×

Ranking decision making units by imposing a minimum weight restriction in the data envelopment analysis. (English) Zbl 1179.90201

Summary: It has been widely recognized that data envelopment analysis (DEA) lacks discrimination power to distinguish between DEA efficient units. This paper proposes a new methodology for ranking decision making units (DMUs). The new methodology ranks DMUs by imposing an appropriate minimum weight restriction on all inputs and outputs, which is decided by a decision maker (DM) or an assessor in terms of the solutions to a series of linear programming (LP) models that are specially constructed to determine a maximin weight for each DEA efficient unit. The DM can decide how many DMUs to be retained as DEA efficient in final efficiency ranking according to the requirement of real applications, which provides flexibility for DEA ranking. Three numerical examples are investigated using the proposed ranking methodology to illustrate its power in discriminating between DMUs, particularly DEA efficient units.

MSC:

90B50 Management decision making, including multiple objectives
PDFBibTeX XMLCite
Full Text: DOI

References:

[1] Adler, N.; Friedman, L.; Sinuany-Stern, Z., Review of ranking methods in the data envelopment analysis context, European Journal of Operational Research, 140, 2, 249-265 (2002) · Zbl 1001.90048
[2] Andersen, P.; Petersen, N. C., A procedure for ranking efficient units in data envelopment analysis, Management Science, 39, 1261-1264 (1993) · Zbl 0800.90096
[3] Banker, R. D.; Chang, H., The super-efficiency procedure for outlier identification, not for ranking efficient units, European Journal of Operational Research, 175, 2, 1311-1320 (2006) · Zbl 1142.90417
[4] C.P. Bao, T.H. Chen, S.Y. Chang, Slack-based ranking method: An interpretation to the cross-efficiency method in DEA, Journal of the Operational Research Society, in press Doi:10.1057/palgrave.jors.2602411; C.P. Bao, T.H. Chen, S.Y. Chang, Slack-based ranking method: An interpretation to the cross-efficiency method in DEA, Journal of the Operational Research Society, in press Doi:10.1057/palgrave.jors.2602411 · Zbl 1153.90451
[5] Charnes, A.; Cooper, W. W., Programming with linear fractional functional, Naval Research Logistics Quarterly, 9, 181-185 (1962) · Zbl 0127.36901
[6] Charnes, A.; Cooper, W. W.; Rhodes, E., Measuring the efficiency of decision making units, European Journal of Operational Research, 2, 429-444 (1978) · Zbl 0416.90080
[7] Chen, Y., Ranking efficient units in DEA, Omega, 32, 3, 213-219 (2004)
[8] Doyle, J. R.; Green, R. H., Efficiency and cross-efficiency in DEA: Derivations, meanings and uses, Journal of the Operational Research Society, 45, 567-578 (1994) · Zbl 0807.90016
[9] Doyle, J. R.; Green, R. H., Cross-evaluation in DEA: Improving discrimination among DMUs, INFOR, 33, 205-222 (1995) · Zbl 0832.90002
[10] Friedman, L.; Sinuany-Stern, Z., Scaling units via the canonical correlation analysis in the DEA context, European Journal of Operational Research, 100, 3, 629-637 (1997) · Zbl 0918.90003
[11] Ganley, J. A.; Cubbin, S. A., Public Sector Efficiency Measurement: Applications of Data Envelopment Analysis (1992), North-Holland: North-Holland Amsterdam
[12] Jahanshahloo, G. R.; Junior, H. V.; Lotfi, F. H.; Akbarian, D., A new DEA ranking system based on changing the reference set, European Journal of Operational Research, 181, 1, 331-337 (2007) · Zbl 1121.90357
[13] Li, S.; Jahanshahloo, G. R.; Khodabakhshi, M., A super-efficiency model for ranking efficient units in data envelopment analysis, Applied Mathematics and Computation, 184, 2, 638-648 (2007) · Zbl 1149.90079
[14] Liu, F. H.F.; Peng, H. H., Ranking of units on the DEA frontier with common weights, Computers & Operations Research, 35, 5, 1624-1637 (2008) · Zbl 1211.90101
[15] Lovell, C. A.K.; Rouse, A. P.B., Equivalent standard DEA models to provide superefficiency scores, Journal of the Operational Research Society, 54, 1, 101-108 (2003) · Zbl 1088.90519
[16] Roll, Y.; Cook, W. D.; Golany, B., Controlling factor weights in data envelopment analysis, IIE Transactions, 23, 2-9 (1991)
[17] Roll, Y.; Golany, B., Alternate methods of treating factor weights in DEA, OMEGA, 21, 99-109 (1993)
[18] Saaty, T. L., The Analytic Hierarchy Process (1980), McGraw-Hill: McGraw-Hill New York · Zbl 1176.90315
[19] Seiford, L. M.; Zhu, J., Infeasibility of super-efficiency data envelopment analysis models, INFOR, 37, 2, 174-187 (1999) · Zbl 07677588
[20] Sexton, T. R.; Silkman, R. H.; Hogan, A. J., Data envelopment analysis: Critique and extensions, (Silkman, R. H., Measuring Efficiency: An Assessment of Data Envelopment Analysis (1986), Jossey-Bass: Jossey-Bass San Francisco, CA), 73-105
[21] Sinuany-Stern, Z.; Mehrez, A.; Barboy, A., Academic departments’ efficiency in DEA, Computers and Operations Research, 21, 5, 543-556 (1994) · Zbl 0800.90075
[22] Sinuany-Stern, Z.; Friedman, L., DEA and the discriminant analysis of ratios for ranking units, European Journal of Operational Research, 111, 3, 470-478 (1998) · Zbl 0939.91112
[23] Sinuany-Stern, Z.; Mehrez, A.; Hadad, Y., An AHP/DEA methodology for ranking decision making units, International Transactions in Operational Research, 7, 2, 109-124 (2000)
[24] Thompson, R. G.; Singleton, F. D.; Thrall, R. M.; Smith, B. A., Comparative site evaluations for locating a high-energy physics Lab in Texas, Interfaces, 16, 6, 35-49 (1986)
[25] Thompson, R. G.; Langemeier, L. N.; Lee, C. T.; Lee, E.; Thrall, R. M., The role of multiplier bounds in efficiency analysis with application to Kansas farming, Journal of Econometrics, 46, 93-108 (1990)
This reference list is based on information provided by the publisher or from digital mathematics libraries. Its items are heuristically matched to zbMATH identifiers and may contain data conversion errors. In some cases that data have been complemented/enhanced by data from zbMATH Open. This attempts to reflect the references listed in the original paper as accurately as possible without claiming completeness or a perfect matching.