Data envelopment analysis based on team reasoning

Existing approaches to data envelopment analysis focus mainly on the derivation of the efficiency of the individual decision-making unit (DMU) or on the calculation of the weights of multiple inputs or outputs, but pay little attention to the team interest of all the DMUs. Motivated by the idea of team reasoning, in which the benefit of the team is of higher importance than that of each individual, this paper considers all the DMUs as a team and introduces the team indexes including the overall efficiencies, variance, boundaries of all the DMUs, and relationships between DMUs. Several models are first developed to estimate values of the team indexes based on which decision makers can provide their preferences regarding them. Then, models are established to obtain the interval efficiencies of individual DMUs under the condition that the team indexes are satisfied. Several examples are given to illustrate the proposed approaches and verify their applicability.

[1]  A. Tversky,et al.  Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk — Source link , 2007 .

[2]  S. Hurley,et al.  Social heuristics that make us smarter , 2005 .

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

[4]  A. Colman Cooperation, psychological game theory, and limitations of rationality in social interaction , 2003, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[5]  Feng Yang,et al.  Ranking DMUs by using interval DEA cross efficiency matrix with acceptability analysis , 2012, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

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

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

[8]  Léopold Simar,et al.  Statistical Approaches for Non‐parametric Frontier Models: A Guided Tour , 2015 .

[9]  E. Herrera‐Viedma,et al.  The consensus models with interval preference opinions and their economic interpretation , 2015 .

[10]  S. Hoogendoorn,et al.  A State-of-the-Art Review: Developments in Utility Theory, Prospect Theory and Regret Theory to Investigate Travellers' Behaviour in Situations Involving Travel Time Uncertainty , 2014 .

[11]  José L. Ruiz,et al.  On the DEA total weight flexibility and the aggregation in cross-efficiency evaluations , 2012, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[12]  K. Chin,et al.  Some alternative models for DEA cross-efficiency evaluation , 2010 .

[13]  John E. Beasley,et al.  Restricting Weight Flexibility in Data Envelopment Analysis , 1990 .

[14]  Fan Liu,et al.  An improvement in DEA cross-efficiency aggregation based on the Shannon entropy , 2018, Int. Trans. Oper. Res..

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

[16]  Ying Luo,et al.  Common weights for fully ranking decision making units by regression analysis , 2011, Expert Syst. Appl..

[17]  G. Facchinetti,et al.  Note on ranking fuzzy triangular numbers , 1998 .

[18]  Hasan Bal,et al.  A new method based on the dispersion of weights in data envelopment analysis , 2008, Comput. Ind. Eng..

[19]  R. Sugden,et al.  Explaining Focal Points: Cognitive Hierarchy Theory Versus Team Reasoning , 2009 .

[20]  Mojtaba Ghiyasi A DEA production technology and its usage for incorporation of collaboration in efficiency analysis: an axiomatic approach , 2019, Int. Trans. Oper. Res..

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

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

[23]  Luis G. Vargas,et al.  Preference simulation and preference programming: robustness issues in priority derivation , 1993 .

[24]  A. Tversky,et al.  Prospect theory: analysis of decision under risk , 1979 .

[25]  M. Rabin Published by: American , 2022 .

[26]  Ming-Miin Yu,et al.  Single-phase slack-based centralized DEA for resource reallocation , 2018, Int. Trans. Oper. Res..

[27]  Sebastián Lozano,et al.  Super SBI Dynamic Network DEA approach to measuring efficiency in the provision of public services , 2018, Int. Trans. Oper. Res..

[28]  R. Sugden,et al.  Regret Theory: An alternative theory of rational choice under uncertainty Review of Economic Studies , 1982 .

[29]  David E. Bell,et al.  Regret in Decision Making under Uncertainty , 1982, Oper. Res..

[30]  Nuria Ramón,et al.  Ranking ranges in cross-efficiency evaluations , 2013, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[31]  Robert Sugden,et al.  Collective Intentions And Team Agency , 2007 .

[32]  Luis G. Vargas,et al.  Uncertainty and rank order in the analytic hierarchy process , 1987 .

[33]  Robert Sugden,et al.  Nash equilibrium, team reasoning and cognitive hierarchy theory. , 2008, Acta psychologica.

[34]  Richard H. Silkman,et al.  Measuring efficiency : an assessment of data envelopment analysis , 1986 .

[35]  J. Krueger Methodological individualism in experimental games: not so easily dismissed. , 2008, Acta psychologica.

[36]  Francisco Chiclana,et al.  Consensus Measure with Multi-stage Fluctuation Utility Based on China’s Urban Demolition Negotiation , 2017 .

[37]  A. Colman,et al.  Collective rationality in interactive decisions: evidence for team reasoning. , 2008, Acta psychologica.

[38]  A. Colman,et al.  Team reasoning and collective rationality: piercing the veil of obviousness. , 2008, Acta psychologica.

[39]  Kwai-Sang Chin,et al.  A neutral DEA model for cross-efficiency evaluation and its extension , 2010, Expert Syst. Appl..

[40]  Jeffrey Forrest,et al.  Two consensus models based on the minimum cost and maximum return regarding either all individuals or one individual , 2015, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[41]  Gang Kou,et al.  A simple method to improve the consistency ratio of the pair-wise comparison matrix in ANP , 2011, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[42]  Toshiyuki Sueyoshi,et al.  DEA non-parametric ranking test and index measurement: slack-adjusted DEA and an application to Japanese agriculture cooperatives , 1999 .