Computers in Industry 19 (1992) 271-279

Elsevier

271

Management Information Systems

A computer-assisted system for productivity

management
Shih-Yaug Liu and Jen-Gwo Chen
Department of Industrial Engineering, The University of Houston, Houston, TX 77204-4812, USA
Received October 18, 1991
Accepted December 28, 1991
A number of productivity measurement systems have been
developed in the last decade. However, these systems lack the
capability to make inferences on total productivity index or
partial productivity indices. Further, these systems ignore the
planning phase and evaluation phase which are equally important as the measurement phase. Therefore, the objective of
this paper is to develop a computerized productivity management system (CPMS) to plan, measure, and evaluate the productivity of a manufacturing company. The system consists of
three modules and is developed under dnASE tv and Quick
nASlC environments. The productivity planning module allocates the available resources to achieve the maximum productivity. The productivity measurement module measures the
difference between the expected productivity and the actual
productivity. The productivity evaluation module evaluates all
the computing results and finds out which operational units
can not meet their goals and then tries to improve them.
Although CMPS should be accurate since it is integrated from
proven methods, the system is still evaluated by comparing the
actual productivity from a manufacturing company with the
suggested productivity from CPMS. The results indicate that
the suggested productivity is very close to the actual data. The
total productivity will be increased by 10%, the partial productivity will be increased by about 15%, and the cost saved
for one resource can be increased up to 48% of MPS is
implemented.

Keywords: Computer-assisted system, Productivity planning,

Productivity measurement, Productivity evaluation,
Management applications.

Correspondence to: Dr. Jen-Gwo Chen, Department of Industrial Engineering, The University of Houston, Houston, TX
77204-4812, USA.

1. Introduction
Most companies or organizations, regardless of
their sizes, all face the common problem of the
supply of resources (e.g, capital, materials, energy, and labor) being limited and competitive. In
order to attain the end goal of profit, a business
unit typically has multiple objectives. Problems
arise when allocating scarce resources to the variety of alternative purposes competing for their
use. Matching objectives with resources to attain
end results is not an easy task. Only those organizations that manage productivity as an ongoing
activity and have expertise or supporting systems
will be able to deal with these problems. Furthermore, most companies emphasize only on productivity measurement and improvement but ignore productivity planning and evaluation stages.
To establish a successful productivity management program, productivity planning, measurement, evaluation, and improvement programs
must be integrated organizationally and functionally.
The objective of this paper is to develop a
Computerized Productivity Management System
(CPMS) in the PC to support engineers or managers in productivity management. This system
includes three modules: productivity planning,
productivity measurement, and productivity evaluation. Using the productivity planning module,
the manager can either arbitrarily set the produc-

0166-3615/92/$05.00 1992 - Elsevier Science Publishers B.V. All rights reserved

272

ManagementInformation Systems

tivity level by using standard cost method, or

predict the maximum productivity for each department or operational unit via the Linear Programming approach. Then the productivity measurement module will measure the actual partial
productivity for each department and the total
productivity for the operational unit or the whole
company. Once the productivity levels are measured, they will be evaluated or compared against
planned values via the productivity evaluation
module. Based on this evaluation, the top manager will know which parts of the resources
(capital, human, material, etc.) need to be improved, and then make necessary steps to adjust
these resources in order to achieve the maximum
productivity. Then the target levels of productivity are planned again. The cycle of planning,
measurement, and evaluation will continue until
the planned target is achieved.

2. Methodology of productivity measurement

During the past three decades, engineers, accountants, and economists have taken different
approaches in measuring productivity at the firm

Shih.Yaug Liu is a PhD candidate in

the Department of Industrial Engineering, University of Houston. He
received his MS degree in Industrial

Engineering from the University of

Toledo. Currently, he is developing
an exp.ert system in industrial ergonomicsanalysis.

Jen-Gwo Chen is an assistant professor in the Department of Industrial

Engineering, University of Houston,
Texas, USA. He received his BS degree in Biology from the National
Taiwan Normal University, his MS in
Industrial Management from the
Central Missouri State University, and
his PhD in Industrial Engineering
from the University of Oklahoma. He
is the director of the ergonomics laboratory and in charge of the graduate
programs in the Department of Industrial Engineering at the University of Houston. His main
research interests lie in the areas of expert systems, automation, and ergonomics. During the past few years he has
conducted several successful seminars in Taiwan and the US
covering expert systems, automation, plant layout, total quality management, and computerized project management.

Computers in Industry

level. Stewart [1] presented the utility concept

and combined all surrogate measures into a utility index. The main advantages of this approach
are that it gives one composite index from all key
personnel, thereby capturing group wisdom and
generating a commitment to the solution of problems. However, this approach fails to attribute
performance to the various individual inputs, such
as raw material, technology, and energy. Therefore, the utility index offers little or no help in
pinpointing specific inputs as possible sources for
improving the firm's productivity. Hershauer and
Ruch [2] proposed a servo-system approach to
identify the contributory factor of worker's productivity. This method has been used as a productivity diagnostic tool even it isn't a quantitative approach.
Gold [3] and Aggarwal [4] have implemented a
financial ratio approach to measure the productivity. They adhered to conventional cost accounting and finance concepts (e.g., return on investment) without considering other important factors (e.g., machine, materials) in productivity
measurement.
The production function approach involves the
explicit specification of a production function [3]
and the direct linkage of productivity growth to
key characteristics of the function parameters. A
more recent development within the production
function is the cost-function model based on duality theory and the early work of Kmenta [5] and
Hodges [6]. The cost function represents a unique
relationship between minimal cost and given output and input prices. That is, it represents the
relationship between total cost and output for a
cost-minimizing firm facing competitive input
markets. This approach could be a very useful
tool in measuring the productivity of the whole
department of an operational unit. However, it
has not been widely accepted because of the
complexities involved in the estimation process.
The index approach to productivity measurement was based upon ratios of a single resource
productivity measurement or an index of aggregate output divided by the observed quantity of a
single input, typically labor [7,8]. Then these productivity ratios were usually normalized to some
base years, resulting in a productivity index over
time, and were used to measure aggregate productivity. Since the index was based on a single or
partial productivity measures, it is easy to calcu-

Computers in Industry

late and interpret. However, the partial measure

of productivity (e.g., labor productivity) could be
misleading when it is viewed alone. Therefore,
Sumanth [9] developed a productivity-measurement model to consider the impact of all input
factors on the output in a "tangible" sense. The
unique feature of this model is that it can not
only determine the indices of total productivity
for monitoring purpose, but also can point out
the specific inputs or resources whose utilization
need to be improved. In other words, it is both
diagnostic and prescriptive in nature. This model
lends itself to productivity evaluation, planning,
and improvement in a scientific manner. Because
of the numerous advantages of this model, it was
chosen as a basis to develop our productivity
measurement module.

3. System development
In general, a productivity management program shall include three stages: planning, measurement, and evaluation and improvement.
These three stages are operated as a cycle and
should be continued to plan, measure, and evaluate as long as the productivity management program is operational. A system entitled Computerized Productivity Measurement Systems (CPMS) is
developed to support manufacturing engineers to
conduct the effective productivity management
program. This system contains three modules: the
productivity planning module, the productivity
measurement module, and the productivity evaluation module.

3.1. Development of the productivity planning module

Productivity planning results in an agreement
between marketing, manufacturing and finance
concerning what will be produced and made
available for consumption. As production operations are under manager's control, productivity
planning provides guidelines and constraints
within which manufacturing must operate. Some
of these constraints might include plant capacity,
material availability, work force levels, and so on.
Two models have been adopted in the planning module: the product mix model [10] and the
full cost allocation method [11]. The product mix

S.-Y. Liu, J.-G. Chen / Productivity management

273

model is basically a resource allocation model

and can be solved by a linear programming model.
In fact, linear programming is an important
mathematical technique most extensively used by
the system analyst to optimize the allocation of
resources of a given system [12,13]. In the product
mixed model it must be decided which products,
in what quantities, should be produced and sold
over a specified period of time. The objective is
to maximize gross profits resulting from sales
while satisfying resource and production constraints. This model is described as follows:
Maximize Z -=c l X , -t- c 2 X 2 @ "'" "l'CnXn;
Subject to:
allX 1 +a12X2+

- . . + a l n X n <~b 1,

a21X ! + a22X 2 + ...

+ a 2 n X n <~ b 2,

a m l X I + a m 2 X 2 + . . . + a m n X n <~b m,

Xl>~0, X2>~0, . . . . X,>~0;

where Z is the value of the total profit to be
maximized; Xi is the amount of product i to be
manufactured, aij is the amount of the ith resource required in production of the jth product,
b~ is the constraint on the ith resource, and c i is
the profit for producing one unit of product i.
From this model, the expected product quantity for different products and allocations for
different resources can be obtained. Besides, the
model also offers dual solutions. The dual solutions indicate how the objective function might be
improved if one more unit of a critical resource
were made available. If the dual variable is equal
to or less than zero, then no improvement can be
made by increasing that resource's availability.
Although we can use the product mix model to
allocate the human resource, material resource,
and energy resource, the remaining two resources
(capital and other expense) are still not scheduled. As we know, both the capital resource and
other expense resource contain many items, such
as cash, accounts receivable, machinery, tools,
equipment, and so on. Although there is no standard method to allocate all these items, the full
cost allocation method is adopted in our system.
It recommends that the percent of sales of each
product in total sales be used as the criterion to
allocate that resource among the individual products. The above-mentioned allocation scheme is

274

ManagementInformation Systems

not only appropriate but indeed necessary for

product review decisions.

3.2. The development of the productivity measurement module

The total productivity model [9] and the standard cost method [3] were adopted in this module. The total productivity model is used for
calculating total productivity, and a set of five
partial productivities, for each operational unit
and for the firm as a whole. The model is mathematically very well-defined and tractable. It considers the joint impact of all input resources on
the output produced, as well as the traditional
labor productivity concept. As we know, the total
productivity index is defined as the ratio of the
total tangible outputs over the total tangible inputs:
Total Productivity Index =

I'otal tangible output

Total tangible input

where Total tangible output is the value for finished units produced + the value of partial units
produced + dividends from securities + interests
from bonds + other income, and Total tangible
input is the value of (human + material + capital
+ energy + other expense) inputs used.
The word "tangible" is used in the sense that
it can be directly measured. The outputs are
represented in monetary terms. The term "operational unit" is used to indicate an operational
unit or service unit of the organization. An operational unit, for example, could be a product group,
department, or could mean a division in a corporation.
Similarly, the partial productivity index is defined as the ratio of the total tangible output over
the specific resource input:
Partial Productivity Index
Total tangible output
Specific resource i n p u t '
where Specific resource input is one of the five
resource inputs (human, material, capital, energy,
or other expense).
The productivities can give us a picture about
the company's condition. However, they do not
tell us about the exact amount of cost. Therefore,
the standard cost method serves as an auxiliary

Computers in Industry

tool to help the user to figure out the amount of

resources in terms of dollars. The standard cost
method is derived from the standard hour concept. By using this method, the top manager is
able to estimate the exact amount of money that
will cost for an individual resource, or operational unit. Standard costs are set by managers
for three elements of cost inputs (material, labor,
and energy). A standard quantity will indicate
how much of a cost element, such as labor time
or raw materials, should be used in producing a
unit of product. Standard cost will also indicate
what the cost of the labor time or the materials
should be. The standard cost per product is given
as:
Standard cost per product
= (standard material price)
(standard material quantity required
per product).
The "material" used in the formula includes three
input elements (material, labor and energy). Then
the actual cost of inputs are measured against
standard cost to see whether operations are exceeding or within the limits that the manager has
set. If the cost of inputs exceeds the bounds that
the manager has set, attention is directed to the
difference, thereby permitting the manager to
focus h i s / h e r efforts where they will do the most
good.

3.3. The development of the productivity evaluation

module
The sensitivity analysis method [14] is adopted
in this module. Since uncertainty is almost universally present in economic decision-making, it
is necessary to test the sensitivity of the results to
the cost estimates or other assumptions in order
to portray a complete picture to the manager. In
general, a sensitivity analysis measures the relative magnitude of change in the output result of
an alternative to the change in one or more input
variables. Here, sensitivity analysis is interpreted
as altering one resource input (for example, human input) to see the changes in the total productivity and the human productivity. If all the
resources remain the same except the human
resource, the manager can know the changes of
the total productivity by altering the value of the

Computers in Industry
30'

S.-Y. Liu, Z-G. Chen / Productivity management

29.09

25.

--&--

20.

what is the maximum productivity level that the

operational unit can achieve. An example of the
sensitivity analysis chart is shown in Fig. 1.
CPMS provides four different levels in the
productivity management. From the highest level
to the lowest level, the sequence is company,
division, department, and product, respectively.
By using this top-down research method, the user
can not only know about the aggregate level
productivities but also the lower level productivities. A brief example of CMPS is shown in the

HumanProductivity
TotalProductivity

19.40
14.55
11.64

r~

10,

275

8.31

7.27

Appendix.

5-

1.29 1.32 1.35 1.39 1.42 1.46 1.49

Ak-- -A---A---~k- - - A - - - & - - - A

-so

Ao

4. System configuration

.ho

Percentage Rate (%)

Fig.1.An exampleof sensitivityanalysischartbychangingthe
humanresourcelevel.

human resource from - 6 0 % to 60%. Thus, the

manager can predict the worst situation when
that resource goes below the limit, or can see

The configuration of CPMS is depicted in Fig. 2.

CPMS runs under two software environments:
dBASE IV and Quick BASIC in the PC. Most modules are handled by the daASE IV environment
except the product mix method which is developed under Quick BASIC environment because of
the linear programming approach being imple-

Gene~ Users
UserInterface I
Quick Basic Environment
Product Mix

Productivity~
Planning
Module

Method
FullCostAllocation
Method

~MProductivity ~
easurement
Module

TotalProductivity
Method
StandardCost
Method

SensitivityAnalysis
Method

Productivity~
Evaluation ~
Module

dBASE IV Environment

Fig.2. CPMSsystemconfiguration.

276

ManagementInformation Systems

~Ms

DATABASE

Computers in Industry

DRIVE

COPY

EVALUATION

PI.ANNING i MEASUREMENT

CREATE

COMPANY

APPEND

DIVISION

EDIT

DEPARTMENT

DELETE

COMPANY

DIVISION

DEPARTMENT
PRODUCT

PRODUCT

PRINT

Fig. 3. Menu-driven interface in CPMS.

IP~uctivi[yi~[]agem~ntDa~ab~ I
I

,l

Ip I

1
Units Produced)
---Finished

-Workers

- Clerical Staff
-

Partial Units Produced )

Engineers
Managers
,

---~Dividends fromSecurities)
--(

Interest from Bonds )

Other Income

- Water
- Elec~city

i
/

Othen

~Capiml Resources -"

- Inventory
- Cash
- Account Receivable
- Notes Receivable
- Land
Facilities
~. Others

Other Expenses
- Travel
- Local Taxes
-Sutte Taxes
- Federal Taxes

~ Material Resources ~ ' ~

- Raw Materials
[.
- Pm~hased Parts , J

- Office Supplies

---~

"C~

- Markeling

- Consulting
- Information

Processing
-R&D
- Administration

- Others
Fig. 4. Productivity

management

database

structure.

Computers in Industry

S.-Y. Liu, J.-G. Chen / Producticity management

277

Table 1
The productivity report for the whole company
Productivities
Total productivity
Partial productivity
Human
Material
Capital
Energy
Other Expense

Actual productivity
from real data

Expected productivity
suggested by CPMS

Expected/actual
ratio

1.39

1.52

1.09

11.64
4.50
5.03
11.45
7.90

13.11
5.05
5.46
12.18
8.57

1.14
1.12
1.09
1.06
1.08

mented. In the main menu (Fig. 3), the user has

six major options: CPMS, DRIVE, RENAME, COPY,
DELETE, and EXIT. From the menu screen, the
user can choose one topic among the six alternatives whereupon CPMS assists the user in that
area. The user can change the drive for saving or
loading a database file, rename a file name, copy
a database file, or delete a database file if the
user selects the DRIVE, RENAME, COPY, o r DELETE
option, respectively. If the user chooses the CPMS
option, the system will enter the productivity
management modules. Four options will be presented after entering the productivity managem e n t m o d u l e s : DATABASE, PLANNING, MEASUREMENT, EVALUATION.

Under the DATABASEoption, the user can create the productivity management database, append a new record, edit an existing record, delete
an unwanted record, and print a record. In each
record, the system will ask for the output data,
human input, material input, capital input, energy input and other expense input, respectively.
The productivity management database structure
is shown in Fig. 4. After the PLANNINGoption is
chosen, the user must enter the required data
according to the instructions, otherwise, the resuits may be wrong. Once all the necessary data is
entered, the total and partial productivities, and
the standard cost are computed.
Under the MEASUREMENToption, the system
will ask the user to choose an operational unit
which could be whole company, division, department, or product. Then, the system will display or
print the total and partial productivity report,
standard cost report, and summary report for that
operational unit. The evaluation option will display the actual and expected productivities for
the specific operational unit graphically. It will

also provide a chart that tells the user the percentage of a resource (e.g., human input) that has
been used by comparing to the total output. The
user will also be allowed to conduct a sensitivity
analysis. The sensitivity analysis chart can help
the user to adjust the resource levels for attaining
a target level of total productivity and profit.

5. System performance evaluation

CaMS is designed to support the manager or
engineer in planning, measuring, and evaluating
the manufacturing productivity via the integration
of several models (e.g., product mix model, sensitivity analysis model) in each phase. Although
CMPS should be accurate since it is integrated
from proved methods, the system is still evaluated
by comparing the actual productivity from a manufacturing company with the suggested productivity from CAMS. We collected the necessary data
from a steel manufacturing plant which has a
good reputation in productivity management. We
compared the system performance in terms of
productivity and cost. The actual productivities
from the real data were compared with the expected productivities suggested by CAMS. Table 1
shows that the suggested productivity is very close
to the actual productivity. In fact, we feel that the
company has a potential to increase its total
productivity up to 10% and the human productivity can increase by about 15% if CMPS is implemented.
The second validation procedure is focused on
the economics and financial viewpoint by comparing the actual cost and the expected cost suggested by CMPS for each resource. Table 2 shows
that the ratio is within the acceptable range ex-

278

Computers in Industry

ManagementInformation Systems

Table 2
The standard cost report for the whole company

Workers
Clerical Staff
Engineers
Managers
Iron
Carbon
Zinc
Oil
G as
Coal
Water
Electricity

Actual cost ($)

from real data

Expected cost ($)

suggested by CPMS

Actual/expected
ratio

3,281,709.21
2,729,088.02
4,439,649.92
941,188.88
26,997,493.62
1,927,241.45
532,319.02
509,103.47
1,123,812.01
7,618,385.63
1,040,188.85
1,323,705.00

2,828,073.60
2,306,352.80
3,716,263.75
764,074.50
22,827,631.50
1,302,230.28
401,259.35
476,135.99
978,686.51
6,825,484.80
932,764.61
1,182,533.77

1.16
1.18
1.19
1.23
1.18
1.48
1.33
1.07
1.15
1.12
1.12
1.12

cept the expense of the carbon resource. Again,

we feel that the cost of material carbon can be
reduced by up to 48% if it is implemented.
According to these two tables, it is clear that
CMPS can at least perform at the expert's level
and may improve the productivity and save large
amounts of money for companies if CMPS is implemented.

6. Conclusion

Measuring the productivity of an enterprise

and its operational units, and evaluating the operational performance, are essential steps to utilize its human, material, capital, energy, and other
resources in an economical manner. This paper
presents a computerized system to assist a manufacturing engineer or manager to plan, measure,
and evaluate the productivity of an enterprise at
any of its operational unit levels and the aggregate firm level. This system offers a way to incorporate the knowledge of the manager in the
decision-making process as related to resource
utilization and resource monitoring. This system
also provides sensitivity analysis capabilities so
that the manager can analyze the changes in the
productivity by changing any supporting resource
value, and plan target levels of productivity in the
future. Further, user-friendliness and menudriven characteristics have increased CPMS'S acceptance by the user.
Several extensions can be suggested to enhance CPMS'S performance in the future. For ex-

ample, adding capabilities of showing the impact

of many interrelated managerial and operational
factors on the productivity values can be one of
them. A subsystem with capabilities of showing
the impact of quality control policies upon productivity values could also be included in the
future.
In conclusion, cams has integrated several efficient models in productivity planning, measurement, and evaluation successfully. System performance results show that CpMS is an efficient and
accurate managerial tool for the productivity
management program.
References
[1] W.T. Stewart, "A yardstick for measuring productivity",
hid. Eng., Vol. 10, No. 2, 1978, pp. 34-37.
[2] J.C. Hershauer, and W.A. Ruch, "A worker productivity
model and its use at Lincoln Electric", Interfaces, Vol. 8,
No. 3, 1978, pp. 80-90.
[3] B. Gold, "Productivity analysis: some new analytical and
emperical perspectives", Bus. Econ., May 1974, pp. 6472.
[4] S.C. Aggarwal, "A study of productivity measures for
improving benefit-cost ratio of operating organizations",
Proc. 5th Int. Conf. Production Research, 1979, pp. 64-70.
[5] J. Kmenta, "On estimation of the CES production function", Int. Econ. Rev., Vol. 8, No. 2, 1967, pp. 180-189.
[6] D. Hodges, "A note on estimation of Cobb-Douglas and
CES production function models", Econometrica, Vol.
37, No. 4, 1969, pp. 721-725.
[7] W.W. Hines, "Guidelines for implementing productivity
measurement", Ind. Eng., Vol. 8, No. 6, 1976, pp. 40-43.
[8] B.W. Tayor and R.K. Davis, "Corporate productivity-Getting it all together", Ind. Eng., Vol. 9, No. 3, 1977,
pp. 32-36.

Computers in Industry
[9] D.J. Sumanth, "A micro computer decision support system for total productivity model (TPM)', Comput. Ind.
Eng. Vol. 11, 1987, pp. 32-35.
[10] F. Banks, IBM PC Application for the Industrial Engineers
and Manager, Banks Spuete, Collinks, 1986, pp. 165-192.
[11] F.C. Jelen, Cost and Optimization Engineering, McGrawHill, New York, 1970.
[12] J.R. Canada and J.A. White, Capital Investment Decision
Analysis for Management and Engineering, Prentice-Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1980.
[13] F.S. Hillier and G.J. Lieberman, Introduction to Operations Research, Holden-Day, San Francisco, CA, 1980.
[14] R.H. Garrison, Managerial Accounting Concepts for Planning, Control, Design, Decision Making, Irwin, Inc.,
Homewood, IL, 1988.

Appendix
The company is a producer of carbon, electrical and stainless steel products and a variety of
construction products. It also produces oilfield
machinery and equipment. Here, our concentration is focused on the steel product.
Record for producing alloy
Name of the division--Special
Name of the department--OHIO
Name of the product--ALLOY
Percent completed--56.00%
Selling price per unit--S1,650.00
Dividend from securities--S387,000
Interest from securities--S478,000
Other income--S750,000
Quantity of the final product--12,090 units
Quantity of the partial product--l,670 units
Human resource input
Workers~working time, 45,200 h; idle time, 3,840
h, average wage per hour $7
Clerical staff--working time, 24,500 h; idle time,
2,300 h; average wage per hour, $11
Engineers--working time, 34,500 h; idle time,
4,300 h; average wage per hour, $13
Managers--working time, 3,890 h; idle time, 560
h; average wage per hour, $20
Materials resource input
Iron--15,000 units with unit price at $220.00
Carbon--2,800 units with unit price at $80.00
Zinc--450 units with unit price at $162.00

S.-Y. Liu, J.-G. Chen / Productivity management

279

Capital resource input

Inventory--S485,000
Cast--S678,000
Accounts Receivable--S65,000
Notes Receivablem$569,000
Land~$0
Plant--S0
Machinery~$568,000
Equipment--S76,000
R&DD$32,100
Others~$45,000
Energy resource input
Oi1~69,000 units with unit price at $0.75
Gas--354,000 units with unit price at $0.46
CoalD92,000 units with unit price at $12.00
Waterm987,000 units with unit price at $0.11
Electricity--920,000 units with unit price at $0.15
Other expense input
Travel~$3,870
Local Taxes--S865,000
State Taxes--S156,000
Federal Taxes~$349,000
Consulting Fees--S78,000
Marketing--S56,000
Information Processing--S34,900
Office SuppliesD$370
R&D~$24,500
General Administration--S249,000
Other Expense--S28,600
Current summary report for the whole company
Productivity index for carbon division (actual/
expected)~l.24/1.34
Productivity index for special division (actual/
expected)~l.49/1.65
Currem summary report for special division
Produ~:tivity index for east plant (actual/
expected)D 1.10/1.18
Productivity index for midwest plant (actual/
expected)D1A0/1.50
Productivity index for Ohio plant (actual/
expecttd)--l.68/1.92
Productivity index for Penn. plant (actual/
expected)--l.34/1.45