A Dual Approach to Nonconvex Frontier Models

This paper extends the links between the non-parametric data envelopment analysis (DEA) models for efficiency analysis, duality theory and multi-criteria decision making models for the linear and non-linear case. By drawing on the properties of a partial Lagrangean relaxation, a correspondence is shown between the CCR, BCC and free disposable hull (FDH) models in DEA and the MCDM model. One of the implications is a characterization that verifies the sufficiency of the weighted scalarizing function, even for the non-convex case FDH. A linearization of FDH is presented along with dual interpretations. Thus, an input/output-oriented model is shown to be equivalent to a maximization of the weighted input/output, subject to production space feasibility. The discussion extends to the recent developments: the free replicability hull (FRH), the new elementary replicability hull (ERH) and the non-convex models by Petersen (1990). FRH is shown to be a true mixed integer program, whereas the latter can be characterized as the CCR and BCC models.

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

[2]  Robert M. Thrall,et al.  What Is the Economic Meaning of FDH? , 1999 .

[3]  Valerie Belton,et al.  Demystifying DEA — A Visual Interactive Approach Based on Multiple Criteria Analysis , 1993 .

[4]  Tom Van Puyenbroeck.  Some Remarks on Modified FDH , 1998 .

[5]  P. Pestieau,et al.  Public Enterprise Economics.@@@The Performance of Public Enterprises: Concepts and Measurement. , 1987 .

[6]  Abraham Charnes,et al.  Cone ratio data envelopment analysis and multi-objective programming , 1989 .

[7]  Pekka Korhonen,et al.  Structural Comparison of Data Envelopment Analysis and Multiple Objective Linear Programming , 1998 .

[8]  Henry Tulkens,et al.  On FDH efficiency analysis: Some methodological issues and applications to retail banking, courts, and urban transit , 1993 .

[9]  Daniel Vanderpooten,et al.  The interactive approach in MCDA: A technical framework and some basic conceptions , 1989 .

[10]  Marc Roubens,et al.  Advances in decision analysis , 1999 .

[11]  R. Banker.  Estimating most productive scale size using data envelopment analysis , 1984 .

[12]  Laurence A. Wolsey,et al.  Integer and Combinatorial Optimization , 1988 .

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

[14]  Pekka Korhonen.  Searching the Efficient Frontier in Data Envelopment Analysis , 1997 .

[15]  Wei Quanling.  USING DISPLACED CONE REPRESENTATION IN DEA MODELS FOR NONDOMINATED SOLUTIONS IN MULTIOBJECTIVE PROGRAMMING , 1997 .

[16]  Joe Zhu.  Data Envelopment Analysis with Preference Structure , 1996 .

[17]  Emmanuel Thanassoulis,et al.  Estimating preferred target input−output levels using data envelopment analysis , 1992 .

[18]  Laurence A. Wolsey,et al.  Integer programming duality: Price functions and sensitivity analysis , 1981, Math. Program..

[19]  Theodor J. Stewart,et al.  DEA and MCDA: Competing or Complementary Approaches? , 1999 .

[20]  Rajiv D. Banker,et al.  Estimation of returns to scale using data envelopment analysis , 1992 .

[21]  Boaz Golany,et al.  An Interactive MOLP Procedure for the Extension of DEA to Effectiveness Analysis , 1988 .

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

[23]  J. Wallenius,et al.  A Value Efficiency Approach to Incorporating Preference Information in Data Envelopment Analysis , 1999 .

[24]  Egon Balas.  A note on duality in disjunctive programming , 1977 .

[25]  N. Petersen.  Data Envelopment Analysis on a Relaxed Set of Assumptions , 1990 .