Analysis and Management of

Productivity and Efficiency in

Production Systems for Goods and
Services 1st Edition Fabio Sartori Piran
(Author)
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://textbookfull.com/product/analysis-and-management-of-productivity-and-efficien
cy-in-production-systems-for-goods-and-services-1st-edition-fabio-sartori-piran-author
/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

Goods and Services of Marine Bivalves Aad C. Smaal

https://textbookfull.com/product/goods-and-services-of-marine-
bivalves-aad-c-smaal/

The Co-production of Public Services: Management and

Evaluation Denita Cepiku

https://textbookfull.com/product/the-co-production-of-public-
services-management-and-evaluation-denita-cepiku/

Green productivity and clean production: a guidebook

for sustainability First Edition Jayasinghe

https://textbookfull.com/product/green-productivity-and-clean-
production-a-guidebook-for-sustainability-first-edition-
jayasinghe/

Trends in E Business E Services and E Commerce Impact

of Technology on Goods Services and Business
Transactions Advances in E Business 1st Edition In Lee

https://textbookfull.com/product/trends-in-e-business-e-services-
and-e-commerce-impact-of-technology-on-goods-services-and-
business-transactions-advances-in-e-business-1st-edition-in-lee/
Production Management: Advanced Models, Tools, and
Applications for Pull Systems Yacob Khojasteh

https://textbookfull.com/product/production-management-advanced-
models-tools-and-applications-for-pull-systems-yacob-khojasteh/

Co-Production of Public Services and Outcomes Elke

Loeffler

https://textbookfull.com/product/co-production-of-public-
services-and-outcomes-elke-loeffler/

Globalization, Productivity and Production Networks in

ASEAN: Enhancing Regional Trade and Investment Fithra
Faisal Hastiadi

https://textbookfull.com/product/globalization-productivity-and-
production-networks-in-asean-enhancing-regional-trade-and-
investment-fithra-faisal-hastiadi/

Analysis of energy systems: management, planning, and

policy 1st Edition Vincenzo Bianco

https://textbookfull.com/product/analysis-of-energy-systems-
management-planning-and-policy-1st-edition-vincenzo-bianco/

IMPROVE Innovative Modelling Approaches for Production

Systems to Raise Validatable Efficiency Intelligent
Methods for the Factory of the Future Oliver Niggemann

https://textbookfull.com/product/improve-innovative-modelling-
approaches-for-production-systems-to-raise-validatable-
efficiency-intelligent-methods-for-the-factory-of-the-future-
Analysis and Management
of Productivity and
Efficiency in Production
Systems for Goods
and Services
Analysis and Management
of Productivity and
Efficiency in Production
Systems for Goods
and Services

Fabio Sartori Piran, Daniel Pacheco Lacerda,

and Luis Felipe Riehs Camargo
This book was previously published in 2018 in Portuguese by Elsevier Editora, Brazil, as Análise e Gestão da
Eficiência, by Luis Felipe Riehs Camargo, Daniel Pacheco Lacerda and Fabio Antonio Sartori Piran.

CRC Press
Taylor & Francis Group
6000 Broken Sound Parkway NW, Suite 300
Boca Raton, FL 33487-2742

© 2020 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

CRC Press is an imprint of Taylor & Francis Group, an Informa business

No claim to original U.S. Government works

Printed on acid-free paper

International Standard Book Number-13 978-0-367-35772-6 (Hardback)

This book contains information obtained from authentic and highly regarded sources. Reasonable efforts have been
made to publish reliable data and information, but the author and publisher cannot assume responsibility for the valid-
ity of all materials or the consequences of their use. The authors and publishers have attempted to trace the copyright
holders of all material reproduced in this publication and apologize to copyright holders if permission to publish in
this form has not been obtained. If any copyright material has not been acknowledged, please write and let us know
so we may rectify in any future reprint.

Except as permitted under U.S. Copyright Law, no part of this book may be reprinted, reproduced, transmitted, or
utilized in any form by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including pho-
tocopying, microfilming, and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without written permission
from the publishers.

For permission to photocopy or use material electronically from this work, please access www.copyright.com (http://
www.copyright.com/) or contact the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc. (CCC), 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA
01923, 978-750-8400. CCC is a not-for-profit organization that provides licenses and registration for a variety of users.
For organizations that have been granted a photocopy license by the CCC, a separate system of payment has been
arranged.

Trademark Notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for
identification and explanation without intent to infringe.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Names: Camargo, Luis Felipe Riehs, author. | Piran, Fabio Sartori, author.
| Lacerda, Daniel Pacheco, author.
Title: Analysis and management of productivity and efficiency in production
systems for goods and services / by Fabio Sartori Piran, Daniel Pacheco
Lacerda, Luis Felipe Riehs Camargo.
Other titles: Análise e gestão da eficiência. English
Description: Boca Raton, FL : CRC Press/Taylor & Francis Group, 2020. |
“This book was previously published in 2018 in Portuguese by Elsevier
Editora, Brazil, as Análise e gestão da eficiência by Luis Felipe
Riehs Camargo, Daniel Pacheco Lacerda and Fabio Antonio Sartori Piran.”
| Includes bibliographical references and index.
Identifiers: LCCN 2019042478 (print) | LCCN 2019042479 (ebook) | ISBN
9780367357726 (hardback ; acid-free paper) | ISBN 9780429351679 (ebook)
Subjects: LCSH: Industrial efficiency. | Production management.
Classification: LCC T58.8 .C3613 2020 (print) | LCC T58.8 (ebook) | DDC
658.5--dc23
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2019042478
LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2019042479

Visit the Taylor & Francis Web site at

http://www.taylorandfrancis.com

and the CRC Press Web site at

http://www.crcpress.com
Contents
Foreword................................................................................................................. xiii
Acknowledgments..................................................................................................... xv
Authors.....................................................................................................................xix

Chapter 1 Introduction........................................................................................... 1
References............................................................................................. 3

Chapter 2 Vision of Productivity and Efficiency from a Systemic Perspective....... 5

2.1 Productivity in a Production System of Goods and Services........ 6
2.2 Efficiency.................................................................................... 7
2.2.1 Technical and Scale Efficiency.....................................8
2.2.2 Allocative and Cost/Economic Efficiency.................... 9
2.3 Efficiency vs. Productivity....................................................... 10
2.4 Efficacy and Effectiveness........................................................ 11
2.5 Benchmarking.......................................................................... 11
2.5.1 Internal Benchmarking............................................... 12
2.5.2 External Benchmarking.............................................. 13
2.5.3 How to Apply Benchmarking..................................... 13
2.6 Relation among the Concepts................................................... 15
References........................................................................................... 16

Chapter 3 Practical Problems in Relation to Productivity and Efficiency........... 19

3.1 Efficiency and Intervention in the System: Case Study
in a Bus Manufacturer.............................................................. 19
3.2 Efficiency in Services: Case Study in an Automotive
Fleet Management Company....................................................20
3.3 Efficiency and Benchmarking: Case Study in a Fuel
Station Network........................................................................ 21
3.4 Efficiency and Investment Projects: Case Study of
a Petrochemical Company........................................................ 22
3.5 Efficiency and Continuous Improvement: Case Study of
an Arms Manufacturer............................................................. 23
References...........................................................................................24

Chapter 4 Techniques for Calculation of Productivity and Efficiency................25

4.1 Laspeyres Index (1864).............................................................26
4.2 Paasche Index (1874)................................................................ 27
4.3 Fisher Index (1922)................................................................... 27

v
vi Contents

4.4 Drobish Index .......................................................................... 27

4.5 Törnqvist Index (1936) ............................................................28
4.6 Free Disposal Hull (FDH) ....................................................... 29
4.7 Thick Frontier Approach (TFA) .............................................. 29
4.8 Distribution-Free Approach (DFA) ......................................... 30
4.9 Stochastic Frontier Analysis (SFA).......................................... 30
4.10 Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) ......................................... 31
4.10.1 Construction of the Decision Hierarchy ..................... 31
4.10.2 Comparison among the Hierarchical Elements.......... 31
4.10.3 Analysis of the Relative Priority of Each Criterion....... 34
4.10.4 Assessment of the Consistency of the
Relative Priorities ....................................................... 35
4.10.5 Construction of the Paired Matrix For
Each Criterion, Considering Each of the
Alternatives Selected .................................................. 36
4.10.6 Obtaining the Composite Priority for the
Alternatives ................................................................ 37
4.10.7 Choice of the Alternative ........................................... 37
4.11 Overall Equipment Effectiveness (OEE) ................................. 38
4.11.1 Other Metrics for Assessment of Equipment
Efficiency.................................................................... 43
4.12 Introduction to Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) ................44
References ..........................................................................................46

Chapter 5 Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA).................................................... 49

5.1 Decision-Making Unit (DMU) ................................................ 50
5.2 Model CRS (Constant Returns to Scale) ................................. 51
5.2.1 CRS Model with Input Orientation ............................ 53
5.2.2 CRS Model with Output Orientation ......................... 55
5.2.3 Example of an Analysis Using the CRS
Model (with Input Orientation) .................................. 56
5.3 Model VRS (Variable Returns to Scale) ................................. 59
5.3.1 VRS Model with Input Orientation ............................ 61
5.3.2 VRS Model with Output Orientation ......................... 62
5.3.3 Example of an Analysis Using the VRS Model
(with Input Orientation) ..............................................64
5.4 Relation of the CRS and VRS Models for Calculation of
the Efficiency of Scale ............................................................. 65
5.5 Analysis of Targets and Slack .................................................66
5.6 Types of Technical Efficiency Calculated in Data
Envelopment Analysis (DEA) ................................................. 68
5.7 Final Considerations on DEA .................................................. 71
References .......................................................................................... 74
Contents vii

Chapter 6 Modeling Method in DEA (MMDEA)............................................... 77

6.1 Model Development – Concepts and Importance.................... 77
6.2 DEA Modeling Method............................................................ 78
6.2.1 Define the Purpose of the Analysis and the Type
of Efficiency to Be Assessed....................................... 79
6.2.2 Carry Out a Systematic Literature Review................. 81
6.2.3 Define the Units of Analysis....................................... 81
6.2.4 Developing a DEA Conceptual Model........................ 81
6.2.5 Assessment of the DEA Conceptual Model................ 82
6.2.6 Definition of the Time Period of the Analysis............ 82
6.2.7 Defining the DMUs..................................................... 83
6.2.8 Defining the Variables to Be Used in the DEA
Model........................................................................... 83
6.2.9 Defining the DEA (CRS/VRS) Model to Be Used....... 85
6.2.10 Define the Orientation of the Model (Input or
Output)......................................................................... 85
6.2.11 Elaboration and Validation of the Final
DEA Model................................................................. 85
6.2.12 Collecting Data............................................................ 87
6.2.13 Handling the Data....................................................... 87
6.2.14 Carrying Out the Efficiency Calculation in DEA....... 88
6.2.15 Analyzing the Breakdown of the DEA
Model Results ............................................................. 88
6.2.16 Using a Selection Method for Variables (Stepwise)........ 88
6.2.17 Analyze the Results (Efficiency, Targets and
Slack and Benchmarks)............................................... 91
6.2.18 Present and Discuss Final Results............................... 91
6.2.19 Defining Improvement Goals, Based on the
Results Obtained From the Analysis...........................92
6.2.20 Writing the Final Report.............................................92
References...........................................................................................92

Chapter 7 Illustrating the Application of MMDEA............................................. 95

7.1 Application of the MMDEA in a System of Production
of Goods................................................................................... 95
7.1.1 Defining the Purpose of the Analysis and the
Type of Efficiency to Be Assessed.............................. 95
7.1.2 Execution of a Systematic Review of the Literature....... 96
7.1.3 Definition of the Units of Analysis..............................96
7.1.4 Development of a DEA Conceptual Model.................96
7.1.5 Assessment of the DEA Conceptual Model................ 98
7.1.6 Definition of the Time Period of the Analysis............ 98
7.1.7 Definition of the DMUs...............................................99
viii Contents

7.1.8 Define the Variables to Be Used in the DEA Model..... . 99

7.1.8.1 Definition of the Variables of the
Model (Inputs and Outputs) of the
Product Engineering Analysis .................. 100
7.1.8.2 Definition of the Model Variables
(Inputs and Outputs) of the Production
Process ...................................................... 101
7.1.9 Definition of the DEA (CRS/VRS) Model
to Be Used ................................................................ 103
7.1.10 Definition of the Orientation of the Model (Input
or Output) ................................................................. 104
7.1.11 Elaboration and Validation of the Final DEA
Model........................................................................ 105
7.1.12 Collecting Data......................................................... 105
7.1.13 Handling the Data .................................................... 106
7.1.14 Carry out the Calculation of Efficiency in DEA ...... 107
7.1.15 Analysis of the Breakdown of the DEA
Model Results ........................................................... 107
7.1.16 Use of a Variable Selection Method (Stepwise) ....... 107
7.1.17 Analysis of the Results (Efficiency, Targets and
Slack and Benchmarks) ............................................ 110
7.1.18 Presentation and Discussion of the Final Results .......110
7.1.19 Definition of the Improvement Goals, Based on
the Results Obtained with the Analysis ................... 111
7.1.20 Writing the Final Report .......................................... 111
7.2 Application of MMDEA in a Service Provision System..........111
7.2.1 Definition of the Purpose of the Analysis and the
Type of Efficiency to Be Assessed ........................... 112
7.2.2 Conduct of a Systematic Review of the Literature .......113
7.2.3 Definition of the Units of Analysis........................... 113
7.2.4 Development of a DEA Conceptual Model .............. 113
7.2.5 Assessment of the DEA Conceptual Model ............. 115
7.2.6 Definition of the Time Period of the Analysis ......... 116
7.2.7 Definition of the DMUs............................................ 116
7.2.8 Definition of the Variables to Be Used in the
DEA Model .............................................................. 116
7.2.9 Definition of the DEA (CRS/VRS) Model to
Be Used .................................................................... 117
7.2.10 Definition of the Model (Input or Output)
Orientation................................................................ 117
7.2.11 Elaboration and Validation of the Final DEA
Model........................................................................ 119
7.2.12 Collecting Data......................................................... 119
7.2.13 Handling the Data .................................................... 119
7.2.14 Carrying out the Efficiency Calculation in DEA ....... 120
Contents ix

7.2.15 Analysis of the Breakdown of the DEA

Model Results ........................................................... 120
7.2.16 Using a Variable Selection Method (Stepwise) ........ 121
7.2.17 Analysis of the Results (Efficiency, Targets
and Slack and Benchmarks) ..................................... 122
7.2.18 Presentation and Discussion of the Final Results .......122
7.2.19 Definition of the Improvement Goals, Based on
the Results Obtained with the Analysis ................... 122
7.2.20 Writing of the Final Report ...................................... 122
References ........................................................................................ 123

Chapter 8 Application for Calculation of Productivity and Efficiency

in DEA.............................................................................................. 125
8.1 SAGEPE Application............................................................. 125

Chapter 9 Analysis in Two Stages: Techniques for Joint Assessment

with DEA.......................................................................................... 133
9.1 Bootstrapping ........................................................................ 133
9.2 Causal Impact for Causal Analysis ....................................... 134
9.3 Tobit Regression and Ordinal Least Squares (OLS) ............ 136
9.4 Malmquist Index.................................................................... 137
9.5 Artificial Neural Networks (ANNs) ...................................... 138
References ........................................................................................ 140

Chapter 10 DEA Application Examples ............................................................. 143

10.1 Efficiency and Intervention in the System: Case Study in
a Bus Manufacturing Company............................................. 143
10.1.1 Analysis and Discussion of Results of Product
Engineering .............................................................. 143
10.1.2 Presumptions and Analysis of Variance
(ANOVA) of Product Engineering Efficiency .......... 146
10.1.3 Causality and Dimensioning of the Effects of
Modularization of Products on the Efficiency of
the Product Engineering........................................... 147
10.1.4 Analysis and Discussion of the Results of the
Production Process ................................................... 149
10.1.5 Assumptions and Analysis of Variance
(ANOVA) of the Production Process Efficiency ...... 151
10.1.6 Causality and Dimensioning of the Effects of
Product Modularization on Production Process
Efficiency.................................................................. 152
10.2 Efficiency in Services: Case Study in an Automotive
Fleet Management Company ................................................. 154
x Contents

10.2.1 Analysis of Efficiency from the Client’s

Perspective................................................................ 154
10.2.2 Analysis of Efficiency from the Perspective of
the Service Provider ................................................. 154
10.2.3 Analysis of Efficiency in the Integrated
Perspective................................................................ 155
10.2.4 Comparative Analysis of the Efficiencies ................ 157
10.2.5 Analysis of Variance of the Efficiency Means ......... 159
10.2.6 Analysis of Variables Regarding Efficiency in
Service Provision...................................................... 161
10.3 Efficiency and Benchmarking: Case Study in a Fuel
Station Network ..................................................................... 163
10.3.1 Working Method ...................................................... 163
10.3.2 Results ...................................................................... 164
10.3.3 Statistical Analyses .................................................. 168
10.4 Efficiency and Investment Projects: Case Study in a
Petrochemical Company........................................................ 169
10.4.1 Working Method ...................................................... 169
10.4.2 Results ...................................................................... 170
10.4.3 Analysis of Period 1 (Feb/2004 to Jul/2006) ........... 170
10.4.4 Analysis of Period 2 (Jul/2006 to Aug/2009) .......... 171
10.4.5 Analysis of Period 3 (Aug/2009 to Nov/2011) ......... 173
10.4.6 Comparative Analysis of the Units of
Analysis – Malmquist Index (Grades G1 and G2) ......175
10.4.7 Statistical Analyses .................................................. 176
10.5 Efficiency and Continuous Improvement: Case Study in
an Arms Manufacturing Company........................................ 177
10.5.1 Working Method ...................................................... 177
10.5.2 Data Collection from the Projects for Continuous
Improvement, Learning and Production Volume .......178
10.5.3 Analysis of Results ................................................... 179
10.5.4 Analysis of the Relationship among Continuous
Improvement, Learning and Efficiency ................... 180
10.5.5 Analysis of the Relationship among Continuous
Improvement, Learning and Production Volume .......181
10.5.6 Analysis of the Relationship between Efficiency
and Production Volume ............................................ 182
10.5.7 Synthesis of Results.................................................. 184
Bibliography ..................................................................................... 185

Chapter 11 Concepts and Types of Modularity .................................................. 187

Flávio I. Kubota and Paulo A. Cauchick-Miguel
11.1 Modularity – General Concepts and Definitions................... 188
11.2 Types of Modularity .............................................................. 188
Contents xi

11.2.1 Modularity of Product .............................................. 188

11.2.2 Modularity of Production ......................................... 191
11.2.3 Modularity of Use .................................................... 192
11.2.4 Organizational Modularity ....................................... 193
11.2.5 Modularity in Services ............................................. 193
11.3 Examples of Modularity ........................................................ 194
11.3.1 Modular Consortium – Volkswagen (MAN-LA) .......194
11.3.2 Modular Cookware – Black & Decker® ................... 195
11.4 Final Considerations .............................................................. 196
Chapter 11 Questions ....................................................................... 198
References ........................................................................................ 198

Chapter 12 Future Prospects ............................................................................... 201

Index ......................................................................................................................207
Foreword
Describing how an organization behaves in the face of competition and what its
objectives are is a fundamental task for any institution that intends to perpetuate
in the market. Likewise, it is critical for a nation to know how it is developing, and
whether its policies and plans for growth and improvement of the population’s liv-
ing conditions are effective. But how to do this? What are the key indicators and
measurements to identify how well an organization, institution or country is doing?
How can we tell if a company is managing to produce better than it did before and/
or better than its competition? How can we know if a country’s government policies
are effective and achieving the desired goals and objectives? How can we ascertain
that the economic development plans are taking effect?
Among the indicators and metrics used to measure the aforementioned factors, pro-
ductivity and efficiency are fundamental, as much in the strictest context of companies
and organizations as in a broader context, involving a state or a whole country. However,
the concepts of productivity and efficiency, at times confused, may lead organizations
to take wrong decisions due to mistakes in the interpretation and use of the results
obtained. Such confusion in terms of concepts may be a consequence of the flexibility
and diversity of measurements that can be created for both productivity and efficiency.
Since productivity is defined as the ratio of inputs to outputs, the factors to be considered
in the numerator and denominator of this equation may be the most diverse. Similarly,
when we calculate the efficiency, this is always based on the ratio of what is actual
output and what could (should) be accomplished. Again, considering the numerator and
denominator of this equation, these may be the most varied factors. This flexibility in
the factors that can be considered in the productivity and efficiency equations, as well as
the similarity of the equations that calculate them, namely a ratio between two factors,
makes the concepts of productivity and efficiency often confused and misused.
Maybe a simple way to differentiate them is to note that efficiency always com-
pares equal units of measurement, that is, how much was done compared with how
much could have been done, or the actual time taken to produce compared with the
time that could have been taken. As the numerator and denominator have the same
unit of measurement, efficiency has no unit and is expressed in percentage terms.
The same does not happen with productivity, because it is calculated based on inputs
and outputs that have different units of measurement. Thus, productivity could be
measured, for example, in parts/hour or tons/kWh−1.
In the context presented, where we need to measure the productivity and efficiency
of public and private organizations and institutions, the difficulty in understanding
the concepts of productivity and efficiency and the confusion between them, and the
empirically proven need for techniques and tools to measure these concepts, makes
the purpose of this book of the utmost importance for professionals faced with the
need to take decisions based on the efficiency and productivity of the organization,
as well as for students training for careers.
It should be noted that, in the case of this book, the authors focus their attention
on the most technical aspects of productivity and efficiency, that is, the analysis of

xiii
xiv Foreword

these measures in the context of organizations. To this end, as an introductory part

of the book, important concepts, definitions and classifications about productivity
and efficiency are covered, serving as a bibliographic source for professionals and
students who seek a better understanding of this topic. The simple, precise form of
writing in this chapter can be observed throughout the book, making it easy and
pleasant to read.
The book, in addition to providing clarifications regarding the concepts cov-
ered, presents case studies and applications of efficiency and productivity. This
allows the reader to identify with the situations and readily understand the content.
Furthermore, the book addresses current concepts and proposals, fruits of a model-
ing research group focused on Production Engineering at GMAP/UNISINOS. Thus,
there are chapters that present contributions developed during cutting-edge research
in the area, and which have resulted in Master’s dissertations and Doctoral theses.
It is also worth highlighting the focus on Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA), a tech-
nique for Operational Research, widely used for the calculation of efficiency, and which
can also make many contributions to the Production Engineering area. This technique,
although widely used in the scientific community and presenting several characteristics
with potential to contribute to enterprise, is still hardly utilized in companies.
Seeking to aid expansion of the use of DEA in the reality of organizations, this
book presents a modeling method for DEA application. This method, due to its ease
of application and the simple explanation of its steps in Chapter 6, could represent a
turning point for increased tool utilization in the business environment.
Finally, given that the main part of the book is the content and not this Foreword,
I would like to make a brief comment and a compliment about how it came about,
and, hopefully, how many others will be realized. The emergence of the book itself,
of course, is the result of discussions among the authors about some works that are
currently being carried out. However, what should be emphasized is the process by
which this group of authors joined forces to produce this work. The process involved
the creation of a serious, multi-disciplinary, multi-ideological and multi-functional
research group. The group had, and still has, different views of how this techno-
scientific work in Production Engineering should be performed. When reading the
finished book, it is difficult to imagine and appreciate all the work performed prior
to its production. Therefore, I would like to congratulate the authors for working so
seriously and professionally toward the evolution of Production Engineering in the
country, making several contributions, including this book.
Finally, I would like to wish you all productive reading and efficient use of the
learning to be gained.

Ricardo Augusto Cassel, PhD

Professor at Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS).

A Solutions Manual, Exercises, Instructor’s Manual, PowerPoint slides, and

figure slides are available for download at the book’s website. Please visit
https://www.crcpress.com/Analysis-and-Management-of-Productivity-and-
E f f i c i e n c y- i n - P r o d u c t i o n - S y s t e m s / P i r a n - L a c e r d a - C a m a r g o / p /
book/9780367357726.
Acknowledgments
Fabio Sartori Piran
Publishing this book is for me a great personal achievement. I am always happy
to contribute in some way to businesses, as well as to academia and the public in
general. I believe this book is a way to make this contribution. This work was made
possible due to the highly collaborative partnership I enjoy with the other authors. I
thank Prof. Dr. Daniel Lacerda, for whose work and character I have a lot of respect
and admiration. Daniel has been my tutor, advisor and academic referee. My life has
changed for the better since we started working together on our research. In fact, we
share great enthusiasm for research in Operations Management, and I believe we will
go much further together on this journey. I also thank Prof. Dr. Luis Felipe, who has
helped me a great deal in understanding the technique we present in this book. Luis
Felipe was my Master’s degree co-advisor, and we are good friends. As with Daniel,
I also believe that we will go far together on this journey. Although this work was
written by me, Daniel and Luis Felipe, there are other researchers who also contrib-
uted. Special thanks go to friends, Rafael Marques, Roberta Bondan, Charles Von
Gilsa, Iberê Guarani de Souza and Alaércio De Paris. I am very grateful to them for
the excellent work they carried out, and these are duly reported in our book. Thanks
go to all the GMAP/UNISINOS colleagues for their help and encouragement. Also
to friends, Maria Isabel Wolf Motta Morandi, Aline Dresch, Douglas Veit, Pedro
Lima, Carolina Araujo, Jaqueline Abreu e Débora Nunes and the other members of
this great group. Special thanks are due to my friend, Luis Henrique Rodrigues. I am
very grateful to Flávio I. Kubota and Paulo A. Cauchick-Miguel, who accepted the
invitation to write a chapter and help us in the construction of the work. My special
thanks go to my parents, João Piran and Lidia Sartori Piran, who were and still are
my best “teachers”, instilling in me values such as honesty, ethics and a sense of jus-
tice. I am grateful to my first teacher, Terezinha Piran (my Dinda), who has always
been an exemplary teacher, in my opinion. Finally, I express special gratitude to my
wife, Camila Timm Neves for her support and affection.

Daniel Pacheco Lacerda

I started my scientific and research journey exactly 15 years ago, when my Master’s
degree began. In 2019, together with my two important companions, I concluded this,
my 15th book in the area of Management and Production Engineering. Therefore,
first and foremost, it is appropriate to begin by thanking my two partners in this
work. Thanks are due to Prof. Dr. Luis Felipe Riehs Camargo for his collaboration
since 2013 in the supervision of several dissertations in the Graduate Program in
Production and Systems Engineering - PPGEPS/UNISINOS. This fruitful partner-
ship resulted in two ABEPRO (Brazilian Association of Production Engineering)
awards for best dissertation in Brazil. Both dissertations used the concepts and tech-
niques covered in this book. Above all, Luis Felipe has been a great partner in aca-
demic discussions on the most diverse subjects. Our convergence of thought makes

xv
xvi Acknowledgments

many people say that we are brothers. From this point of view, they are not wrong.
I think we particularly look like this when we play FIFA. My life trajectory made it
possible to get to know Prof. Fabio Sartori Piran, with whom I have been on a pro-
ductive, enjoyable academic journey. Fabio is one of the people with whom I share
many values: ethics, love of work and scientific rigor. Deepest thanks are due to him
for his partnership in all the challenges we have set ourselves. I hope that destiny will
bring us ever closer, as we undoubtedly have much to build on. Thanks are due to
all GMAP/UNISINOS members (Learning Modeling Research Group - http://gmap.
unisinos.br). Deepest thanks go to Prof. Pedro Lima, my current fellows, and those
who were part of the research group for the entire partnership, especially Prof. Dr.
Douglas Rafael Veit and Prof. Dr. Maria Isabel Wolf Motta Morandi. Gratitude is due
to them for their valuable partnership, and for jointly valuing aspects that are con-
sidered fundamental, such as truth, seriousness, work, self-awareness, self-respect
and desire to continually improve. Many talk about these values, but few exercise
them in practice. Even at the most difficult times in GMAP/UNISINOS, we have
been drawn ever closer. Thanks are also due to my other great companions on this
journey: Prof. Dr. André Riberio (UERJ), Prof. Dr. Renato Cameira (Poli/UFRJ),
Prof. Dr. Édison Renato (Poli/COPPE/UFRJ), Prof. Rafael Barbaestefano (CEFET/
Rio), Prof. Dr. Rafael Teixeira (University College of Charleston, USA), Prof. Dr.
Paulo Cauchick (UFSC), Prof. Dr. Carlo Bellini (UFPB), Prof. Dr. Lucila Campos
(UFSC), Prof. Rafael Paim (CEFET/Rio), Prof. Dr. Liane Kipper (UNISC), Prof. Dr.
Julio Siluk (UFSM), Prof. Dr. Adriano Proença (Poli/UFRJ) and Prof. Dr. Heitor
Caulliraux (Poli/COPPE/UFRJ). I also extend my gratitude to my eternal source of
inspiration, Prof. Dr. Ione Bentz (PPGDesign/UNISINOS); I cannot imagine what
my life would have been like without her. Thanks to Prof. Dr. Ricardo Augusto
Cassel (UFRGS), my former teacher, a friend of many years, as well as part of my
family more recently. My admiration for him includes his wholeheartedness, profes-
sionalism, thoughtfulness and education (I would like him to know that I mirror him
very much in the raising of my children). Many thanks are due to Prof. Dr. Junico
Antunes for all his fellowship (it has been 15 years). Thanks to Dr. Luis Henrique
Rodrigues, great friend and partner. His statements and critical points of view have
greatly improved this book. Luis will forever be in my heart. Thanks to Prof. Aline
Dresch, who has been a great friend, and a partner many times in recent years. The
moments we have had together are unforgettable, productive and pleasurable. I see in
her a lot of the qualities I value in people, not to mention her potential as a great pro-
fessional. I hoped others will also see and value her qualities, and work toward her
success. This is the least she deserves, and I would like her to always remember that
“the criterion of truth is practice”. May life’s decisions and paths bring us ever closer.
Thanks to one of my great intellectual partners, Dr. Priscila Ferraz, who started
in 2006, for all her conversations, understanding, partnership and mutual learning.
Being around her has been a unique experience. May life never separate us. I have
admired her for a long time and she has never disappointed. Finally, I would like to
thank all my family: my wife, Carina (Xuxu), for her support and affection in all
matters that have involved us. God has blessed my wife and I for our greatest “proj-
ects” (loves): Caio Lacerda and Serena Lacerda, who are better than we could ever
have asked for. I love their affectionate hugs at times of tiredness, and even for the
Acknowledgments xvii

“chicken” (as Serena calls the mess she has made in the whole house) that actually
makes me feel so happy. I am also so grateful to God for everything and for all the
wonderful people who have come and gone in my life. As the great Gabriel Garcia
Marquez would say: “Remembering is easy for those who have memories, forgetting
is difficult for those with hearts.” My heart will NEVER forget them!

Luis Felipe Riehs Camargo

This book contemplates the materialization of a long and productive partnership
with professors and researchers, Daniel Lacerda and Fabio Sartori Piran. It was 2012
when I returned from my sandwich doctorate at Erasmus University (Rotterdam)
and was invited by my good friend Daniel Lacerda to assist with the mentoring of
Charles. He was a Master’s student in production engineering, who was working
with the DEA technique to evaluate production efficiency at a petrochemical plant in
Rio Grande do Sul State. I soon understood the magnitude and potential of DEA to
generate essential information to support the decision-making process in organiza-
tions. Since then, I have been involved in many works, developed both in the aca-
demic sphere and published in Master’s dissertations and scientific articles, as well
as in work carried out in important companies in the national scenario. That said, I
thank Daniel Lacerda deeply for his friendship, long conversations and experience
exchange, for the opportunity to delve into DEA research and applications, and for
his invitation to participate in this book project. I thank Prof. Guilherme Liberali,
who not only opened the door for the sandwich doctorate, but also provided entry into
the world of analytics and quantitative modeling. Additionally, I thank Prof. Fabio
Sartori Piran, who understood and fully immersed himself in DEA studies, culmi-
nating in the development of this book. Thanks are due to my friends and colleagues
at GMAP/UNISINOS for providing a healthy, productive space in which to move
forward with the research and DEA applications, especially Prof. Luis Henrique
Rodrigues, a critic of the DEA technique who provided alternative ways of strength-
ening DEA, such as in the mechanisms of variable selection and conceptual model-
ing. I wish I could name all those who have crossed my path and made my life better,
but this is risky as I could leave someone out. Therefore, I express my gratitude to
all my family, friends, teachers/professors, colleagues, students and clients. I want
everyone who reads this book to be grateful to them. Last, but by no means least, in
addition to God, I express my special thanks to my closest partner, my beloved wife,
Laura Trapp, who has made my life infinitely better over the past 16 years.
Authors
Fabio Sartori Piran: PhD candidate in Industrial and Systems Engineering at
Universidade do Vale do Rio dos Sinos, UNISINOS. Master’s degree in Industrial
and Systems Engineering at UNISINOS. Bachelor’s degree in Logistics from
UNISINOS. Higher Education in Production Management at Universidade
FEEVALE. Researcher at GMAP/UNISINOS. Consultant partner in the Hahn
Piran Costs Business, a company providing consultancy and training in the areas
of operations management, production systems, process mapping, cost management
and control. Experience in costs management with emphasis on cost reduction, loss
analysis, control and organization of inventory, and implementation of management
tools. Also works in the industrial area with emphasis on planning, programming
and production and materials control (PPCPM), chrono analysis, layout and produc-
tion management. Has developed major projects in small, medium and large national
and multinational companies in the fields of footwear, artifacts, textiles, engineering,
food and retail. Professor at Universidade FEEVALE.

Daniel Pacheco Lacerda: PhD in Production Engineering awarded by COPPE/

UFRJ. Master’s degree in Administration from UNISINOS (2005). CNPq Research
Productivity Scholar (PQ-2) in the Production Engineering area since 2017. A co-ordi-
nator of the Bachelor Program in Production Engineering, in UNISINOS. Possesses
professional and academic experience in the areas of operations strategy, business
process engineering, data envelopment analysis, design science research and restric-
tion theory. Currently, a permanent researcher in the Graduate Program in Industrial
and Systems Engineering, PPGEPS/UNISINOS, and an academic co-ordinator of
the GMAP/UNISINOS (Research Group on Modeling for Learning). Develops
applied research projects in companies and public entities, such as FIOCRUZ/Bio-
Manguinhos, PETROBRAS, TRANSPETRO, JBS, AGDI, SEBRAE/RS, SESI and
VALE. Awarded academic honors: Outstanding Paper Award for Excellence of
the Emerald Literati Network, orientation of dissertations awarded by ABEPRO in
2013/2014/2015, Gaúcho Researcher Award, FAPERGS 2014 (category: Researcher
in Company), and a CNPq grant to study Productivity in Innovation, Technological
Development and Extension (2013–2016).

Luis Felipe Riehs Camargo: PhD in Administration from UNISINOS (2013) with
a period spent at Erasmus University Rotterdam (Supervisor: Guilherme Liberali
Neto). Earned a Master’s degree in Production Engineering from UNISINOS (2009)
and a Bachelor’s degree in Electrical Engineering from Pontifícia Universidade
Católica do Rio Grande do Sul (2005). Experience as a researcher in computer simu-
lation projects and mathematical modeling in projects developed at UNISINOS and
Erasmus University. Also develops applied research projects in collaboration with
companies and other organizations, such as Samarco, Petrobras, SEBRAE, Vale and
Grupo Randon.

xix
 1 Introduction

Productivity and efficiency are widely debated concepts, whether in academia or

among business and government professionals. Despite the number of studies on
this theme, Brazil has been facing difficulties in distinguishing the two concepts.
According to the magazine Exame (2017a), between 1981 and 1990, the productiv-
ity per worker in the country fell by an average of 2% a year, whereas, from 1991 to
2000, it rose on average by 1.6% a year. This trend remained positive between 2001
and 2010, increasing at an annual rate of 1.2%. In the period 2011–2016, productivity
per worker reverted to a negative path, presenting a mean annual decline of 1.1%.
The data contrast with those from the period 1950–1980, when work productivity
grew on average by 3.5% per year. It is to be noted that this was the principal factor
responsible for the significant growth in income per capita in the country (averaging
3.9% a year) throughout the period. However, as of the 1980s, productivity stagnated.
Among the salient factors, one may cite the reduced adoption of new technology and
taxation distortions that led to inefficient allocation of funds (Exame, 2017a).
Among the reasons explaining the low Brazilian productivity that lasted for
decades, there were structural factors related to: (i) technology (in today’s production
structure, sectors show a low capacity to incorporate technology and produce better
products); (ii) poor educational standards; and (iii) inadequate occupational skills
training. Deficient infrastructure is also recognized as a significant factor, added to
which excessive bureaucracy, complex taxation and an unfavorable business envi-
ronment explain the scenario of production stagnation (EXAME, 2017b).
Productivity and efficiency constitute factors of extreme importance in compa-
nies’ competitiveness, for economic sectors and entire countries. Productivity, as
much as efficiency, may be observed on diverse scales of analysis, ranging from
the macro level of whole economies to the micro scale in the ambit of sectors, pro-
cesses and the companies themselves. Besides this, distinct factors interfere with and
explain productivity and efficiency in accordance with the level of analysis desired.
What hinders the researchers’ and professionals’ understanding is that productiv-
ity and efficiency may be considered in both technical and economic terms. In gen-
eral, the analyses realized for economic sectors and whole countries are economic.
In turn, in organizations, the analysis is in technical terms with the broad use of
Overall Operational Performance Index (OOPI)/ Overall Equipment Effectiveness
(OEE). As will be seen in subsequent chapters, the primacy of OOPI/OEE may lead
to limitations in the analytical capacity, and, as a consequence, reduce managers’
range of options for action.
Thus, our focus is directed toward analysis of productivity and efficiency in the
company context. Such a focus does not exclude use of the concepts, techniques and
tools presented for broader contexts, such as economic sectors and entire countries.
In addition, productivity and economic efficiency may also be analyzed, even if only
partially, based on what will be described in later chapters.

1
2 Analysis and Management of Productivity and Efficiency

In this book, we seek to bolster the analysis of productivity and efficiency by

means of Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA). DEA is a broadly divulgated technique
and is used by the scientific community for a range of applications. However, its
use in everyday life and the business environment is developing. It is, therefore, an
important instrument to complement and qualify analyses that are performed cen-
trally by OOPI/OEE. Among the benefits of DEA use are the following:

i. Simultaneous analysis of multiple outputs and inputs in a single efficiency

measurement.
ii. Identification of the benchmarks over the periods of analysis.
iii. Analysis of productivity and efficiency in constant or variable economies
of scale.
iv. Analysis oriented toward maximization of outputs or reduction of inputs in
an operation, process or organization.
v. Analysis and definition of the goals and opportunities for improvement
based on identification of targets and slack calculation.
vi. Support for assessment of external and internal benchmarks.

Although this book presents a mathematical structure that is rather advanced for
organizations, we have sought to structure it in such a way as to facilitate its use via
different mechanisms. First, we seek to present a solid definition of the concepts
that permeate the phenomena of productivity and efficiency. Second, we present the
metrics and techniques used to operationalize and measure these concepts. Third,
we describe DEA in depth and a method for its operationalization in organizations.
Fourth, we develop a computational platform to enable use of the examples provided,
and for realization of analyses with the use of DEA in companies. Finally, evidence is
provided from case studies of its application, originating from the scientific research
conducted over the past 10 years. Some of these cases were published in the main
scientific journals in the operations management area (for example, International
Journal of Production Economics, Benchmarking and International Journal of
Advanced Manufacturing Technology).
Thus, this book has arisen from a line of research and set of investigations con-
ducted in GMAP | UNISINOS (http://gmap.unisinos.br) since its establishment. This
research focus has been manifested previously in recent discussions about the need
to increase productivity and efficiency in Brazil, in a range of spheres of interest.
Looking to the future, we can confidently state that the analysis of productivity and
efficiency will remain, despite the need to incorporate and deepen the economic
analysis.
Recent advanced manufacturing technology, for example, requires more profound
analysis of the effects on production systems in technical and economic terms. The
simple use of Augmented Reality, Additive Manufacturing, Cyber-Physical Systems
and Automation, among others, are not justified per se. These technologies need to
raise the productivity and efficiency of the production systems.
One additional aspect to be considered refers to the need to improve the produc-
tivity and economic efficiency of organizations. Considering the high costs of acqui-
sition, implementation and operationalization of the technologies associated with
Introduction 3

Advanced Manufacturing, additional attention to this aspect is necessary. Therefore,

although there may be an increase in productivity and efficiency in technical terms,
it would imply a reduction in economic terms. As a consequence, a company
should not lose sight of its goal, “Earn money today and in the future” as Eliyahu
Goldratt affirms in his novel, The Goal. In other words, in the final analysis, all the
efforts employed in the technologies of Advanced Manufacturing should revert to
an increase in productivity and economic efficiency in organizations. In terms of
Advanced Manufacturing, we seek to illustrate Modularity, which is a technology
that could contribute to an increase in productivity and efficiency.
Finally, we have sought to cover an important gap in production and operations
management in the Brazilian literature. The analysis and management of productiv-
ity and efficiency, although treated sparingly and with a focus on the tools to increase
them, is lacking in terms of concepts, techniques and tools for the analysis itself.
There is a presupposition that use of OOPI/OEE is sufficient for companies. However,
as may be observed, this metric, albeit necessary, is not sufficient for a broad pro-
found analysis and management of productivity and efficiency in organizations.

REFERENCES
Exame (2017a). Acesso em 31 de janeiro de 2018. Disponível em: https://exame.abril.com.br/
economia/produtividade-brasileira-nao-cresce-desde-1980-diz-estudo/. Acesso em: 31
de janeiro de 2018.
Exame (2017b). Acesso em: 31 de janeiro de 2018. Disponível em: https://exame.abril.com.br/
revista-exame/para-crescer-de-verdade-brasil-precisa-vencer-atraso-de-50-anos/.
Goldratt, E. M., & Cox, J. (2002). A meta: um processo de melhoria contínua (2nd ed.). São
Paulo: Nobel.
 2 Vision of Productivity
and Efficiency from a
Systemic Perspective

This chapter presents the concepts related to productivity and efficiency.

Understanding the difference between productivity and efficiency is important, as,
despite being distinct concepts, in many cases they are treated as if they were the
same. We deal with productivity and efficiency from a systemic perspective, analyz-
ing the system as a whole (the production of goods as much as the provision of ser-
vices), avoiding distortions derived from an assessment that considers the whole as
the sum of the parts. In addition, in this chapter we present other important concepts,
such as efficacy, effectiveness and benchmarking.
Improvement in productivity and efficiency is a contemporary challenge for orga-
nizations that produce goods and services. As a consequence, it is necessary to mea-
sure productivity and efficiency precisely, objectively and as a whole. Analysis of
productivity and efficiency allows managers to qualify their decision-making. Such
decisions could lead to better use of resources, cost reduction, better allocation of
investment and more precise definition of goals, among others.
Although productivity and efficiency are distinct concepts, in many cases, as men-
tioned above, they are treated as synonyms. In this book, we will differentiate them
in the following manner. Productivity is the relation between the input resources and
the results, the outputs generated by machinery, an operation, a process or a system
(Charnes et al., 1978), that is, the ratio of outputs to inputs. Efficiency is a compara-
tive measurement that represents the exploitation of resources, that is, what was pro-
duced with the use of certain resources compared to what could have been produced
with the same resources (Cummins & Weiss, 2013).
However, the productivity index is related to the efficiency index. If a productiv-
ity index of a goods production or service unit was compared with the productivity
index of a unit with better performance, a relation would be formed in which it
would be possible to make a comparison between these units. This comparative rela-
tion is the efficiency index, in which the more productive unit is used as a reference
(Førsund, 2017a).
In many companies, efficiency is measured by calculation of the ratio between
the hours worked and the hours available for production. This calculation refers only
to the control of operational efficiency and is limited by not considering a set of
other resources used in the goods and services production processes (for example,
materials, indirect labor, general production expenditure, etc.). Such limitations
restrict use of information about efficiency for managerial decision-making in orga-
nizations. It is not a recent development that efficiency should be perceived as a

5
6 Analysis and Management of Productivity and Efficiency

matter that considers the entire company (overall analysis), and not only the labor
efficiency (partial analysis of the system) (Skinner, 1974). Therefore, utilizing an
inadequate efficiency measurement may be insufficient for assessment of companies’
performance.
Furthermore, in the majority of companies, the forms of assessment of productiv-
ity and efficiency are specific and local, that is, only parts of the system are assessed.
There is no method that favors the assessment of productivity and efficiency from a
broader systemic perspective, one that allows specific actions with a focus on the over-
all increase in operational performance. The lack of an overall (systemic) analysis of
productivity and efficiency can lead an organization to taking wrong decisions, such
as: (i) unnecessary investment in resources of lower priority; (ii) lack of investment in
critical resources; and (iii) investment in increased productive capacity without explor-
ing the restrictions (bottlenecks) and the maximum capacity of the existing resources.
Faced with these aspects, a metric and a method that systematically assesses over-
all productivity and efficiency of the production systems are necessary, as much in
academic terms as in practical ones. Presentation of this metric and the proposition
of this method are among the objectives of this book. In order to develop the pro-
posed method, we sought to use a systemic vision, which criticizes reductionism
through an understanding generated by phenomena upon dividing them into parts,
and then conducting the study of these, simply observing in terms of cause and effect
(Morandi et al., 2014). Systemic thinking possesses a characteristic, namely a vision,
based on the indivisible whole. In opposition to mechanistic thinking, which seeks
understanding of a system through its parts, systemic thinking has, as its unit of
analysis, the system itself (Andrade et al., 2006).

2.1 PRODUCTIVITY IN A PRODUCTION

SYSTEM OF GOODS AND SERVICES
Productivity, in a broad context, provides evidence of how a particular produc-
tion process uses its resources. Productivity refers to the volume of items produced
with a certain quantity of inputs, that is, relates what is produced to what is con-
sumed (Cummins & Weiss, 2013). Productivity may be understood to be the relation
between the quantity of goods or services generated (outputs) and the quantity of
resources consumed in their generation (inputs) in the same time interval (t) (Heizer &
Render, 2001), in accordance with Equation 2.1.

Productivity may vary according to the differences in the production technolo-

gies available to organizations, in the execution of the operation plan, in the very
sequence of operations in a certain process, and in the environment in which the
production occurs. Analysis of these factors leads to identification of alternatives that
can enable increased productivity (Ferreira & Gomes, 2009).
Specifically, in the area of services, adoption of the traditional productivity con-
cept can lead to companies having a false perception of the performance of their
Vision of Productivity and Efficiency 7

operations (Durdyev et al., 2014). This is because the majority of the existing pro-
ductivity measurement models are derived from the industrial context (Armistead &
Machin, 1998).
The operations in manufacturing take place without direct participation of the
customers, and quality is a determining factor based on the technical specifica-
tions of the products. In services, most operations occur in a transparent interac-
tive system, where the client is able to intervene in the productivity and quality
(Grönroos & Ojasalo, 2004).
The active client participation in the service process limits standardization of the
operations and activities, and, consequently, that of the variables to be used for pro-
ductivity assessment. This lack of standardization of the variables hinders definition
of the quantity of inputs necessary to realize a given output. From this perspective,
the interactions of the service providers with their clientele may influence productiv-
ity in the process of rendering the service (Johnston & Jones, 2004).
In short, measurement of productivity in service operations differs due to the
special characteristics inherent in services. Among the principal characteristics, the
following are outstanding: client participation in the process, intangibility, heteroge-
neity, inseparability, perceptibility and time (Djellal & Gallouj, 2013; Fitzsimmons &
Fitzsimmons, 2014).
For example, the variable relative to time indicates that the results of a service
operation cannot be considered immediately after its provision. They should also be
examined within a certain period after the service has been concluded (Djellal &
Gallouj, 2013). In order to exemplify the time characteristic, one may consider a
hospital service. The immediate result is associated with a change in the patient’s
state of health soon after the service has been rendered, whereas the long-term result
is associated with alterations in the patient’s state in the period after consuming the
service. The very characteristics of the customers, besides their participation in the
process, impact productivity.
From this perspective, the concept of productivity created for a manufacturer
requires adaptations for application to services. Vuorinen et al. (1998) highlighted
that the models used to measure productivity in services should consider quantitative
and qualitative aspects. Chart 2.1 presents the main differences between service and
manufacturing companies in measuring productivity.
Following discussion of the concepts of productivity, the concepts regarding effi-
ciency are presented below.

2.2 EFFICIENCY
The studies on efficiency conducted by Debreu (1951) and Farrell (1957) are con-
sidered remarkable, as they affirm that the efficiency measurements in manufac-
turing and service companies are fundamental factors for conception of theories
and suitable policies. Farrell (1957) commented that the techniques known for this
measurement at that time were not capable of improving performance. Farrell (1957)
attributed this fault to the fact that industry considered as a performance factor only
the relationship between the production and the work (labor) employed for such.
Thus, various other resources fundamental for technical and economic performance
8 Analysis and Management of Productivity and Efficiency

CHART 2.1
Differences in Measuring Productivity in Services and Manufacturing
Manufacturing
Production is first, consumption later
Productivity is measured in a closed system
The quality depends on the result
Inputs and outputs are clear
Customers do not participate in the production
process
Customers do not generate inputs directly for the
production process
Products can be stocked
Services
Production and consumption are simultaneous
Productivity is measured in an open system
The quality depends on the result and the
process
It is difficult to differentiate between inputs and
outputs
Customers participate in the production process
Inputs achieved by the customers affect process
performance
Services cannot be stocked

Source: Marques (2017).

were ignored. In addition to being ignored, these other resources could actually limit
labor use itself.
Farrell’s proposal (1957) was directed at the way companies could use the inputs
of their production processes to transform them into outputs. With this, they could
seek tification of the consumption of these inputs in relation to the production that
they would obtain in their factories. A company becomes technically efficient
when it uses a minimal volume of inputs to obtain a particular volume of products
(Cummins & Weiss, 2013). In this way, the greater the number of results obtained
for a certain quantity of resources, the higher the efficiency. Coelli et al. (2005) high-
lighted that efficiency in producing goods and providing services can be analyzed
from two aspects, technical efficiency and scale efficiency. In addition, there is also
allocative efficiency and cost/economic efficiency.

2.2.1 Technical and Scale efficiency

Technical efficiency is related to the capacity of a process to produce a certain quan-
tity of products or services, utilizing the least amount of inputs in relation to the
other processes observed (Cummins & Weiss, 2013). Technical efficiency can also
be understood as a skill to obtain maximum production from a particular set of
inputs. On the one hand, it becomes possible to produce a greater volume of results
with the use of the same resources. On the other hand, it becomes possible to produce
the same results utilizing a lower volume of resources (Farrell, 1957).
Efficiency of scale is the result of the level of maximum production situated
under the efficient frontier. Thus, points off the optimal scale of production are not
fully efficient (Färe et al., 1994). Scale efficiency consists of an optimal function-
ing unit where a reduction or increase in the scale of production implies reduced
efficiency. Scale efficiency is related to the use of the best production practices.
Identification of the productivity and efficiency of each unit of analysis allows the
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
to place the most implicit confidence. On such occasions a magical
drum is usually employed. This instrument is formed of a piece of
wood of a semi-oval form, hollow on the flat side, and there covered
with a skin, on which various uncouth figures are depicted; among
which, since the introduction of Christianity into that country, an
attempt is usually made to represent the acts of our Saviour and the
apostles. On this covering several brass rings of different sizes are
laid, while the attendants dispose themselves in many antic postures,
in order to facilitate the charm; the drum is then beat with the horn
of a rein-deer, which occasioning the skin to vibrate, puts the rings in
motion round the figures, and, according to the position which they
occupy, the officiating seer pronounces his prediction[46].
“The remedy,” says a late writer[47], “specifically appropriated for
these maladies of the mind, is the cultivation of natural knowledge;
and it is equally curious and gratifying to observe, that though the
lights of science are attained by only a small proportion of the
community, the benefits of it diffuse themselves universally; for the
belief of ghosts and witches, and judicial astrology, hardly exists, in
these days, even amongst the lowest vulgar. This effect of knowledge,
in banishing the vain fears of superstition, is finely alluded to in the
last words of the following admirable lines quoted from Virgil, e. g.—
Felix qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas,
Atque metus omnes et inexorable fatum,
Subjicit pedibus, Strepitumque Acherontes avari.

But in order to shew with what fervour the belief in witches and
apparitions was maintained about a century and a half ago, we lay
before our readers, as it is scarce, “Doctor Henry More, his letter,
with the postscript to Mr. J. Glanvil[48], minding him of the great
expedience and usefulness of his new intended edition of the Dæmon
of Tedworth, and briefly representing to him the marvellous
weakness and gullerie of Mr. Webster’s[49] display of Witchcraft.”
“Sir,
“When I was at London, I called on your bookseller, to know in
what forwardness this new intended impression of the story of the
Dæmon of Tedworth (see p. 223) was, which will undeceive the
world touching that fame spread abroad, as if Mr. Mompesson and
yourself had acknowledged the business to have been a meer trick or
imposture. But the story, with your ingenious considerations about
witchcraft, being so often printed already, he said it behoved him to
take care how he ventured on a new impression, unless he had some
new matter of that kind to add, which might make this edition the
more certainly saleable; and therefore he expected the issue of that
noised story of the spectre at Exeter, seen so oft for the discovery of a
murther committed some thirty years ago. But the event of this
business, as to juridical process, not answering expectation, he was
discouraged from making use of it, many things being reported to
him from thence in favour of the party most concerned. But I am told
of one Mrs. Britton, her appearing to her maid after her death, very
well attested, though not of such a tragical event as that of Exeter,
which he thought considerable. But of discoveries of murther I never
met with any story more plain and unexceptionable than that in Mr.
John Webster his display of supposed Witchcraft: the book indeed
itself, I confess, is but a weak and impertinent piece; but that story
weighty and convincing, and such as himself, (though otherwise an
affected caviller against almost all stories of witchcraft and
apparitions,) is constrained to assent to, as you shall see from his
own confession. I shall, for your better ease, or because you may not
haply have the book, transcribe it out of the writer himself, though it
be something, chap. 16, page 298, about the year of our Lord 1632,
(as near as I can remember, having lost my notes and the copy of the
letters to Serjeant Hutton, but I am sure that I do most perfectly
remember the substance of the story.)
“Near unto Chester-le-Street, there lived one Walker, a yeoman of
good estate, and a widower, who had a young woman to his
kinswoman, that kept his house, who was by the neighbours
suspected to be with child, and was towards the dark of the evening
one night sent away with one Mark Sharp, who was a collier, or one
that digged coals underground, and one that had been born in
Blakeburn hundred, in Lancashire; and so she was not heard of a
long time, and no noise or tittle was made about it. In the winter
time after, one James Graham, or Grime, (for so in that country they
call them) being a miller, and living about 2 miles from the place
where Walker lived, was one night alone in the mill very late
grinding corn, and about 12 or 1 a clock at night, he came down stairs
from having been putting corn in the hopper: the mill doors being
shut, there stood a woman upon the midst of the floor with her hair
about her head hanging down and all bloody, with five large wounds
on her head. He being much affrighted and amazed, began to bless
himself, and at last asked her who she was and what she wanted? To
which she said, I am the spirit of such a woman who lived with
Walker, and being got with child by him, he promised to send me to
a private place, where I should be well lookt too till I was brought in
bed and well again, and then I should come again and keep his
house. And accordingly, said the apparition, I was one night late
sent away with one Mark Sharp, who upon a moor, naming a place
that the miller knew, slew me with a pick, such as men dig coals
withal, and gave me these five wounds, and after threw my body
into a coal pit hard by, and hid the pick under a bank; and his shoes
and stockings being bloody, he endeavoured to wash ’em; but seeing
the blood would not forth, he hid them there. And the apparition
further told the miller, that he must be the man to reveal it, or else
that she must still appear and haunt him. The miller returned home
very sad and heavy, but spoke not one word of what he had seen, but
eschewed as much as he could to stay in the mill within night without
company, thinking thereby to escape the seeing again of that frightful
apparition. But notwithstanding, one night when it began to be dark,
the apparition met him again, and seemed very fierce and cruel, and
threatened him, that if he did not reveal the murder she would
continually pursue and haunt him; yet for all this, he still concealed
it until St. Thomas’s Eve, before Christmas, when being soon after
sun-set in his garden, she appeared again, and then so threatened
him, and affrighted him, that he faithfully promised to reveal it next
morning. In the morning he went to a magistrate and made the
whole matter known with all the circumstances; and diligent search
being made, the body was found in a coal pit, with five wounds in the
head, and the pick, and shoes and stockings yet bloody, in every
circumstance as the apparition had related to the miller; whereupon
Walker and Mark Sharp were both apprehended, but would confess
nothing. At the assizes following, I think it was at Durham, they were
arraigned, found guilty, condemned, and executed; but I could never
hear they confest the fact. There were some that reported the
apparition did appear to the judge or the foreman of the jury, who
was alive in Chester-le-Street about ten years ago, as I have been
credibly informed, but of that I know no certainty: there are many
persons yet alive that can remember this strange murder and the
discovery of it; for it was, and sometimes yet is, as much discoursed
of in the North Country as any that almost has ever been heard of,
and the relation printed, though now not to be gotten. I relate this
with great confidence, (though I may fail in some of the
circumstances) because I saw and read the letter that was sent to
sergeant Hutton, who then lived at Goldsbrugh, in Yorkshire, from
the judge before whom Walker and Mark Sharp were tried, and by
whom they were condemned, and had a copy of it until about the
year 1658, when I had it, and many other books and papers taken
from me; and this I confess to be one of the most convincing stories,
being of undoubted verity, that ever I read, heard, or knew of, and
carrieth with it the most evident force to make the most incredulous
to be satisfied that there are really sometimes such things as
apparitions.” Thus far he.
“This story is so considerable that I make mention of it in my
Scholea, on the Immortality of the Soul, in my Volumen
Philosophicum, tom. 2, which I acquainting a friend of mine with, a
prudent, intelligent person, Dr. J. D. he of his own accord offered
me, it being a thing of much consequence, to send to a friend of his in
the north for greater assurance of the truth of the narrative, which
motion I willingly embracing, he did accordingly. The answer to this
letter from his friend Mr. Sheperdson, is this: I have done what I can
to inform myself of the passage of Sharpe and Walker; there are
very few men that I could meet that were then men, or at the tryal,
saving these two in the inclosed paper, both men at that time, and
both at the trial; and for Mr. Lumley, he lived next door to Walker,
and what he hath given under his hand, can depose if there were
occasion. The other gentleman writ his attestation with his own
hand; but I being not there got not his name to it. I could have sent
you twenty hands that could have said thus much and more by
hearsay, but I thought those most proper that could speak from
their own eyes and ears. Thus far (continues Dr. More,) Mr.
Sheperdson, the Doctor’s discreet and faithful intelligencer. Now for
Mr. Lumly, or Mr. Lumley. Being an ancient gentleman, and at the
trial of Walker and Sharp upon the murder of Anne Walker, saith,
That he doth very well remember that the said Anne was servant to
Walker, and that she was supposed to be with child, but would not
disclose by whom; but being removed to her aunt’s in the same town
called Dame Caire, told her aunt (Dame Caire) that he that got her
with child, would take care both of her and it, and bid her not trouble
herself. After some time she had been at her aunt’s, it was observed
that Sharp came to Lumley one night, being a sworn brother of the
said Walker’s; and they two that night called her forth from her
aunt’s house, which night she was murdered; about fourteen days
after the murder, there appeared to one Graime, a fuller, at his mill,
six miles from Lumley, the likeness of a woman with her hair about
her head, and the appearance of five wounds in her head, as the said
Graime gave it in evidence; that that appearance bid him go to a
justice of peace, and relate to him, how that Walker and Sharp had
murthered her in such a place as she was murthered; but he, fearing
to disclose a thing of that nature against a person of credit as Walker
was, would not have done it; upon which the said Graime did go to a
justice of peace and related the whole matter[50]. Whereupon the
justice of peace granted warrants against Walker and Sharp, and
committed them to a prison; but they found bail to appear at the next
assizes, at which they came to their trial, and upon evidence of the
circumstances, with that of Graime of the appearance, they were
both found guilty and executed.
“The other testimony is that of Mr. James Smart and William
Lumley, of the city of Durham, who saith, that the trial of Sharp and
Walker was in the month of August 1631, before judge Davenport.
One Mr. Fanhair gave it in evidence upon oath, that he saw the
likeness of a child stand upon Walker’s shoulders during the time of
the trial, at which time the judge was very much troubled, and gave
sentence that night the trial was, which was a thing never used in
Durham before nor after; out of which two testimonies several things
may be counted or supplied in Mr. Webster’s story, though it be
evident enough that in the main they agree; for that is but a small
disagreement as to the years, when Mr. Webster says about the year
of our Lord 1632, and Mr. Fanhair, 1631. But unless at Durham they
have assizes but once in the year, I understand not so well how Sharp
and Walker should be apprehended some little time after St.
Thomas’s day, as Mr. Webster has, and be tried the next assizes at
Durham, and yet that be in August, according to Mr. Smart’s
testimony. Out of Mr. Lumley’s testimony the christian name of the
young woman is supplied, as also the name of the town near Chester-
le-Street, namely, Lumley: the circumstance also of Walker’s sending
away his kinswoman with Mark Sharp are supplied out of Mr.
Lumley’s narrative, and the time rectified, by telling it was about
fourteen days till the spectre after the murder, when as Mr. Webster
makes it a long time.”
We shall not follow the learned Doctor through the whole of his
letter, which principally now consists in rectifying some little
discrepancies in the account of the murder of Anne Walker, and the
execution of the murderers, upon circumstantial evidence, supported
by the miller’s story of the apparition, between the account given by
Mr. Webster, and that here related by Lumley and Sharp. Mr.
Webster’s account, it would appear, was taken from a letter written
by Judge Davenport to Sergeant Hutton, giving a detailed narrative
of the whole proceeding as far as came within his judicial
observation, and the exercise of his functions; which it also appears
Dr. More likewise saw; a copy of which, he states, he had in fact by
him for some considerable time, but which he unfortunately lost: his
account, therefore, is from sheer recollection of the contents of this
letter, but as there is very little difference in the material points,
unless with respect to the date of the year, between the account given
by Webster, and that related from the Doctor’s memory, we shall
offer no further observation than that the whole savours so much of
other similar stories, the result of superstition and ignorance, that it
claims an equal proportion of credit: for if, at the time we allude to,
they would hang, burn, or drown a woman for a witch, either upon
her own evidence, or that of some of her malignant and less
peaceably disposed neighbours, it cannot be matter of surprise, that
two individuals, for a crime really committed, should be hanged as
murderers upon the testimony of the apparition of a murdered
person, given through the organ of a miller, who resided only six
miles from the spot.
That Dr. Henry More was not only an enthusiast and a visionary,
(both of which united in the same person, constitute a canting
madman) but also a humorous kind of fellow when he chose to be
jocular, and it would appear he was by no means incapable of
relaxing the gravity of his countenance as occasion served him, may
be still further inferred from the following extracts of the sequel of
his letter to the Reverend Joseph Glanvil:—
“This story of Anne Walker, (says Dr. M.) I think you will do well
to put amongst your additions in the new impression of your new
edition of your Dæmon of Tedworth, it being so excellently well
attested, AND SO UNEXCEPTIONABLE IN EVERY RESPECT; and hasten as fast
as you can that impression, to undeceive the half-witted world, who
so much exult and triumph in the extinguishing the belief of that
narration, as if the crying down the truth of that of the Dæmon of
Tedworth, were indeed the very slaying of the devil, and that they
may now, with more gaiety and security than ever, sing in a loud
note, that mad drunken catch—
Hay ho! the Devil is dead, &c.

Which wild song, though it may seem a piece of levity to mention,

yet, believe me, the application thereof bears a sober and weighty
intimation along with it, viz. that these sort of people are very
horribly afraid that there should be any spirit, lest there should be a
devil, and an account after this life; and therefore they are impatient
of any thing that implies it, that they may with a more full swing, and
with all security from an after reckoning, indulge their own lusts and
humours; and I know by long experience that nothing rouses them so
much out of that dull lethargy of atheism and sadducism, as
narrations of this kind, for they being of a thick and gross spirit, the
most subtle and solid deductions of reason does little execution upon
them; but this sort of sensible experiments cuts them and stings
them very sore, and so startles them, that a less considerable story by
far than this of the drummer of Tedworth, or of Ann Walker, a
Doctor of Physic cryed out presently, if this be true I have been in a
wrong box all this time, and must begin my account anew.
“And I remember an old gentleman, in the country, of my
acquaintance, an excellent justice of peace, and a piece of a
mathematician, but what kind of a philosopher he was you may
understand from a rhyme of his own making, which he commended
to me at my taking horse in his yard; which rhyme is this:—
Ens is nothing till sense finds out;
Sense ends in nothing, so naught goes about.

Which rhyme of his was so rapturous to himself, that at the reciting

of the second verse the old man turned himself about upon his toe as
nimbly as one may observe a dry leaf whisked round in the corner of
an orchard walk, by some little whirlwind. With this philosopher I
have had many discourses concerning the immortality of the soul
and its destruction: when I have run him quite down by reason, he
would but laugh at me, and say, this is logic, H., calling me by my
christian name; to which I replied, this is reason, Father L., (for I
used and some others to call him) but it seems you are for the new
lights and the immediate inspirations, which I confess he was as little
for as for the other; but I said so only in the way of drollery to him in
those times, but truth is, nothing but palpable experience would
move him, and being a bold man, and fearing nothing, he told me he
had used all the magical ceremonies of conjuration he could to raise
the devil or a spirit, and had a most earnest desire to meet with one,
but never could do it. But this he told me, when he did not so much
as think of it, while his servant was pulling off his boots in the hall,
some invisible hand gave him such a clap upon the back that it made
all ring again; so, thought he, I am invited to converse with a spirit;
and therefore so soon as his boots were off and his shoes on, out he
goes into the yard and next field to find out the spirit that had given
him this familiar slap on the back, but found him neither in the yard
nor the next field to it.
“But though he did not feel this stroke, albeit he thought it
afterwards (finding nothing came of it) a mere delusion; yet not long
before his death it had more force with him than all the philosophical
arguments I could use to him, though I could wind him and non-plus
him as I pleased; but yet all my arguments, how solid soever, made
no impression upon him, wherefore after several reflections of this
nature, whereby I would prove to him the soul’s distinction from the
body, and its immortality, when nothing of such subtile
considerations did any more execution in his mind, than some
lightening is said to do, though it melts the sword on the fuzzy
consistency of the scabbard: Well, said I, Father L., though none of
these things move you, I have something still behind, and what
yourself has acknowledged to me to be true, that may do the
business: do you remember the clap on your back, when your
servant was pulling off your boots in the hall? Assure yourself, said
I, Father L., that goblin will be the first that will bid you welcome in
the other world. Upon that his countenance changed most sensibly,
and he was more confounded with rubbing up of his memory than
with all the rational and philosophical argumentations that I could
produce.”
 How the various commentators on holy writ have reconciled to
their minds the existence of spirits, witches, hobgoblins, devils, &c.
we are unable to decide, for the want of a folio before us; but, if there
are none of this evil-boding fraternity “wandering in air” at the
present day, they must be all swamped in the Red sea, ready to be
conjured up from the “vasty deep,” by the king of spirits alone; for as
sure as the Bible is the word of truth, we find therein such
descriptions of spirits, apparitions, witches, and devils, as would
make an ordinary man’s hair stand on end. And it is from this source
alone that Dr. More argues for their existence, and which he has fully
corroborated by his old hobby, “The Dæmon of Tedworth,” and the
unfortunate Anne Walker.
“Indeed (says the learned divine) if there were any modesty left in
mankind, the histories of the Bible might abundantly assure men of
the existence of angels and spirits.”
In another place he observes, “I look upon it as a special piece of
providence that there are ever and anon such fresh examples of
apparitions and witchcraft, as may rub up and awaken their
benumbed and lethargic minds into a suspicion at least, if not
assurance, that there are other intelligent beings besides those that
are clothed in heavy earth or clay; in this I say, methinks the divine
providence does plainly interest the powers of the dark kingdom,
permitting wicked men and women, and vagrant spirits of that
kingdom, to make leagues or covenant one with another, the
confession of witches against their own lives being so palpable an
evidence, besides the miraculous feats they play, that there are bad
spirits, which will necessarily open a door to the belief that there are
good ones, and lastly that there is a God.” There is beyond a doubt
much plausibility, supported by strong and appropriate argument, in
this declaration of the Doctor’s. But as it is not our province to
confute or explain texts or passages of Scripture, much less to warp
them round to particular purposes, we shall reply by observing that,
although we do not entirely concur in the belief of the non-existence
of witches, apparitions, &c. at an earlier period of the world; we do,
from our very souls, sincerely believe that there are no guests of this
description, at the present day, either in the water or roaming about
at large and invisible, on terra firma; or floating abroad in ether,
holding, or capable of holding, converse or communion, either by
word, deed, or sign, with the beings of this earth, civilized or
uncivilized, beyond those destined by the God of heaven to constitute
the different orders, classes, and genera of its accustomed and
intended inhabitants. However, as we live in a tolerant mixed age, we
have no fault to find with those who may attach faith to the opposite
side of our creed.
We shall now, previous to laying before our readers some of those
dismal stories of witches, wizards, apparitions, &c. of the days of
yore, give the postscript to Dr. More’s letter to the author of
“Saducismus Triumphatus;” a postscript, in fact, that might with
more propriety be styled a treatise on the subject it relates to; but the
rarity of the document, as well as its curiosity and the great learning
and ingenuity it betrays, will, we feel assured, be received as an
apology for bringing it under their view in this part of our paper, on
the subject matter it bears so strongly upon. We give it the more
cheerfully as it exemplifies certain passages of Scripture that have
never been handled, at least so well, by after-writers who have
attempted the illustration.
 Witchcraft proved by the following texts of
Scripture.
Exodus, c. xxii, v. 18. Thou shalt not suffer a WITCH to live.
2 Chronicles, c. xxxiii, v. 6. And he caused his children to pass
through the fire in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom; also he
observed times, and used ENCHANTMENTS, and used WITCHCRAFT, and
dealt with a FAMILIAR SPIRIT, and with WIZARDS: he wrought much evil
in the sight of the Lord, to provoke him to anger.
Galatians, c. v, v. 20. Idolatry, WITCHCRAFT, hatred, variance,
emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies.
Micah, c. v, v. 12. I will cut off WITCHCRAFTS out of thine hand; and
thou shalt have no more soothsayers.
Acts, c. xiii, v. 6, 8. ¶ And when they had gone through the isle
unto Paphos, they found a certain Sorcerer, a false prophet, a Jew,
whose name was Bar-jesus.
But Elymas the Sorcerer, (for so is his name by interpretation,)
withstood them, seeking to turn away the deputy from the faith.
Acts, c. viii, v. 9. ¶ But there was a certain man called Simon, which
before time in the same city used Sorcery, and bewitched the people
of Samaria, giving out that himself was some great one.
Deuteronomy, c. xviii, v. 10, 11. There shall not be found among
you any one, that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the
fire, or that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an
enchanter, or a witch.
Or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a
necromancer.
12. For all that do these things are an abomination: and because of
these abominations, the Lord thy God doth drive them from before
thee.
 Dr. More’s Postscript.
The following scarce, curious, and learned document, long since
out of print, forms a postscript written by Dr. More, who, it appears,
strenuously advocated the existence of preternatural agencies,
against the opinion of many eminent men, who wrote, at that time,
on the same subject; and however much the belief in witches, &c.
may have been depreciated of later years, we will venture to say that
few of the present day, layman or divine, could take up his pen, and
offer so learned a refutation against, as Dr. More has here done in
support of his opinions founded on Scripture.
“This letter lying by me some time before I thought it opportune to
convey it, and in the meanwhile meeting more than once with those
that seemed to have some opinion of Mr. Webster’s criticisms and
interpretations of Scripture, as if he had quitted himself so well
there, that no proof thence can hereafter be expected of the being of
a witch, which is the scope that he earnestly aims at; and I reflecting
upon that passage in my letter, which does not stick to condemn
Webster’s whole book for a weak and impertinent piece, presently
thought fit, (that you might not think that censure over-rash or
unjust) it being an endless task to shew all the weakness and
impertinencies of his discourse, briefly by way of Postscript, to hint
the weakness and impertinency of this part which is counted the
master-piece of the work, that thereby you may perceive that my
judgment has not been at all rash touching the whole.
“And in order to this, we are first to take notice what is the real
scope of his book; which if you peruse, you shall certainly find to be
this: That the parties ordinarily deemed witches and wizzards, are
only knaves and queans, to use his phrase, and arrant cheats, or deep
melancholists; but have no more to do with any evil spirit or devil, or
the devil with them, than he has with other sinners or wicked men,
or they with the devil. And secondly, we are impartially to define
what is the true notion of a witch or wizzard, which is necessary for
the detecting of Webster’s impertinencies.
 “As for the words witch and wizzard, from the notation of them,
they signify no more than a wise man or a wise woman. In the word
wizzard, it is plain at the very first sight. And I think the most plain
and least operose deduction of the name witch, is from wit, whose
derived adjective might be wittigh or wittich, and by contraction
afterwards witch; as the noun wit is from the verb to weet, which is,
to know. So that a witch, thus far, is no more than a knowing woman;
which answers exactly to the Latin word saga, according to that of
Festus, Sagæ dictæ anus quæ multa sciunt. Thus in general: but use
questionless had appropriated the word to such a kind of skill and
knowledge, as was out of the common road, or extraordinary. Nor
did this peculiarity imply in it any unlawfulness. But there was after
a further restriction and most proper of all, and in which alone now-
a-days the words witch and wizzard are used. And that is, for one
that has the knowledge or skill of doing or telling things in an
extraordinary way, and that in virtue of either an express or implicit
sociation or confederacy with some evil spirit. This is a true and
adequate definition of a witch or wizzard, which to whomsoever it
belongs, is such, et vice versâ. But to prove or defend that there
neither are, nor ever were any such, is, as I said, the main scope of
Webster’s book: in order to which, he endeavours in his sixth and
eighth chapters to evacuate all the testimonies of Scripture; which
how weakly and impertinently he has done, I shall now shew with all
possible brevity and perspicuity.
“The words that he descants upon are Deut. c. xviii. v. 10, 11:
‘There shall not be found among you any one that useth divination,
or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch, or a charmer, or
a consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizzard, or a necromancer.’ The
first word in the Hebrew is ‫קוסם קסמים‬, kosem kesamim, a diviner.
Here because ‫ קסם‬kasam, sometimes has an indifferent sense, and
signifies to divine by natural knowledge or human prudence or
sagacity; therefore nothing of such a witch as is imagined to make a
visible league with the devil, or to have her body sucked by him, or
have carnal copulation with him, or is really turned into a cat, hare,
wolf or dog, can be deduced from this word. A goodly inference
indeed, and hugely to the purpose, as is apparent from the foregoing
definition. But though that cannot be deduced, yet in that, this
divination that is here forbidden, is plainly declared abominable and
execrable, as it is v. 12, it is manifest that such a divination is
understood that really is so; which cannot well be conceived to be,
unless it imply either an express or implicite inveaglement with some
evil invisible powers who assist any kind of those divinations that
may be comprehended under this general term. So that this is plainly
one name of witchcraft, according to the genuine definition thereof.
And the very words of Saul to the witch of Endor, are, ‫קסומי נא לי‬
‫ ;באוב‬that is to say, ‘Divine to me, I pray thee, by thy familiar spirit.’
Which is more than by natural knowledge or human sagacity.
“The next word is ‫ מעונן‬megnonen, which, though our English
translation renders [gnon] (tempus,) ‘an observer of times;’ which
should rather be a declarer of the seasonableness of the time, or
unseasonableness of the time, or unseasonableness as to success; a
thing which is inquired of also from witches, yet the usual sense,
rendered by the learned in the language, is præstigiatur, an imposer
on the sight, Sapientes prisci, says Buxtorf, a ‫[ עין‬gnajin, oculus]
deduxerunt et ‫[ מעונן‬megnonen] esse eum dixerunt, qui tenet et
præstringit oculos, ut falsum pro vero videant. Lo, another word
that signifies a witch or a wizzard, which has its name properly from
imposing on the sight, and making the by-stander believe he sees
forms or transformations of things he sees not! As when Anne
Bodenham transformed herself before Anne Styles in the shape of a
great cat; Anne Styles’s sight was so imposed upon, that the thing to
her seemed to be done, though her eyes were only deluded. But such
a delusion certainly cannot be performed without confederacy with
evil spirits. For to think the word signifies præstigiator, in that sense
we translate in English, juggler, or a hocus-pocus, is so fond a
conceit, that no man of any depth of wit can endure it. As if a merry
juggler that plays tricks of legerdemain at a fair or market, were such
an abomination to either the God of Israel, or to his law-giver Moses;
or as if a hocus-pocus were so wise a wight as to be consulted as an
oracle: for it is said, v. 14, ‘For the nations which thou shalt possess,
they consult,’ ‫ מעוננים‬megnonenim. What, do they consult jugglers
and hocus-pocusses? No, certainly, they consult witches or wizzards,
and diviners, as Anne Styles did Anne Bodenham.’ Wherefore here is
evidently a second name of a witch.
“The third word in the text is ‫ מנחש‬menachesh, which our English
translation renders, an enchanter. And, with Mr. Webster’s leave,
(who insulteth so over their supposed ignorance) I think they have
translated it very learnedly and judiciously; for charming and
enchanting, as Webster himself acknowledges, and the words
intimate, being all one, the word, ‫ מנחש‬menachesh, here, may very
well signify enchanters, or charmers; but such properly as kill
serpents by their charming, from ‫ נחש‬nachash, which signifies a
serpent, from whence comes ‫ נחש‬nichesh, to kill serpents, or make
away with them. For a verb in pihel, sometimes (especially when it is
formed from a noun) has a contrary signification. Thus from ‫שרש‬
radix is ‫ שרש‬radices evulsit, from ‫ דשן‬cinis ‫ דשן‬removit cineres, from
‫ חטא‬peccavit ‫ חטא‬expiavit à peccato; and so lastly from ‫ נחש‬serpens,
is made ‫ נחש‬liberavit â serpentibus, nempe occidendo vel fugando
per incantationem. And therefore there seems to have been a great
deal of skill and depth of judgment in our English translators that
rendered ‫ מנחש‬menachesh, an enchanter, especially when that of
augur or soothsayer, which the Septuagint call Ὀιωνιζόμενον (there
being so many harmless kinds of it) might seem less suitable with
this black list: for there is no such abomination in adventuring to tell,
when the wild geese fly high in great companies, and cackle much,
that hard weather is at hand, but to rid serpents by a charm is above
the power of nature; and therefore an indication of one that has the
assistance of some invisible spirit to help him in this exploit, as it
happens in several others; and therefore this is another name of one
that is really a witch.
“The fourth word is ‫ מכשף‬mecasseph, which our English
translators render, a witch; for which I have no quarrel with them,
unless they should so understand it that it must exclude others from
being so in that sense I have defined, which is impossible they
should. But this, as the foregoing, is but another term of the same
thing; that is, of a witch in general, but so called here from the
prestigious imposing on the sight of beholders. Buxtorf tells us, that
Aben Ezra defines those to be ‫[ מכשפים‬mecassephim] qui mutant et
transformant res naturales ad aspectum oculi. Not as jugglers and
hocus-pocusses, as Webster would ridiculously insinuate, but so as I
understood the thing in the second name; for these are but several
names of a witch, who may have several more properties than one
name intimates. Whence it is no wonder that translators render not
them always alike. But so many names are reckoned up here in this
clause of the law of Moses, that, as in our common law, the sense
may be more sure, and leave no room to evasion. And that here this
name is not from any tricks of legerdemain as in common jugglers
that delude the sight of the people at a market or fair, but that it is
the name of such as raise magical spectres to deceive men’s sight,
and so are most certainly witches, is plain from Exod. chap. xxii, v.
18, ‘Thou shalt not suffer,’ ‫ מכשפה‬mecassephah, that is, ‘a witch, to
live.’ Which would be a law of extreme severity, or rather cruelty,
against a poor hocus-pocus for his tricks of legerdemain.
“The fifth name is ‫ חובר חבר‬chobher chebher, which our English
translators render charmer, which is the same with enchanter.
Webster upon this name is very tedious and flat, a many words and
small weight in them. I shall dispatch the meaning briefly thus: this
‫חובר חבר‬, chobher chebher, that is to say, socians societatem, is
another name of a witch, so called specially either from the
consociating together serpents by a charm, which has made men
usually turn it (from the example of the Septuagint, ἐπάδων
ἐπαοιδὴν,) a charmer, or an enchanter, or else from the society or
compact of the witch with some evil spirits; which Webster
acknowledges to have been the opinion of two very learned men,
Martin Luther and Perkins, and I will add a third, Aben Ezra, (as
Martinius hath noted,) who gives this reason of the word ‫חובר‬
chobher, an enchanter, which signifies socians or jungens, viz. Quòd
malignos spiritus sibi associat. And certainly one may charm long
enough, even till his heart aches, ere he make one serpent assemble
near him, unless helped by this confederacy of spirits that drive them
to the charmer. He keeps a pudder with the sixth verse of the fifty-
eighth Psalm to no purpose; whereas from the Hebrew, ‫אשר לא־ישמע‬
‫לקול מלחשים חובר חברים מחכם‬, if you repeat ἀπὸ κοινoῦ ‫ לקול‬before
‫חובר‬, you may with ease and exactness render it thus: ‘That hears not
the voice of muttering charmers, no not the voice of a confederate
wizzard, or charmer that is skilful.’ But seeing charms, unless with
them that are very shallow and sillily credulous, can have no such
effects of themselves, there is all the reason in the world (according
as the very word intimates, and as Aben Ezra has declared,) to
ascribe the effect to the assistance, confederacy, and co-operation of
evil spirits, and so ‫חובר חברים‬, chobher chabharim, or ‫חובר חבר‬
chobher chebher, will plainly signify a witch or wizzard according to
the true definition of them. But for J. Webster’s rendering this verse,
p. 119, thus, Quæ non audiet vocem mussitantium incantationes
docti incantantis, (which he saith is doubtless the most genuine
rendering of the place) let any skilful man apply it to the Hebrew
text, and he will presently find it grammatical nonsense. If that had
been the sense, it should have been ‫חברי חובר מחכם‬.
“The sixth word is ‫שואל אוב‬, shoel obh, which our English
translation renders, ‘a consulter with familiar spirits;’ but the
Septuagint Ἐγγαστρίμυθος. Which therefore must needs signifie him
that has this familiar spirit: and therefore ‫ שואל אוב‬shoel obh, I
conceive, (considering the rest of the words are so to be understood)
is to be understood of the witch or wizzard himself that asks counsel
of his familiar, and does by virtue of him give answers unto others.
The reason of the name of ‫ אוב‬obh, it is likely was taken first from
that spirit that was in the body of the party, and swelled it to a
protuberancy like the side of a bottle. But after, without any relation
to that circumstance, OBH signifies as much as pytho; as pytho also,
though at first it took its name from the pythii vates, signifies no
more than spiritum divinationis, in general, a spirit that tells hidden
things, or things to come. And OBH and pytho also agree in this, that
they both signify either the divinatory spirit itself, or the party that
has that spirit. But here in ‫שואל אוב‬, shoel obh, it being rendered by
the Septuagint Ἐγγαςείμυθος, OBH is necessarily understood of the
spirit itself, as pytho is, Acts xvi. 16, if you read πνεῦμα πύδωνα, with
Isaac Casaubon; but if πύθωνος, it may be understood either way. Of
this πνεύμα πύθων, it is recorded in that place, that ‘Paul being
grieved, turned and said to that spirit, I command thee, in the name
of Jesus Christ, to come out of her, and he came out at the same
hour;’ which signifies as plainly as any thing can be signified, that
this pytho or spirit of divination, that this OBH was in her: for
nothing can come out of the sack that was not in the sack, as the
Spanish proverb has it; nor could this pytho come out of her unless it
was a spirit distinct from her; wherefore I am amazed at the profane
impudence of J. Webster, that makes this pytho in the maid there
mentioned, nothing but a wicked humour of cheating and cozening
divination: and adds, that this spirit was no more cast out of that
maid than the seven devils out of Mary Magdalene, which he would
have understood only of her several vices; which foolish familistical
conceit he puts upon Beza as well as Adie. Wherein as he is most
unjust to Beza, so he is most grossly impious and blasphemous
against the spirit of Christ in St. Paul and St. Luke, who makes them
both such fools as to believe that there was a spirit or divining devil
in the maid, when according to him there is no such thing. Can any
thing be more frantic or ridiculous than this passage of St. Paul, if
there was no spirit or devil in the damsel? But what will this profane
shuffler stick to do in a dear regard to his beloved hags, of whom he
is sworn advocate, and resolved patron right or wrong?
“But to proceed, that ‫אוב‬, obh, signifies the spirit itself that divines,
not only he that has it, is manifest from Levit. xx. 27, Vir autem sive
mulier cùm fuerit [‫ ]בהם אוב‬in eis pytho. And 1 Sam. xxviii. 8, Divina
quæso mihi [‫ ]באוב‬per pythonem. In the Septuagint it is ἐν τῶν
Ἐγγαστρίμυθῳ, that is, by that spirit that sometimes goes into the
body of the party, and thence gives answers; but here it only signifies
a familiar spirit. And lastly, ‫בעלת אוב‬, bagnalath obh, 1 Sam. xxviii. 7,
Quæ habit pythonem; there OBH must needs signify the spirit itself,
of which she of Endor was the owner or possessor; that is to say, it
was her familiar spirit. But see what brazen and stupid impudence
will do here, ‫בעלת אוב‬, bagnalath obh, with Webster must not signify
one that has a familiar spirit, but the mistress of the bottle. Who but
the master of the bottle, or rather of whom the bottle had become
master, and by guzzling had made his wits excessively muddy and
frothy, could ever stumble upon such a foolish interpretation? But
because ‫ אוב‬obh, in one place of the Scripture signifies a bottle, it
must signify so here, and it must be the instrument forsooth, out of
which this cheating quean of Endor does ‘whisper, peep, or chirp like
a chicken coming out of the shell,’ p. 129, 165. And does she not, I
beseech you, put her nib also into it sometimes, as into a reed, as it is
said of that bird, and cries like a butter-bump? certainly he might as
well have interpreted ‫ בעלת אוב‬bagnalath obh, of the great tun of
Heidelberg, that Tom. Coriat takes such special notice of, as of the
bottle.
“And truly so far as I see, it must be some such huge tun at length
rather than the bottle, that is, such a spacious tub as he in his
deviceful imagination fancies Manasses to have built; a μανείον
forsooth, or oracular edifice for ‘cheating rogues and queans to play
their cozening tricks in;’ from that place 2 Chron. xxxiii. 6, ‫ועשה אוב‬,
Et fecit pythonem. Now, says he, how could Manasses make a
familiar spirit? or make one that had a familiar spirit? Therefore he
made a bottle a tun, or a large tub, a μαντεῖον, or oracular edifice ‘for
cheating rogues or queans to play their cozening tricks in.’ Very
wisely argued, and out of the very depth of his ignorance of the
Hebrew tongue, whereas if he had looked into Buxtorf’s Dictionary
he might have understood that ‫ עשה‬signifies not only fecit but also
paravit, comparavit, acquisivit, magni fecit, none of which words
imply the making of OBH in his sense, but the only appointing them
to be got, and countenancing them. For in Webster’s sense he did not
make ‫ ידעני‬jidegnoni neither, that is wizzards, and yet Manasses is
said to make them both alike. ‫יעשה אוב וידעני‬, Et fecit pythonem et
magos. So plain is it that ‫אוב‬, obh, signifies pytho, and that
adequately in the same sense that pytho does, either a familiar spirit,
or him that has that spirit of divination. But in ‫בעלת אוב‬, bagnalath
obh, it necessarily signifies the familiar spirit itself, which assisted
the witch of Endor; whereby it is manifest she is rightly called a
witch. As for his stories of counterfeit ventriloquists, (and who knows
but some of his counterfeit ventriloquists may prove true ones,) that
is but the threadbare sophistry of Sadducees and Atheists to elude
the faith of all true stories by those that are of counterfeits or feigned.
“The seventh word is ‫ידעוני‬, jidegnoni, which our English
translators render a wizzard. And Webster is so kind as to allow them
to have translated this word aright. Wizzards, then, Webster will
allow, that is to say, he-witches, but not she-witches. How tender the
man is of that sex! But the word invites him to it ‫ידעוני‬, jidegnoni,
coming from scire, and answering exactly to wizzard or wise man.
And does not witch from wit and weet signify as well a wise woman,
as I noted above? And as to the sense of those words from whence
they are derived, there is no hurt herein; and therefore if that were
all, ‫ידעוני‬, jidegnoni, had not been in this black list. Wherefore it is
here understood in that more restrict and worse sense: so as we
understand usually now-a-days witch and wizzard, such wise men
and women whose skill is from the confederacy of evil spirits, and
therefore are real wizzards and witches. In what a bad sense ‫ידעוני‬,
jidegnoni, is understood, we may learn, from Levit. xx. 27, ‘A man
also or woman that hath a familiar spirit, or that is a wizzard,
jidegnoni, shall be put to death, they shall stone them with stones,’
&c.
“The last word is ‫דורש המתים‬, doresh hammethim, which our
translators rightly render necromancers; that is, those that either
upon their own account, or desired by others, do raise the ghosts of
the deceased to consult with; which is a more particular term than
‫בעל אוב‬, bagnal obh: but he that is bagnal obh, may be also doresh
hammethim, a necromancer, as appears in the witch of Endor. Here
Webster by ‫המתים‬, hammethim, the dead, would understand dead
statues; but let him, if he can, any where shew in all the Scripture
where the word ‫המתים‬, hammethim, is used of what was not once
alive. He thinks he hits the nail on the head in that place of Isaiah,
viii. 19, ‘And when they say unto you, seek unto [‫האבות‬, that is, to
‫בעליה אוב‬, such as the witch of Endor was,] them that have familiar
spirits, and to wizzards that peep and that mutter; [the Hebrew has it
‫ המהגים‬and ‫ ;המצפצפים‬that is, speak with a querulous murmurant or
mussitant voice, when they either conjure up the spirit, or give
responses. If this be to ‘peep like a chicken,’ Isaiah himself peeped
like a chicken, xxxviii. 14,] should not a people seek unto their God?
for the living, (‫אל המתים‬,) to the dead?’ Where hammethim is so far
from signifying dead statues, that it must needs be understood of the
ghosts of dead men, as here in Deuteronomy. None but one that had
either stupidly or wilfully forgot the story of Samuel’s being raised by
that ‫בעלת אוב‬, bagnalath obh, the witch of Endor, could ever have the
face to affirm that ‫המתים‬, hammethim, here in Isaiah, is to be
understood of dead statues, when wizzards or necromancers were so
immediately mentioned before, especially not Webster, who
acknowledges that ‫שואל אוב‬, shoel obh, signifies a necromancer in
this Deuteronomical list of names. And therefore, forsooth, would
have it a tautology that doresh hammethim should signify so too. But
I say it is no tautology, this last being more express and restrict. And
besides, this enumeration is not intended as an accurate logical
division of witches or witchcraft, into so many distinct kinds, but a
reciting of several names of that ill trade, though they will interfere
one with another, and have no significations so precisely distinct. But
as I said before, this fuller recounting of them is made that the
prohibition in this form might be the surer fence against the sin. And
now therefore what will J. Webster get by this, if doresh hammethim