## 5 Evaluation in Window Analysis and Clustering Algorithms
### Evaluation in the Window Analysis Method
#### 5.1.2. Discussion in Window Analysis-FDH, BCC and CCR Models

Table 5: _Cont._* 10 th (0.957, 0.960, 0.992, 1), 19 th (0.984, 0.997, 1, 1), and 23 rd (0.960, 0.985, 1, 1) companies have an ascending trend of efficiency from the beginning (1 st window) to the end (4 th window). * Only 11 th (0.967, 0.960, 0.950, 0.948) company has a descending trend of efficiency from the beginning (1 st window) to the end (4 th window). * Other cement companies have both descending and ascending from the beginning (1 st window) to the end (4 th window). Based on the FDH model for Table 7:  
* The 22 nd company has the highest efficiency score with an efficiency score of 1 for all years. * 19 th (0.954, 0.997, 1, 1, 1, 1), and 23 rd (0.924, 0.958, 1, 1, 1, 1) companies have an ascending trend of efficiency from the beginning (1 st year or 2014) to the end (6 th year or 2019). * There is no descending trend of efficiency from the beginning (1 st year or 2014) to the end (6 th year or 2019). * Other cement companies have both descending and ascending from the beginning (1 st year or 2014) to the end (6 th year or 2019). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline  & **2014–2016** & **2015–2017** & **2016–2018** & **2017–2019** \\ \hline Company 1 & 98.7\% & 97.9\% & 90.4\% & 93.4\% \\ Company 2 & 97.8\% & 99.7\% & 97.5\% & 98.9\% \\ Company 3 & 94.2\% & 99.8\% & 94.4\% & 98.9\% \\ Company 4 & 91.8\% & 94.4\% & 87.5\% & 98.3\% \\ Company 5 & 89.4\% & 100.0\% & 99.0\% & 95.1\% \\ Company 6 & 88.7\% & 97.9\% & 87.0\% & 90.0\% \\ Company 7 & 97.3\% & 96.5\% & 96.6\% & 100.0\% \\ Company 8 & 100.0\% & 99.3\% & 87.5\% & 92.6\% \\ Company 9 & 100.0\% & 100.0\% & 92.7\% & 94.5\% \\ Company 10 & 95.7\% & 96.0\% & 99.2\% & 100.0\% \\ Company 11 & 96.7\% & 96.0\% & 95.0\% & 94.8\% \\ Company 12 & 98.7\% & 98.0\% & 100.0\% & 100.0\% \\ Company 13 & 100.0\% & 100.0\% & 96.0\% & 99.5\% \\ Company 14 & 93.3\% & 100.0\% & 97.2\% & 97.7\% \\ Company 15 & 95.2\% & 91.9\% & 100.0\% & 100.0\% \\ Company 16 & 99.2\% & 100.0\% & 100.0\% & 100.0\% \\ Company 17 & 96.0\% & 96.3\% & 91.9\% & 96.0\% \\ Company 18 & 97.6\% & 97.7\% & 93.2\% & 91.1\% \\ Company 19 & 98.4\% & 99.7\% & 100.0\% & 100.0\% \\ Company 20 & 95.0\% & 94.7\% & 97.1\% & 97.1\% \\ Company 21 & 91.2\% & 98.2\% & 91.0\% & 87.6\% \\ Company 22 & 100.0\% & 100.0\% & 100.0\% & 100.0\% \\ Company 23 & 96.0\% & 98.5\% & 100.0\% & 100.0\% \\ Company 24 & 91.2\% & 98.2\% & 87.1\% & 96.0\% \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 6: Average of windows in FDH model for each three years. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline  & **2014** & **2015** & **2016** & **2017** & **2018** & **2019** \\ \hline Company 1 & 1.00 & 1.00 & 0.94 & 0.86 & 1.00 & 1.00 \\ Company 2 & 1.00 & 0.96 & 1.00 & 0.97 & 1.00 & 0.98 \\ Company 3 & 0.89 & 0.96 & 1.00 & 0.97 & 1.00 & 0.98 \\ Company 4 & 1.00 & 0.95 & 0.90 & 0.89 & 1.00 & 1.00 \\ Company 5 & 1.00 & 0.92 & 0.95 & 0.99 & 1.00 & 0.86 \\ Company 6 & 1.00 & 0.91 & 0.90 & 0.85 & 1.00 & 0.93 \\ Company 7 & 0.92 & 1.00 & 0.93 & 1.00 & 1.00 & 1.00 \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 7: Average efficiency in FDH model for each year.