DEA cross-efficiency evaluation under variable returns to scale

Cross-efficiency evaluation in data envelopment analysis (DEA) has been developed under the assumption of constant returns to scale (CRS), and no valid attempts have been made to apply the cross-efficiency concept to the variable returns to scale (VRS) condition. This is due to the fact that negative VRS cross-efficiency arises for some decision-making units (DMUs). Since there exist many instances that require the use of the VRS DEA model, it is imperative to develop cross-efficiency measures under VRS. We show that negative VRS cross-efficiency is related to free production of outputs. We offer a geometric interpretation of the relationship between the CRS and VRS DEA models. We show that each DMU, via solving the VRS model, seeks an optimal bundle of weights with which its CRS-efficiency score, measured under a translated Cartesian coordinate system, is maximized. We propose that VRS cross-efficiency evaluation should be done via a series of CRS models under translated Cartesian coordinate systems. The current study offers a valid cross-efficiency approach under the assumption of VRS—one of the most common assumptions in performance evaluation done by DEA.

[1]  Joe Zhu,et al.  Use of DEA cross-efficiency evaluation in portfolio selection: An application to Korean stock market , 2014, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[2]  A. U.S.,et al.  Measuring the efficiency of decision making units , 2003 .

[3]  Sungmook Lim,et al.  Minimax and maximin formulations of cross-efficiency in DEA , 2012, Comput. Ind. Eng..

[4]  Lawrence M. Seiford,et al.  On alternative optimal solutions in the estimation of returns to scale in DEA , 1998, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[5]  Joe Zhu,et al.  Data envelopment analysis: Prior to choosing a model , 2014 .

[6]  W. Cook,et al.  Preference voting and project ranking using DEA and cross-evaluation , 1996 .

[7]  Theodor J. Stewart,et al.  Relationships between Data Envelopment Analysis and Multicriteria Decision Analysis , 1996 .

[8]  Rodney H. Green,et al.  Efficiency and Cross-efficiency in DEA: Derivations, Meanings and Uses , 1994 .

[9]  Jie Wu,et al.  Alternative secondary goals in DEA cross-efficiency evaluation , 2008 .

[10]  Ahti Salo,et al.  Ranking Intervals and Dominance Relations for Ratio-Based Efficiency Analysis , 2011, Manag. Sci..

[11]  A. Charnes,et al.  Some Models for Estimating Technical and Scale Inefficiencies in Data Envelopment Analysis , 1984 .

[12]  Jesús T. Pastor,et al.  Chapter 3 Translation invariance in data envelopment analysis: A generalization , 1996, Ann. Oper. Res..

[13]  Victor V. Podinovski,et al.  Weight Restrictions and Free Production in Data Envelopment Analysis , 2013, Oper. Res..

[14]  Chien-Ming Chen,et al.  Efficient Resource Allocation via Efficiency Bootstraps: An Application to R&D Project Budgeting , 2011, Oper. Res..

[15]  T. Anderson,et al.  The Fixed Weighting Nature of A Cross-Evaluation Model , 2002 .

[16]  Nuria Ramón,et al.  Reducing differences between profiles of weights: A "peer-restricted" cross-efficiency evaluation , 2011 .

[17]  T. Sexton,et al.  Data Envelopment Analysis: Critique and Extensions , 1986 .

[18]  Muhittin Oral,et al.  A methodology for collective evaluation and selection of industrial R&D projects , 1991 .

[19]  Liang Liang,et al.  DEA game cross-efficiency approach to Olympic rankings , 2009 .

[20]  Juan Aparicio,et al.  Translation Invariance in Data Envelopment Analysis , 2015 .

[21]  Jie Wu,et al.  The DEA Game Cross-Efficiency Model and Its Nash Equilibrium , 2008, Oper. Res..