1

Enterprise Productivity Measurement in

Services by OMAX (Objective Matrix) Method
and An Application with Turkish Emergency
Service
Dursun BALKAN
Productivity Expert, Department of Research and Productivity Measuring-
Monitoring, National Productivity Centre of Turkey

Since it is seen that the studies about the rapidly evolving and grow-
ing service sector and service sector productivity measurement are
inadequate; this study aims to be a guide to the employees of the
sector and to the researchers interested in the area. This study fo-
cuses on productivity measurement in service sector at enterprise
level. In this context, the methodology of OMAX (Objectives Matrix)
model is discussed and reinterpreted in detail. For measurement at
enterprise level, the productivity of the Turkish Emergency Service,
which is operating in health sector, was measured using the OMAX
method.
1. The OMAX (Objectives Matrix) Method
Productivity has traditionally been defined simply as the ratio between output
and input. There is an abundance of research on productivity measurement in
manufacturing operations (Hannula, 1999; Banker; Datar; Kaplan, 1989),
whereas service productivity has been studied much less. Many challenges in
the measurement of public service productivity have been identified. For
example, the intangible nature of services and the complexity of service outputs
have been regarded as key reasons for the lack of appropriate productivity
measures (Jskelinen, 2009, 447).
There are several productivity measurement methods in the literature at
enterprise level although the application of the productivity concept in service
organisations seems to be a rather complicated task. The Objectives Matrix
2

method is one of them. This method is often used on measuring of service
systems.
Numerous original applications of OMAX in a variety of contexts are associated
with the work of the late James L. Riggs, founder and first director of the Oregon
Productivity Center in the early 1980s. Since then, additional applications have
been carried out or suggested by others, including Carl Thor at the American
Productivity and Quality Center, John Parsons at the National Productivity
Institute in South Africa, and elsewhere (Dervitsiots, 1995, 564).
OMAX is a performance measurement method which evaluates several
productivity criteria by weighting to obtain a total productivity index. The model
proposes the development of productivity at the level of activity. Riggss
OMAX method is important for ease of application. Method is also
useful for particularly projects and service functions, which is difficult
to measure productivity (Riggs, 1986;Ba; Artar, 1991; Akal, 2005).
Flow chart for the model is shown in Figure 1.


Figure 1: Flow-Chart for the OMAX (Objectives Matrix) Model
3

Determination of measurement objectives is the first step like the general
productivity analysis approach. Then, it is necessary to determine appropriate
criteria for each objective. After determining the two main stages, it is important
to get managers idea about objectives and criteria. Because the part of
computation will be started after this stage of the model. After approval of ma-
nagement, scale and weights of these criteria will be determined. Then, as a
result of the calculations, the total productivity index can be obtained. General
form of the OMAX method is shown below in Table1.


C
r
i
t
e
r
i
a
-
1

C
r
i
t
e
r
i
a
-
2

C
r
i
t
e
r
i
a
-
3

C
r
i
t
e
r
i
a
-
4

C
r
i
t
e
r
i
a
-
5

C
r
i
t
e
r
i
a
-
6

Productivity
Criteria


Performance



Scores

10
Performance
Scale

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

0




Score



Weight



Value



Total Productivity Index
Table1: Calculation Table of the Total Productivity Index (adapted from Riggs, 1986)
2. Productivity Measurement at Turkish Emergency Service
by using the OMAX Method
OMAX method implementation carried out within the Ministry of Health, Branch
of Emergency Health Services. In Turkish health system the name of this ser-
vice is called 112 Emergency Service, because the telephone number of this
service is 112 and it is always emphasized with the service name.
4

2.1. Determination of Productivity Measurement Objectives
As a result of investigations, it is seen that there are not any study or project
about performance and productivity measurement of emergency service.
Therefore, this project is the first productivity measurement study in Turkish
Emergency Service system. In this context, emergency services of all 81
provinces is compared in the four year period (2006-2009).
Productivity analysis in this study has two dimensions: The first analysis is the
time dimension which evaluates the level of emergency services of the
provinces. Productivity index means of the provinces is determined annually and
the annual means are compared. The second analysis is the spatial dimension
which evaluates the level of emergency services of four years. Productivity index
means of the each province in the four year period has been assessed and
comparision of the provinces has been done.
After determining the necessary qualifications of measurement, the criteria used
in the model are studied. First step in determining the criteria is the determinati-
on of the objectives of the system. As a result of the meetings and briefings of
the relevant managers and experts on emergency service subjects, the
expected objectives and criteria of the emergency services used for the measu-
rement in Table 2 are summarized.

Objectives Measurement Criteria
Quick Reaching the Incident Reach Time / Number of Incident
Best Efforts to Intervention the Incident Intervention Time / Number of Incident
Cultivating incident to the hospital the Best
Efforts
Access time to hospital / Number of
Incident
Referral to the Nearby Ambulance to the Incident Distance Traveled by Ambulance / Number
of Incident
Putting the best Service with Minimum Number
of Ambulance
Number of Ambulances / Number of
Incident
Putting the best Service with Minimum Number
of Staff
Number of Staff / Number of Incident
Putting the best Service with Minimum Number
of Ambulance Station
Number of Ambulance Station / Number of
Incident
Covering The Maximum Population at
Ambulance Station Level
Number of Ambulance Station / Population
Covered by the station
Minimizing the Number of Ambulance Accident Number of Ambulance Accident / Number
of Incident
Minimizing the Patient Complaints Number of Patient Complaints / Number of
Incident
Minimizing Costs Total Costs / Number of Incident
Replying to the Receiving Calls to Short Duration Receiving Calls Time / Number of Call
Table 2: The Expected Objectives and Measurement Criteria of Emergency Services,
5

At the management process, improving the conditions of emergency services
are closely associated with determining the relation between purposes and
functions properly. Because, the better defined relationships the more effective
improvements in the system. Therefore, the model has to tend main objectives
for a basis of emergency services. The purposes, which are important in terms
of quality of service and productivity of the emergency services, are examined
by the idea of The Simple is The Best. These main objectives are:

Quick Reaching the Incident,
Effective Use of Resources,
Maximum Population Coverage
2.2. Determination of Appropriate Criteria for Each Objective
The step after determining the main objectives of productivity measurement, is
determining criteria appropriate to these objectives. According to the main
objectives of the emergency services, most appropriate criteria are introduced
as follows:
Criteria-1: Quick Reaching the Incident (percentage of the incident within 10
minutes to reach)
Reach Time (minutes) / 10 minutes
Criteria -2: Providing Maximum Level of Service with Minimum Number of
Ambulances
Number of Ambulances / Number of Incident
Criteria -3: Covering The Maximum Population at Ambulance Station Level
Number of Ambulance Station / Number of Provincial Population
2.3. Determination of Scale Related to the Criteria
Determining the scale related to the criteria, largest and smallest perfor-
mance value belonging to all provinces and all years of each criteria are
considered. Because, while determining the best values about scale, reachable
targets are needed. The biggest and smallest values of each province in each
year determine upper and lower values of scale of a criteria. For example, about
criteria-1, the biggest value of all provinces in all years is 100 and the lowest is
80. So, scale is created by using these values. This is shown in Table 3.
6


Criteria-1 Criteria-2 Criteria-3
Maximum Value 100 0,0194004 0,0001084
Minimum Value 80 0,0005878 0,0000074
Table 3: Maximum and Minimum Value of The Criteria
When the criteria are examined in detail, the first criteria about reaching what
percentage of ambulances to the incident within 10 minutes. This criteria is
considered as a percentage and the bigger percentages are desired so this
criteria is considered as a maximization problem. The second criteria based on
the effective use of resources is about more benefit from lower source.
Therefore, this criteria is considered as a minimization problem. The third criteria
is considered as a maximization problem for measuring the ratio of ambulance
stations per capita. By these criteria, the scaled matrix is formed in Table 4. In
scaling the matrix, red colored parts designates upper values, green colored
parts designates lower values of criteria.


C
r
i
t
e
r
i
a
-
1

C
r
i
t
e
r
i
a
-
2

C
r
i
t
e
r
i
a
-
3

Productivity
Criteria
Performance



Scores
100 0,0005878 0,0001084 10
Performance
Scale
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
80 0,0194004 0,0000074 0


Score

Weight

Value

Total Productivity Index
Table 4: Scaled Matrix
In scaling process, the biggest point (10) corresponds to the biggest value of
criteria-1 (100). The smallest point (0) corresponds to the smallest value of
criteria-1 (80) hence criteria-1 is a maximization criteria in performance scale.
7

Because criteria-3 is a maximization problem same process is done. For criteria-
2, is a minimization problem, contrary to criteria-1 and criteria-3, the biggest
point (10) corresponds to the smallest value of criteria-2 (0,0005878). The
smallest point (0) corresponds to the biggest value of criteria-2 (0,0194004).

2.4. Determination of Weights Related to the Criteria
In OMAX method, determining the weights of the criteria is an important issue
for this some interviews with relevant managers of ministry have been held and
weights have determined.
Weight-1: One of the most important objectives of emergency services is to
reach in10 minutes after incident, so the highest weight of these criteria is given
as 40%.
Weight-2: Emergency services costs are not more important than in
other criteria into the health care services. Therefore, the weight of this criteria is
25%.

Weight-3: This criteria focuses on determining the number of stations, which
ambulances reach more quickly to the incident in population. This criteria is as
important as at least the first criteria so the weight of this criteria is 35%,
respectively. The matrix, which has all the weights of the criteria, is in Table 5.


C
r
i
t
e
r
i
a
-
1

C
r
i
t
e
r
i
a
-
2

C
r
i
t
e
r
i
a
-
3

Productivity
Criteria
Performance



Scores
100 0,0005878 0,0001084 10
Performance
Scale
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
80 0,0194004 0,0000074 0


Score

40 25 35 Weight

Value

Total Productivity Index
Table 5: Weighted Matrix
8

2.5. Calculation of Performance Results Related to the
Criteria
At this stage, performing to obtain the necessary data for calculating the perfor-
mance rates. In the study, 81 provinces in Turkey in years 2006, 2007, 2008 and
2009 analyzed; data were collected from the emergency services. Performance
ratios were calculated by using these data, which cases for the purpose of
reaching quick to the incident criteria-1, for the effective use of resources
criteria-2 and to cover the maximum population criteria-3, from 81 provinces on
the basis.
2.6. Calculation of the Total Productivity Index
Objectives were designated towards the measurement and the criteria were
determined corresponding by the objectives. Scale and weights were also
determined corresponding by the criteria. The scores found from the scale. Then
weighted values determined by multiplying these scores and values. After the-
se, the performance scores were calculated for all years and provinces.
Productivity analysis performed at two different levels. The first analysis, which
evaluates emergency services integrated in order to assess,performed by the
level of the years (2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009). The second analysis,which
includes all 81 provinces to process of individual and collective assessment ,
performed at the provincial level.
2.6.1. Empirical Findings by Level of the Years
As a result of the analysis on the basis of the years, the results are shown in
Figure 2. These results are analyzed in comparison, the Ministry of Health has
made a positive impact of the work related to emergency services, the efficiency
increased in a linear manner.

Figure 2: The results of the productivity analysis on the basis of the years
9

Productivity analysis of this level, average of annual performance rate of all
provinces realized that taking into account. As an example, for year 2009 OMAX
results are given in Table 6.


Criteria-1 Criteria-2 Criteria-3
Productivity
Criteria
96 0,0019547 0,0000275 Performance

2009

Scores
100 0,0005878 0,0001084 10
Performance
Scale
98 0,0024691 0,0000983 9
96 0,0043503 0,0000882 8
94 0,0062316 0,0000781 7
92 0,0081128 0,0000680 6
90 0,0099941 0,0000579 5
88 0,0118753 0,0000478 4
86 0,0137566 0,0000377 3
84 0,0156378 0,0000276 2
82 0,0175191 0,0000175 1
80 0,0194004 0,0000074 0


8 9 2 Score

40 25 35 Weight

320 225 70 Value



615 Total Productivity Index
Table 6: Productivity index of the year 2009
2.6.2. Empirical Findings by Level of the Provinces
In this section, the model developed by taking all the data of the level of the
provinces. As an example, Ankaras OMAX results are given in Table 7.


Criteria-1 Criteria-2 Criteria-3
Productivity
Criteria
97 0,0008945 0,0000168 Performance

Ankara

Scores
100 0,0005878 0,0001084 10
Performance
Scale
98 0,0024691 0,0000983 9
96 0,0043503 0,0000882 8
94 0,0062316 0,0000781 7
92 0,0081128 0,0000680 6
90 0,0099941 0,0000579 5
88 0,0118753 0,0000478 4
86 0,0137566 0,0000377 3
84 0,0156378 0,0000276 2
82 0,0175191 0,0000175 1
80 0,0194004 0,0000074 0

8 10 1 Score

40 25 35 Weight

320 250 35 Value



605 Total Productivity Index
Table 7: Productivity index of the provience Ankara
10


Figure 3: Total productivity index map of the provinces
11

Results of the provinces level productivity analysis, which shows the
provinces productivity level more clearly, are shown on the map in Figure 3.
The provinces on the map is divided into 5 main classes depending on the
values of the total productivity index. This classification is assumed to
increase the productivity index from red towards light green.
The provinces, which is shown light green color on the map,shows very high
level of productivity index above 700. Provinces shown in green in the range
of 650-700 points with a high level of productivity index of the provinces.
Provinces shown in yellow in the range of 600-650 points with a medium
level of productivity index. Provinces shown in orange in the range of 550-
600 points with a low level of productivity index. The provinces, which shown
red on the map,shows very low level of productivity index below 550.
According to this classification, 2 of the provinces are evaluated in very high
level, 10 of the provinces are evaluated in high level, 31 of the provinces are
evaluated in middle level, 21 of the provinces are evaluated in low level and
17 of the provinces are evaluated in very low level.
3. Conclusion
Connection between levels and the relationships are important, because pro-
ductivity improvements implemented at the enterprise level is fundamental of
productivity improvements of macro level. Therefore, productivity measure-
ment at enterprise level is necessary for the purpose of understanding to
reach businessefforts on productivity studies.
The performance indexing is a useful approach for measurement because it
can combine several diverse measures into one interrelated format. Perform-
ance indexing accomplishes this by converting the different measures into a
common metric, and then weighting each score to obtain an overall perform-
ance index (Tatum; Nebeker; Young,1996, 1).
The most obvious advantages of the matrix method are in managerial usage.
The matrix method provides a powerful tool for the operative management of
productivity. The flexibility of the method was also appreciated by the
representatives of the case organisation. Components of productivity can be
regularly evaluated and better measures for them can be designed
(Jskelinen, 2009, 455).
This study aimed to identify a suitable approach for measuring and managing
productivity in public health services. For this purpose, the productivity mea-
surement method at the enterprise level has been investigated. For the pro-
jects and service functions which has handicaps for productivity measure-
12

ment; OMAX, a performance indexing model which can combine several di-
verse measures and evaluate some productivity criteria by weighting to
obtain a total productivity index has been explained in detail.
In this study, the productivity of 112 Emergency Service which is within the
Ministry of Health, Branch of Emergency Health Services has been
measured by using OMAX method. The results of many years research have
been subjected to comparisons and it has been seen that the productivity
levels increased linearly. Due to the productivity analysis on province level;
the provinces was divided five main class and the producitivity levels
identified according to these classes. Also the main scores of provinces was
calculated and according to these scores it has been executed that the
provinces which has low productivity levels should improve the service of
ambulances and stations to get high productivity levels.
4. References
Akal, Z. (2005): letmelerde Performans lm ve Denetimi. Milli Prodktivi-
te Merkezi Yaynlar 473: Ankara.
Banker, R.; Datar, S.; Kaplan, R. (1989): Productivity Measurement and
Management Accounting. Journal of Accounting, Auditing and Finance, Vol.
4, No. 4, pp. 528554.
Ba, M.; Artar, A. (1991): letmelerde Verimlilik Denetimi: lme ve Deer-
lendirme Modelleri. Milli Prodktivite Merkezi Yaynlar 435: Ankara.
Dervitsiotis, K. (1995): The objectives matrix as a facilitating framework for
quality assessment and improvement in education. Total Quality
Management & Business Excellence, 6: 5, 563-570.
Hannula, M. (1999): Expedient Total Productivity Measurement. Acta
Polytechnica Scandinavica, Industrial Management and Business
Administration Series No. 1, Espoo.
Jskelinen, A. (2009): Identifying a Suitable Approach for Measuring and
Managing Public Service Productivity. Electronic Journal of Knowledge
Management Volume 7 Issue 4, (pp447 - 458).
Riggs, J.L. (1986): Monitoring with a matrix that motivates as it measures.
The Fifth World Productivity Congress, Jakarta,Indonesia.
Tatum, C.; Nebeker, D.;Young P. (1996): Using Performance Indexing to
Measure Organizational Gains in White Collar Environments. Navy
Personnal Research and Development Center, San Diego.
13

5. Author address
Author:
First name, surname, title(s): Dursun, BALKAN, Productivity Expert
Institution: National Productivity Center of TURKEY
Department: Department of Research and Productivity Measuring-Monitoring
Full address: Gelibolu Street, No:5, 06690, Kavakldere, Ankara, TURKEY
E-mail:dbalkan@mpm.org.tr