On the Use of DEA Models with Weight Restrictions for Benchmarking and Target Setting

This chapter discusses the use of DEA models with weight restrictions for purposes of benchmarking and target setting. Weight restrictions have been used in the literature to incorporate into the analysis both value judgments (managerial preferences or prior views about the relative worth of inputs and outputs) and technological judgments (assumptions on production trade-offs). An important consideration in the use of restricted models for the benchmarking is that they may provide targets that are outside the production possibility set (PPS). Such difficulties are overcome if weight restrictions represent production trade-offs, because in those cases restricted models lead to a meaningful expansion of the production technology. However, if weight restrictions are only used as a way of incorporating preferences or value judgments, then there could be no reason to consider the targets derived from those models as attainable. Despite the classical restricted DEA formulations may yield targets within the PPS, it is claimed here that an approach based on a more appropriate selection of benchmarks would be desirable. We develop some restricted models which provide the closest targets within the PPS that are Pareto-efficient. Thus, if weight restrictions represent value judgments, the proposed approach allows us to identify best practices which show the easiest way for improvement and are desirable (in the light of prior knowledge and expert opinion) in addition to technically achievable.

[1]  V. V. Podinovski Improving data envelopment analysis by the use of production trade-offs , 2007, J. Oper. Res. Soc..

[2]  Marcos Pereira Estellita Lins,et al.  Integrating the regulatory and utility firm perspectives, when measuring the efficiency of electricity distribution , 2007, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[3]  Abraham Charnes,et al.  Programming with linear fractional functionals , 1962 .

[4]  Kazuyuki Sekitani,et al.  Input-output substitutability and strongly monotonic p-norm least distance DEA measures , 2014, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[5]  Wen-Min Lu,et al.  Benchmarking the operating efficiency of Asia container ports , 2010, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[6]  W. Cooper,et al.  RAM: A Range Adjusted Measure of Inefficiency for Use with Additive Models, and Relations to Other Models and Measures in DEA , 1999 .

[7]  Ana S. Camanho,et al.  Benchmarking countries’ environmental performance , 2013, J. Oper. Res. Soc..

[8]  Kaoru Tone,et al.  Variations on the theme of slacks-based measure of efficiency in DEA , 2010, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[9]  Emmanuel Thanassoulis,et al.  Finding Closest Targets in Non-Oriented DEA Models: The Case of Convex and Non-Convex Technologies , 2003 .

[10]  José L. Ruiz,et al.  Benchmarking and target setting with expert preferences: An application to the evaluation of educational performance of Spanish universities , 2015, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[11]  William W. Cooper,et al.  Choices and Uses of DEA Weights , 2011 .

[12]  Abraham Charnes,et al.  Measuring the efficiency of decision making units , 1978 .

[13]  Robert M. Thrall,et al.  Chapter 5 Duality, classification and slacks in DEA , 1996, Ann. Oper. Res..

[14]  Ana S. Camanho,et al.  Performance assessment of secondary schools: the snapshot of a country taken by DEA , 2012, J. Oper. Res. Soc..

[15]  V. V. Podinovski,et al.  Production trade-offs and weight restrictions in data envelopment analysis , 2004, J. Oper. Res. Soc..

[16]  V. V. Podinovski Computation of efficient targets in DEA models with production trade-offs and weight restrictions , 2007, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[17]  Victor V. Podinovski,et al.  Computation of efficient targets in DEA models with production trade-offs and weight restrictions , 2007, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[18]  Robert M. Thrall,et al.  Measures in DEA with an Application to the Malmquist Index , 2000 .

[19]  José L. Ruiz,et al.  Common benchmarking and ranking of units with DEA , 2016 .

[20]  Juan Aparicio,et al.  Closest targets and minimum distance to the Pareto-efficient frontier in DEA , 2007 .

[21]  Barton A. Smith,et al.  Comparative Site Evaluations for Locating a High-Energy Physics Lab in Texas , 1986 .

[22]  N. Adler,et al.  Benchmarking airports from a managerial perspective , 2013 .

[23]  John E. Beasley,et al.  Comparing university departments , 1990 .

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

[25]  T. Saaty,et al.  The Analytic Hierarchy Process , 1985 .

[26]  A. Charnes,et al.  Classifying and characterizing efficiencies and inefficiencies in data development analysis , 1986 .

[27]  篠原 正明,et al.  William W.Cooper,Lawrence M.Seiford,Kaoru Tone 著, DATA ENVELOPMENT ANALYSIS : A Comprehensive Text with Models, Applications, References and DEA-Solver Software, Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2000年, 318頁 , 2002 .

[28]  A. Charnes,et al.  Data Envelopment Analysis Theory, Methodology and Applications , 1995 .

[29]  Emmanuel Thanassoulis,et al.  Weights restrictions and value judgements in Data Envelopment Analysis: Evolution, development and future directions , 1997, Ann. Oper. Res..

[30]  Juan Aparicio,et al.  BAM: a bounded adjusted measure of efficiency for use with bounded additive models , 2011 .

[31]  Timo Kuosmanen,et al.  Best-practice benchmarking using clustering methods: Application to energy regulation , 2014, Omega.

[32]  Victor V. Podinovski,et al.  Using data envelopment analysis for the assessment of technical efficiency of units with different specialisations: An application to agriculture ☆ , 2015 .

[33]  Boaz Golany,et al.  Foundations of data envelopment analysis for Pareto-Koopmans efficient empirical production functions , 1985 .

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

[35]  A. Charnes,et al.  Polyhedral Cone-Ratio DEA Models with an illustrative application to large commercial banks , 1990 .

[36]  William W. Cooper,et al.  Selecting non-zero weights to evaluate effectiveness of basketball players with DEA , 2009, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[37]  Emmanuel Thanassoulis,et al.  Data Envelopment Analysis:the mathematical programming approach to efficiency analysis , 2008 .

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

[39]  Jesús T. Pastor,et al.  Units invariant and translation invariant DEA models , 1995, Oper. Res. Lett..

[40]  Juan Aparicio,et al.  Closest targets and strong monotonicity on the strongly efficient frontier in DEA , 2014 .