## 5 Results
### Experiment 5--The Output-Oriented BCC Model with Two Input and Two Output Parameters
For CHPP 1 it is required to reduce (y2) by 1.075; for CHPP 4 it is required to reduce (y2) by 1.069; and for CHPP 6 it is required to reduce (y2) by 1. At the same time, the outputs (y1) for these CHPPs will also change to increase the efficiency indicator to 1. We now explain the changes in outputs (y1). For CHP 1 it is required to increase y2 by 296.163; for CHPP 4 it is required to increase (y2) by 301.191; and for CHPP 6 it is required to increase (y2) by 179. The input parameters (x1) and (x2) according to the BCC model have also changed for some CHPPs due to slack movement. For CHPPs 2 and 5, slack movement is not observed in any indicator. For the rest of the CHPPs, such changes are present. For CHPP 1, as a result of adjusting indicators to achieve an efficiency coefficient of 1, slack movement occurs with output (y2) and input (x1). Output (y2) decreases by 0.831, and input (x1) decreases by 81,812. For CHPP 3, as a result of adjusting indicators to achieve an efficiency coefficient of 1, slack movement occurs with output (y1) and input (x2). Output (y1) increases by 103 \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline \(N\) **CHPP** & **VRSTE** & **y1** & **y2** & **x1** & **x2** \\ \hline
1 & 0.925 & 3931.163 & 4.075 & 1472.188 & 642 \\ \hline
2 & 1.000 & 4519.000 & 5.000 & 1530.000 & 790 \\ \hline
3 & 1.000 & 1180.000 & 11.000 & 752.000 & 355 \\ \hline
4 & 0.923 & 3927.191 & 4.069 & 1471.797 & 641 \\ \hline
5 & 1.000 & 4380.000 & 4.000 & 1405.000 & 767 \\ \hline
6 & 0.909 & 1180.000 & 11.000 & 752.000 & 355 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 13: Efficiency calculation based on the output-oriented BCC model with two input and two output parameters. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline \(N\) **CHPP** & **O (y1)** & **O (y2)** & **I (x1)** & **I (x2)** \\ \hline
1 & 3635 & 14.9 & 1554 & 642 \\ \hline
2 & 4519 & 13.5 & 1530 & 790 \\ \hline
3 & 1077 & 7.30 & 752 & 401 \\ \hline
4 & 3626 & 15.2 & 1554 & 641 \\ \hline
5 & 4380 & 13.9 & 1405 & 767 \\ \hline
6 & 1001 & 7.90 & 752 & 386 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 11: Initial data on two input indicators and two output indicators of the studied CHPP sample. and input (x2) decreases by 46. For CHPP 4, as a result of adjusting indicators to achieve an efficiency coefficient of 1, slack movement occurs with output (y2) and input (x1). Output (y2) decreases by 0.82, and input (x2) decreases by 82.203. For CHPP 6, as a result of adjusting indicators to achieve an efficiency coefficient of 1, slack movement occurs with output (y1) and input (x2). Output (y1) increases by 78.9 and input (x2) decreases by 31. As described above, the BCC model helps to calculate efficiency considering VRS. The CCR model calculates efficiency using CRS. Below, we present a comparative table of performance indicators for the output-oriented CCR and BCC models with two input and one output parameters. As we can see from the table, for this sample, CHPPs 2, 3, and 5 are effective enterprises according to the performance indicators of CRSTE, VRSTE, and SE. That is, they achieve maximum efficiency in their work. CHPP 6 achieves an efficiency factor of 1 only at SE. This means that for this enterprise, unfavorable conditions have no effect on its efficiency. With a constant return on scale and a variable return on scale, the efficiency coefficients are the same and equal to 0.909. Thus, the inefficiency of this enterprise is wholly caused by the inefficient operation of the enterprise. All performance indicators for the remaining CHPPs are below 1 and are also presented in Table 14. Nonetheless, as we can see from the table, the performance indicators for all the enterprises in the sample are considerably high. In this experiment, we observe changes in the display of the scale effect. From Table 14, it can be seen that only CHPPs 1 and 4 are at the point of decreasing scale effect (decreasing return to scale).