A solution method to the problem proposed by Wang in voting systems

This paper proposes a method to rank multiple efficient candidates, which often happens in DEA method, by comparing the least relative total scores for each efficient candidate with the best and the least relative total scores measured in the same range. By a numerical example, our model is used to identify efficient candidate and the model can get less efficient candidates too than that can be identified by the model given by Wang and Chin [Y.M. Wang, K.S. Chin, Discriminating DEA efficient candidates by considering their least relative total scores, J. Comput. Appl. Math. 206 (2007) 209–215]. This paper also points out that there is a drawback in the theorem about ε$\epsilon$ given by Wang and Chin [Y.M. Wang, K.S. Chin, Discriminating DEA efficient candidates by considering their least relative total scores, J. Comput. Appl. Math. 206 (2007) 209–215].     

Achievement and benchmarking of countries at the Summer Olympics using cross efficiency evaluation method

In this paper, an extension tool of data envelopment analysis (DEA), namely cross efficiency evaluation method, is used to measure the performance of the nations participating in the last six Summer Olympic Games. The model in the paper considers two inputs (GDP per capita and population) and three outputs (number of gold, silver and bronze medals won), and the weight restrictions are included to guarantee that a unit of silver medal corresponds to a higher valuation than a unit of bronze medal, and the highest for gold medal. The results for the last six Summer Olympic Games are analyzed, and a unique ordering of the participants based on average cross efficiency is provided, also cluster analysis technique is used to select the more appropriate targets for poorly performing countries to use as benchmarks.     

Ranking DMUs by using interval DEA cross efficiency matrix with acceptability analysis

Cross efficiency method is an extension of data envelopment analysis (DEA), and has been widely used for ranking performance of decision making units (DMUs). To eliminate the non-uniqueness of cross efficiency scores, the aggressive and benevolent strategies have been proposed as secondary goals to determine the unique cross efficiency score. The current paper aims to propose an alternative strategy which does not consider the preference of the decision maker in choosing aggressive or benevolent strategy. Instead, the paper considers all possible weight sets in weight space when computing the cross efficiency and each DMU is given an interval cross efficiency. By using the stochastic multicriteria acceptability analysis (SMAA-2) method, all DMUs in the interval cross efficiency matrix (CEM) could be fully ranked according to the acceptability indices. A numerical example about efficiency evaluation to seven academic departments in a university is illustrated.     

A modified complete ranking of DMUs using restrictions in DEA models

Alirezaee and Afsharian [1] have proposed a new index, namely, Balance Index, to rank DMUs. In this paper, we will use their examples to illustrate that the proposed index is not stable. As a result, the corresponding rankings are also unstable. Then we analyze where an error occurs in the new method for complete ranking of decision making units and amend it by introducing the Maximal Balance Index. The numeral example reports the reasonability of our methods.     

Super-efficiency DEA in the presence of infeasibility

It is well known that super-efficiency data envelopment analysis (DEA) approach can be infeasible under the condition of variable returns to scale (VRS). By extending of the work of Chen (2005), the current study develops a two-stage process for calculating super-efficiency scores regardless whether the standard VRS super-efficiency mode is feasible or not. The proposed approach examines whether the standard VRS super-efficiency DEA model is infeasible. When the model is feasible, our approach yields super-efficiency scores that are identical to those arising from the original model. For efficient DMUs that are infeasible under the super-efficiency model, our approach yields super-efficiency scores that characterize input savings and/or output surpluses. The current study also shows that infeasibility may imply that an efficient DMU does not exhibit super-efficiency in inputs or outputs. When infeasibility occurs, it can be necessary that (i) both inputs and outputs be decreased to reach the frontier formed by the remaining DMUs under the input-orientation and (ii) both inputs and outputs be increased to reach the frontier formed by the remaining DMUs under the output-orientation. The newly developed approach is illustrated with numerical examples.     

Super-efficiency infeasibility and zero data in DEA

Lee et al. (2011) and Chen and Liang (2011) develop a data envelopment analysis (DEA) model to address the infeasibility issue in super-efficiency models. In this paper, we point out that their model is feasible when input data are positive but can be infeasible when some of input is zero. Their model is modified so that the new super-efficiency DEA model is always feasible when data are non-negative. Note that zero data can make the super-efficiency model under constant returns to scale (CRS) infeasible. Our discussion is based upon variable returns to scale (VRS) and can be applied to CRS super-efficiency models.     

The interval efficiency based on the optimistic and pessimistic points of view

Data envelopment analysis (DEA) is a data-oriented approach for evaluating the performances of a set of peer entities called decision-making units (DMUs), whose performance is determined based on multiple measures. The traditional DEA, which is based on the concept of efficiency frontier (output frontier), determines the best efficiency score that can be assigned to each DMU. Based on these scores, DMUs are classified into DEA-efficient (optimistic efficient) or DEA-non-efficient (optimistic non-efficient) units, and the DEA-efficient DMUs determine the efficiency frontier. There is a comparable approach which uses the concept of inefficiency frontier (input frontier) for determining the worst relative efficiency score that can be assigned to each DMU. DMUs on the inefficiency frontier are specified as DEA-inefficient or pessimistic inefficient, and those that do not lie on the inefficient frontier, are declared to be DEA-non-inefficient or pessimistic non-inefficient. In this paper, we argue that both relative efficiencies should be considered simultaneously, and any approach that considers only one of them will be biased. For measuring the overall performance of the DMUs, we propose to integrate both efficiencies in the form of an interval, and we call the proposed DEA models for efficiency measurement the bounded DEA models. In this way, the efficiency interval provides the decision maker with all the possible values of efficiency, which reflect various perspectives. A numerical example is presented to illustrate the application of the proposed DEA models.     

Super-efficiency DEA in the presence of infeasibility: One model approach

A two-stage procedure is developed by Lee et al. (2011) [European Journal of Operational Research doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2011.01.022] to address the infeasibility issue in super-efficiency data envelopment analysis (DEA) models. We point out that their two-stage procedure can be solved in a single DEA-based model.     

A new DEA ranking system based on changing the reference set

This research proposes a new ranking system for extreme efficient DMUs (Decision Making Units) based upon the omission of these efficient DMUs from reference set of the inefficient DMUs. We state and prove some facts related to our model. A numerical example where the proposed method is compared with traditional ranking approaches is shown.     

Preference voting and project ranking using DEA and cross-evaluation

Cook and Kress (1990), using Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) as their starting point, proposed a procedure to rank order the candidates in a preferential election. Notionally, each candidate is permitted to choose the most favourable weights to be applied to his/her standings (first place, second place, etc. votes) in the usual DEA manner with the additional ‘assurance region’ restriction that the weight for a j place vote should be more than that for a j +1 amount. We consider that this freedom to choose weights is essentially illusory when maximum discrimination between the candidates is sought, in which case the weights used to evaluate and rank the candidates are as if imposed externally at the outset. To avoid this, we present an alternative procedure which retains Cook and Kress' central idea but where, as well as using each candidate's rating of him/herself, we now make use of each candidate's ratings of all the candidates. We regard the so-called cross-evaluation matrix as the summary of a self- and peer-rating process in which the candidates seek to interpret the voters preferences as favourably for themselves, relative to the other candidates, as possible. The problem then becomes one of establishing an overall rating for each candidate from these individual ratings. For this, for each candidate, we use a weighted average of all the candidates ratings of that candidate, where the weights themselves are in proportion to each candidate's overall rating. The overall ratings are therefore proportional to the components of the principal (left-hand) eigenvector of the cross-evaluation matrix. These ideas are then applied to the selection of R & D projects to comprise an R & D program, thus indicating thier wider applicability.     

Validating DEA as a ranking tool: An application of DEA to assess performance in higher education

There is a general interest in ranking schemes applied to complex entities described by multiple attributes. Published rankings for universities are in great demand but are also highly controversial. We compare two classification and ranking schemes involving universities; one from a published report, ‘Top American Research Universities’ by the University of Florida's TheCenter and the other using DEA. Both approaches use the same data and model. We compare the two methods and discover important equivalences. We conclude that the critical aspect in classification and ranking is the model. This suggests that DEA is a suitable tool for these types of studies.     

DEA有效单元排序的一种新方法

通过对DEA有效单元排序中超有效性方法的探讨,提出了一种新的方法.利用对构造模型目标函数的处理,新的方法能够实现对有效单元的完全排序.最后,通过两个算例进一步验证了新方法的可行性和优越性.     

Equivalence in two-stage DEA approaches

Data envelopment analysis (DEA) is a linear programming problem approach for evaluating the relative efficiency of peer decision making units (DMUs) that have multiple inputs and outputs. DMUs can have a two-stage structure where all the outputs from the first stage are the only inputs to the second stage, in addition to the inputs to the first stage and the outputs from the second stage. The outputs from the first stage to the second stage are called intermediate measures. This paper examines relations and equivalence between two existing DEA approaches that address measuring the performance of two-stage processes.     

Decomposing the efficient frontier of the DEA production possibility set into a smallest number of convex polyhedrons by mixed integer programming

This paper extends the works by Olesen and Petersen (2003), Russell and Schworm (2006) and Cooper et al. (2007) about describing the efficient frontier of a production possibility set by the intersection of a finite number of closed halfspaces, in several ways. First, we decompose the efficient frontier into a smallest number of convex polyhedrons, or equivalently into a new class of efficient faces, called maximal efficient faces (MEFs). Second, we show how to identify all MEFs even if full dimensional efficient faces do not exist. Third, by applying the MEF decomposition to various real-world data sets, we demonstrate the validity of the MEF decomposition and how it can contribute to the DEA literature. Finally, we illustrate how to use the identified MEFs in practice.     

Additive efficiency decomposition in two-stage DEA

Kao and Hwang (2008) [Kao, C., Hwang, S.-N., 2008. Efficiency decomposition in two-stage data envelopment analysis: An application to non-life insurance companies in Taiwan. European Journal of Operational Research 185 (1), 418–429] develop a data envelopment analysis (DEA) approach for measuring efficiency of decision processes which can be divided into two stages. The first stage uses inputs to generate outputs which become the inputs to the second stage. The first stage outputs are referred to as intermediate measures. The second stage then uses these intermediate measures to produce outputs. Kao and Huang represent the efficiency of the overall process as the product of the efficiencies of the two stages. A major limitation of this model is its applicability to only constant returns to scale (CRS) situations. The current paper develops an additive efficiency decomposition approach wherein the overall efficiency is expressed as a (weighted) sum of the efficiencies of the individual stages. This approach can be applied under both CRS and variable returns to scale (VRS) assumptions. The case of Taiwanese non-life insurance companies is revisited using this newly developed approach.     

Allocating the fixed cost as a complement of other cost inputs: A DEA approach

In cost allocation problem, traditional DEA approaches allocate the fixed cost among a group of decision making units (DMUs), and treat the allocated cost as an extra input of each DMU. If costs except for the fixed cost are regarded as inputs in the cost allocation problem, then it is obvious that the fixed cost is a complement of other inputs rather than an extra independent input. Therefore it is necessary to combine the allocated cost with other cost measures in cost allocation problem. Based on this observation, this paper investigates the relationship between the allocated cost and the DEA efficiency score and develops a DEA-based approach to allocate the fixed cost among various DMUs. An example of allocating advertising expenditure between a car manufacturer and its dealers is presented to illustrate the method proposed in this paper.     

系统协同发展程度的DEA评价研究

协同发展是区域经济得以顺利、快速发展的客观要求和前提条件;是可持续发展基础性、前提性因素和实现手段.系统协同发展不是即生的,它是通过对原有系统不断的诊断、调整、评价,周而复始逐步实现的.对系统协同发展程度的评价是系统实现协同发展的前提、指导和路径.借助于DEA的方法,从系统协同发展的内容上,给出“协同”和“发展”的评价方法;从系统的结构上,给出系统内和系统间的“协同”和“发展”评价方法.     

Ranking decision-making units using common weights in DEA

Data envelopment analysis (DEA) is a linear programming technique that is used to measure the relative efficiency of decision-making units (DMUs). Liu et al. (2008) [13] used common weights analysis (CWA) methodology to generate a CSW using linear programming. They classified the DMUs as CWA-efficient and CWA-inefficient DMUs and ranked the DMUs using CWA-ranking rules. The aim of this study is to show that the criteria used by Liu et al. are not theoretically strong enough to discriminate among the CWA-efficient DMUs with equal efficiency. Moreover, there is no guarantee that their proposed model can select one optimal solution from the alternative components. The optimal solution is considered to be the only unique optimal solution. This study shows that the proposal by Liu et al. is not generally correct. The claims made by the authors against the theorem proposed by Liu et al. are fully supported using two counter examples.     

Performance ranking of units considering ideal and anti-ideal DMU with common weights

A characteristic of traditional DEA CCR mode is that it allows DMUs to measure their maximum efficiency score with the most favorable weights. Thus, it would have some shortcomings, for example, the efficiencies of different DMUs obtained by different sets of weights may be unable to be compared and ranked on the same basis. Besides, there are always more than one DMU to be evaluated as efficient because of the flexibility in the selection of weights; it would cause the situation that all DMUs cannot be fully discriminated. With the research gaps, in this paper, we propose two models considering ideal and anti-ideal DMU to generate common weights for performance evaluation and ranking. Finally, two examples of Asian lead frame firms and flexible manufacturing systems are illustrated to examine the validity of the proposed methods.     

对DEA中有效单元排序的一种新方法

文章对数据包络分析(DEA)的强有效性问题提出了一种新的研究方法.利用有效值和负有效值来构造复合输入和输出这种方法可以实现有效决策单元的完全排序.文章还给出了新方法中模型的一些性质.最后,用两个例子来检验此方法并和其他模型的计算结果进行了比较.