramatically affectdependability [1]. Quality is another significant measurement,which is a customer requirement as defined by failures ratios,warranty opportunities, etc. Furthermore, customersatisfaction is one of the significant performancemeasurements that will be determined generally by thenumber and nature of customers' complaints in order toidentify improvement projects. To prevent the system failingin customer satisfaction, there are some methods such as

written, verbal, and anecdotal information recording [1].On the other hand, it is clear that manufacturing

performance is much related to activity performance;therefore it is not enough to increase process efficiency alone.

1258

TABLE 1. COMPARISON OF TRADITIONAL AND NON-TRADITIONAL PERFORMANCE MEASURES [18].TRADITIONAL PERFORMANCE MEASURES NON-TRADITIONAL PERFORMANCE MEASURESBased on outdated traditional accounting system Based on company strategyMainly financial measures Mainly non-financial measuresIntended for middle and high managers Intended for all employeesLagging metrics (weekly or monthly) On time metrics (hourly or daily)Difficult, confusing and misleading Simple, accurate and easy to useLead to employee frustration Lead to employee satisfactionNeglected at the shop floor Frequently used at the shop floorHave a fixed format Have no fixed format (depends on needs)Do not vary between locations Vary between locationsDo not change over time Change over time as the need changeIntended mainly for monitoring performance Intended to improve performanceNot applicable for JIT, TQM, CIM, FMS, RPR, OPT ApplicableHinders continuous improvement Helps in achieving continuous improvement

PICMET 2007 Proceedings, 5-9 August, Portland, Oregon - USA © 2007 PICMET

It is necessary to measure the effect of manufacturingimprovements in the entire organization. Manufacturingperformance measures are seen as the totality oforganization's improvement factors and their importance isknown on addressing the organization' s missionaccomplishment. However, sometimes it is a difficultmission to accurately measure changes in the organizationbecause of reasons listed below [9]:* Concept can be defined incompletely and different

people criticize "efficient" in different ways.* Many organizations have different output variances so

that it is hard to create only one value from all outputs.* It is difficult to directly determine the inputs that are

spent for output.* It is hard to form one value for all inputs.* To notice qualitative changes in inputs is also hard.* To remove the prejudgments on input and output

measures and supply the independency is difficult.* To decrease the efficiency of financial control measures

is also very difficult.

At this point, it is necessary to point out the importanceof performance measurement focused system forming in allparts of the organization.

G. Analytical Hierarchy Process and Expert Choice ProgramAnalytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) is a decision tool

that is used to solve problems involving more than onecriterion, which been developed by Thomas L. Saaty in1970s. Both quantitative and qualitative approaches areconsidered and combined into a single empirical inquirythrough utilizing AHP. The aim of this method is integratingdifferent criteria into a single overall score for rankingdecision alternatives and it is based on pair wise comparisonjudgments. There are four main steps of AHP that aredescribed below:* Developing objective, criteria, sub criteria and decision

alternatives to build a hierarchical structure of thedecision problem.

* Determining the relative priorities of criteria on pair wisebasis.

* Consider the suitability ratings of the decisionalternatives.

* Calculation of the overall ratings, weighting thesuitability ratings with the relative priorities of criteriaand sub-criteria [2, 21].

AHP has been applied to many decision problems indifferent areas such as project selection, increasing laborforce, producing a new product, investments appraisal,performance measurement, and capital investment decisions.

In AHP, relative weights are determined by interviewingmanagers to make pair wise comparisons using a preferencescale that is shown in Table 3 [21]. This scale is used to give

importance to factors according to each other up to ninetimes.

TABLE 3. SAATY'S 1-9 SCALE FOR AHP PREFERENCE [21].Verbal judgment of preference Numerical rateEqual Importance 1Weak importance of one over another 3Essential or strong importance 5Demonstrated importance 7Absolute importance 9Intermediate values between the two adjacent judgments 2,4,6,8

As the stages of hierarchical structure are developed,number of pair wise comparisons increase [14, 21]. In thissituation, software packages such as Expert Choice helps todecrease time and effort for applying this approach. ExpertChoice firm develops this software and it helps user indisplaying hierarchical structure of decision problems anddetermining relative importance of measures. User can chosenumerical, verbal or graphical comparison in the program. Itis used by many firms in different sectors for manyapplications in the world [10, 23].

In this study a specific manufacturing firm in the plasticpackaging sector in Turkey was chosen. The main aim of thestudy is to determine the appropriate performance criteriaconsidering the conditions and the structure of themanufacturing system specific to the plastic packaging sectorand to determine the relative importance of those criteria byusing AHP approach and Expert Choice software programthat are described above.

III. METHOD

For our study, a plastic packaging company was selectedthat is placed in one of the largest planned locations ofIstanbul industry. It is the supplier of many firms especiallythe sectors of medicine, fast-moving consumer goods, andcosmetics. It also has mould workshops and totally 65employees. Fifteen employees are white-collar and the othersblue-collar workers. In this study, to determine performancemeasure of manufacturing process of the company, an in-depth interview was conducted in December 2006 with twomanagers. One of them has been working in the company forthe last 12 years and the other has worked for 7 years. Afterthe examination of performance measures in literature,manufacturing characteristics such as process time, cost,quality, and customer satisfaction are determined as four keyperformance measures. Then, hierarchies between sub criteriafor those measures are created. In order to determine therelative importance of performance criteria in this company,matrices comparing relative importance of criteria amongthemselves are determined and this process is implemented tosub criteria. After constructing those matrices, managersassigned scores to those criteria, and then geometric averagesof those scores are taken as the total score.

After the assessment by the Expert Choice softwareprogram, the results are discussed with managers in order todetermine their applicability and whether they are as expectedor not. Those application processes are seen in Figure 1.

1259

PICMET 2007 Proceedings, 5-9 August, Portland, Oregon - USA 2007 PICMET

Fig. 1. Application Process

Managers have selected quality, cost, customersatisfaction and time as the criteria. As production process ismainly based on machines, moulds, and labor force; thesefactors affect cost, quality, and time in different ways.

Cost is one of the main criteria of the company and themajor components of cost are raw material cost, productivityof labor, and machine productivity. As the company aims todecrease stock levels, they have stocks so not to lose theircustomers. This company operates as the supplier fordifferent chemical, pharmaceutical, and food companies.Demand forecast is very hard and dependent on the demandof those customers' products ranging from cosmetics,chemical raw materials, and medicine so that stock levelbecomes a major cost factor for this company. As the firmworks as a supplier for different chemical, pharmaceuticaland food companies, their process and performance basicallyaffect the customers. Hence, customer satisfaction is veryimportant for this company. They claim that they focus on

and have problems regarding the number of complaints andthe number of returned products. Delivery reliability isanother sub criterion for the company to improve customersatisfaction. Another important factor is quality for thecompany. In today's competitive environment, raw materialand final product quality, and scrap rate are determined as thesub criteria that affect quality. Finally, time is another mainperformance criterion for the firm. Set-up times, maintenancetime of machines and moulds, and manufacturing cycle timesare the sub criteria of the time criterion. As mentioned above,manufacturing process is mainly dependent on machines andmoulds.

All of the criteria mentioned above are relevant to eachother and not independent from each other. Figure 2 showsthe hierarchy of performance criteria and their sub criteria.

performnce asues

- aw materia- od dutivit of labo

-cost

poductivity of achie

set-up ti e

m ainteaice time of machines

aiuacturing cy tie

maintenance tine of ouds

raw aterial qualiyty-I- defectv at

final product quali-F deliverY relabi y

-custome satisfact number of copaitsnumber of returnsl

Fig. 2. Hierarchy of Criteria.

IV. FINDINGS OF THE STUDY

In the first step, relative importance of main criteria isdetermined. Comparison of main criteria is shown in Table 4.For example, according to managers, the "cost" criterion istwo times more important than the "time" criterion. The"quality" criterion is five times more important than the"cost" criterion.

TABLE 4. COMPARISON OF MAIN CRITERIACriteria Cost Time Quality Customer satisfaction

Cost 1 2 115 1/3Time 1/2 1 1/7 |15Quality 5 7 1 3Customer satisfaction 3 5 1 /3 1

The relative importance of main criteria that is quotedfrom Expert Choice results is shown in Figure 3.

1260

custmer saisbt ion zgcost 106time a061Inconsstency = 003

with 0 missing judgments.Fig. 3. Scores of Main Criteria

PICMET 2007 Proceedings, 5-9 August, Portland, Oregon - USA © 2007 PICMET

Quality and customer satisfaction are more important forthe company than cost and time. Because, the companyattaches more importance to quality and customer satisfactionis seen as a competitive factor.

A. Comparison ofthe Sub Criteria ofCostComparison of raw material cost, productivity of labor

and machine, and stock levels is shown in Table 5. As an

example, raw material cost is three times more important thanstock levels and productivity of labor is six times moreimportant than raw material cost.

The relative importance of the sub criteria of cost isshown in Figure 4.

TABLE 5. COMPARISON OF THE SUB CRITERIA OF COSTCost Raw material cost Productivity of labor Stock levels Productivity of machineRaw material cost 1 1/6 3 1/4Productivity of labor 6 1 5 1Stock levels 1/3 1/5 1 15Productivity of machine 4 1 5 1

Overall Inconsistency =,0;

pFodluctlvlty oIf laboF 438pFodut-lv-lty oIf mach-ine ,384Faw mateFial cost {114stock levels ,064

Fig. 4. Scores of the Sub Criteria of Cost.

As shown from this figure, productivity of labor andmachine are more important than raw material cost and stocklevels. Because labor and machine force is dominant in theplastic packaging manufacturing process, their importancecan be consistent.

B. Comparison ofthe Sub Criteria ofTimeTo determine the relative importance of the sub criteria

of time, comparison matrix for criteria that seen in Table 6 is

constructed. For example, maintenance time of moulds isthree times more important than set-up time, andmanufacturing cycle time is four times more important thanmaintenance time of machines.

After the comparison matrix is constructed, relativeimportance scores of the sub criteria of time shown in Figure5 is determined by the help of Expert Choice.

TABLE 6. COMPARISON OF SUB CRITERIA OF TIMEMaintenance time of Manufacturing Maintenance time of

Time Set-up time machines cycle time mouldsSet-up time 1 1/4 1/5 1/3Maintenance time of machines 4 1 1/4 1/2Manufacturing cycle time 5 4 1 2Maintenance time of moulds 3 2 1/2 1

Overall Inconsistency = ,06

manlUfaCtUFing cycle time e498maintenance time of mhoulds 258maintenance time of mach-ines 172set-up time0O73

Fig. 5. Scores of the Sub Criteria of Time

Manufacturing cycle time is the most important factorand set-up time is a weak performance measure for thatcompany. This company aims to deliver customer orders onexpected time so that the importance of decreasing cycle timeis consistent with the results.

C. Comparison ofthe Sub Criteria ofQualityAnother main criterion is quality for the company and

comparison matrix of the sub criteria is shown in Table 7.Relative importance factor scores with 0.05

inconsistency ratios are shown in Figure 6.

1261

PICMET 2007 Proceedings, 5-9 August, Portland, Oregon - USA 2007 PICMET

TABLE 7. COMPARISON OF THE SUB CRITERIA OF QUALITYQuality Raw material quality Defective ratio Final product qualityRaw material quality 1 1/6 1/4Defective ratio 6 1 3Final product quality 4 1/3 1

Overall Inconsistency = 05

dlefective Fratio 6;44f-inal pFioduIct quIalty 271FawYY mateFial quIalGit i85

Fig. 6. Scores of the Sub Criteria of Quality

Relative importance of defective ratio is nearly eighttimes more important than raw material quality. A reason can

be the standardization of raw material implying that there are

little differences between the raw materials the company

uses. Thus, its relative importance can be less than others.

D. Comparison ofthe Sub Criteria ofCustomer SatisfactionThe last criterion is customer satisfaction and

comparison matrix of the sub criteria such as deliveryreliability, number of complaints and number of returns are

shown in Table 8.

According to the relative importance scores shown inFigure 7, number of complaints and delivery reliability are

more important performance measures for the company.

Number of complaints for the company is an importantmeasure for both measuring customer complaints and alsodelivery reliability. As a reason, those sub criteria are relatedto each other as mentioned above. For example, for thereason of long lead times or defective product delivery,number of complaints can increase.

Overall comparisons of all sub criteria are determinedand are illustrated in Figure 8.

TABLE 8. COMPARISON OF THE SUB CRITERIA OF CUSTOMER SATISFACTIONCustomer Satisfaction Delivery reliability Number of complaints Number of returnsDelivery reliability 1 1/2 4Number of complaints 2 1 4Number of returns 1/4 1/4 1

Fig. 7. Scores of the Sub Criteria of Customer Satisfaction

Fig. 8. Overall Comparison of Sub Criteria

1262

Overall Inconsistency = P5

numbler oDf compllaints 547deliveryg relabliliy {345number of returns -109

Overall Inconsistency = 04

defective Faltio 329nuImbCF of complaints 153final pFroduct quality 138deliVerF Freliabli iti 096fipFrodluctivilty of labOF P061pFoductivity of machine 053Faw MateFrial qual-ty 044manufaCtUFing cyle time 035nuImbeF of FetUFlns 030maintenance time of mouIlds '018raw mateFial coslt ul l l l l l lllll016maintenance time of machnes {012sItock levels 009 Uset-lip time P05 I

PICMET 2007 Proceedings, 5-9 August, Portland, Oregon - USA © 2007 PICMET

V. CONCLUSION AND COMMENTS

This study shows performance measures of amanufacturing firm in plastic packaging sector and theirrelative importance. Since the manufacturing process is bothmachine and labor intensive, performance measures aredifferent than technology and innovation intensivemanufacturing processes.

As it can be seen from overall comparison, the mostimportant performance measures of the company aredefective ratio and number of complaints. We may claim thedependence of these two criteria to each other. Asmaintenance time of moulds and machines are not too costlyfor the company, as managers state, focusing on moremaintenance can decrease defective ratios and so number ofcomplaints.

The increasing importance of final product quality anddelivery reliability can be claimed as the increasing importantfactors for the sector. As the company works as a supplier ofthe other companies, their customers are also manufacturingfirms. Due to increasing competition, as managers indicate,their customers have begun to produce their packages in theirown manufacturing facilities. This situation has forced thiscompany to focus more on quality and customer satisfaction.

Finally, as this study aims to evaluate performancecriteria of a plastic packaging manufacturing company anddetermining relative importance of these criteria, thiscompany should focus on those measures according to theirimportance to improve manufacturing process. These criteriaand especially the most important ones should be included intheir manufacturing strategy, which they intend to implementin the future.

VI. FUTURE SUGGESTIONS

As mentioned above, this study is basicallyaccomplished in the light of the comments and suggestions ofthe managers of the company. If the production facility werestudied by personal observations, the results might havereflected the reality better. Examining manufacturing facilityin the future can be helpful to refine this study and providemore objectively. Furthermore, it would be beneficial toapply the method in different environments such as large-scale companies and even developed country enterprises, andthen compare the results to determine the differences andimprove the research. In addition, combining the measureswith manufacturing process implications and performancemeasurement system may be considered another futureresearch, which could provide insight to company managersto gain competitive advantage.

REFERENCES

[1] Ahmada, M. M. and N. Dhafrb, "Establishing and improvingmanufacturing performance measures," Robotics and ComputerIntegrated Manufacturing, vol. 18, pp. 171-176, 2002.

[2] Cheng, E. and H. Li, "Analytic Hierarchy Process, An approach todetermine measures for business performance," Measuring BusinessExcellence, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 30-36, 2001.

[3] Chin, H. G. and M. Z. Saman, "Proposed analysis of performancemeasurement for a production system," Business Process ManagementJournal, vol. 10, no. 5, pp. 570-583, 2004.

[4] Dumond, J. E.; "Making best use of performance measures andinformation," International Journal of Operations & ProductionManagement, vol. 14, no. 9, pp. 16-31, 1994.

[5] Ghalayini, A. M. and J. S. Noble, "The changing basis of performancemeasurement," International Journal of Operations & ProductionManagement, vol. 16, no. 8, pp. 63-80, 1996.

[6] Gomes, C. F., M. M. Yasin and J. V. Lisboa, "Key performance factorsof manufacturing effective performance," The TQM Magazine, vol. 18,no. 4, pp. 323-340, 2006.

[7] Gomes, F. C., M. Yasin, and V. J. Lisboa, "Performance measurementpractices in manufacturing firms: an empirical investigation," Journalof Manufacturing Technology Management, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 144-167, 2006.

[8] Hussain, M. and Z. Hoque, "Understanding non-financial performancemeasurement practices in Japanese banks A new institutional sociologyperspective," Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, vol. 15,no. 2, pp. 162-183, 2002.

[9] Kabadayi, E. T.; "I,letmelerdeki uretim performans ol,citleriningeli,imi, ozellikleri ve surekli iyile,tirme ile ili,kisi," (Thedevelopment of manufacturing performance critera and its features incompanies, and its relation with continuous improvement) (in Turkish),Dogu, Universitesi Dergisi (Journal ofDogus University), 2002/6, pp.61-75, 2002.

[10] Kuruuzum, A. and N. Atsan, "The analytic hierarchy process approachand its applications in business," Akdeniz I.I.B.F. Dergisi, vol. 1, pp.83-105, 2001.

[11] Manoochehri, G.; "Overcoming obstacles to developing effectiveperformance measures," Work Study, vol. 48, no. 6, pp. 223-229, 1999.

[12] Neely, A., M. Boume and M. Kennerley, "Performance measurementsystem design: developing and testing a process-based approach,"International Journal of Operations & Production Management, vol.20, no. IO, pp. 1119-1145, 2000.

[13] Neely, A., M. Gregory and K. Platts, "Performance measurementsystem design, A literature review and research agenda," InternationalJournal of Operations & Production Management, vol. 25, no. 12, pp.1228-1263, 2005.

[14] Rangone, A.; "An analytical hierarchy process framework forcomparing the overall performance of manufacturing departments,"International Journal of Operations & Production Management, vol.16, no. 8, pp. 104-119, 1996.

[15] Saaty, T.L.; Multicriteria Decision Making: The Analytic HierarchyProcess, Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh, 1988.

[16] Saaty, T.L.; "How to make a decision: the analytic hierarchy process,"European Journal ofOperational Research, vol. 48, pp. 9-26, 1990.

[17] Saaty, T.L.; "Highlights and critical points in the theory and applicationof the analytic hierarchy process," European Journal of OperationalResearch, vol. 74, pp. 426-447, 1994.

[18] Shamsuddin, A., M. H. Hassan and Y. H. Fen.; "Performancemeasurement and evaluation in an innovative modern manufacturingsystem," Journal ofApplied Sciences, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 385-401, 2005.

[19] Tangen, S.; "An overview of frequently used performance measures,"Work Study, vol. 52., no. 7, pp. 347-354, 2003.

[20] Toni, A., G. Nassimbeni and S. Tonchia, "An integrated productionperformance measurement system," Industrial Management & DataSystems, vol. 5, pp. 180-186, 1997.

[21] Yurdakul, M.; "Measuring a manufacturing system's performanceusing a Saaty's system with feedback approach," IntegratedManufacturing Systems, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 25-34, 2002.

[22] Zerenler, M.; "Performans ol,cim sistemleri tasarimi ve uretimsistemlerinin performansinin ol,cimune yonelik bir ara,tirma," (Aresearch on designing performance measurement systems andperformance measurement of production systems) (in Turkish),Ekonomik ve Sosyal Ara,tirmalar Dergisi, (Journal of Economic andSocial Research), pp. 1-36, Spring 2005.

[23] Expert Choice General Information, Retrieved 03/11/06 World WideWeb, http://www.expertchoice.com/.

1263