The curse of dimensionality of decision-making units: A simple approach to increase the discriminatory power of data envelopment analysis

Data envelopment analysis (DEA) is a technique for identifying the best practices of a given set of decision-making units (DMUs) whose performance is categorized by multiple performance metrics that are classified as inputs and outputs. Although DEA is regarded as non-parametric, the sample size can be an issue of great importance in determining the efficiency scores for the evaluated units, empirically, when the use of too many inputs and outputs may result in a significant number of DMUs being rated as efficient. In the DEA literature, empirical rules have been established to avoid too many DMUs being rated as efficient. These empirical thresholds relate the number of variables with the number of observations. When the number of DMUs is below the empirical threshold levels, the discriminatory power among the DMUs may weaken, which leads to the data set not being suitable to apply traditional DEA models. In the literature, the lack of discrimination is often referred to as the “curse of dimensionality”. To overcome this drawback, we provide a simple approach to increase the discriminatory power between efficient and inefficient DMUs using the well-known pure DEA model, which considers either inputs only or outputs only. Three real cases, namely printed circuit boards, Greek banks, and quality of life in Fortune’s best cities, have been discussed to illustrate the proposed approach.

[1]  Cliff T. Ragsdale,et al.  Spreadsheet modeling and decision analysis , 1996 .

[2]  M. J. Rezaeiani,et al.  Ranking efficient decision making units in data envelopment analysis based on reference frontier share , 2018, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[3]  Guido L. Geerts,et al.  A design science research methodology and its application to accounting information systems research , 2011, Int. J. Account. Inf. Syst..

[4]  Roel Wieringa,et al.  Design Science Methodology for Information Systems and Software Engineering , 2014, Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

[5]  Li Qi,et al.  Two-level DEA approaches in research evaluation , 2008 .

[6]  Yongjun Li,et al.  Increasing the Discriminatory Power of DEA Using Shannon's Entropy , 2014, Entropy.

[7]  W. Cooper,et al.  Data Envelopment Analysis: A Comprehensive Text with Models, Applications, References and DEA-Solver Software , 1999 .

[8]  Samir Chatterjee,et al.  A Design Science Research Methodology for Information Systems Research , 2008 .

[9]  Janet M. Wagner,et al.  Stepwise selection of variables in data envelopment analysis: Procedures and managerial perspectives , 2007, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[10]  Wenbin Liu,et al.  Increasing discrimination of DEA evaluation by utilizing distances to anti-efficient frontiers , 2016, Comput. Oper. Res..

[11]  Mukesh Kumar,et al.  Measuring the efficiency of assembled printed circuit boards with undesirable outputs using data envelopment analysis , 2012 .

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

[13]  P. Andersen,et al.  A procedure for ranking efficient units in data envelopment analysis , 1993 .

[14]  L. Cherchye,et al.  Legitimately Diverse, Yet Comparable: On Synthesizing Social Inclusion Performance in the EU , 2004 .

[15]  Lawrence M. Seiford,et al.  INFEASIBILITY OF SUPER EFFICIENCY DATA ENVELOPMENT ANALYSIS MODELS , 1999 .

[16]  Andrew Hughes,et al.  Sensitivity and dimensionality tests of DEA efficiency scores , 2004, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[17]  Ioannis E. Tsolas,et al.  Satisficing data envelopment analysis: a Bayesian approach for peer mining in the banking sector , 2017, Annals of Operations Research.

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

[19]  Nicole Adler,et al.  Improving discrimination in data envelopment analysis: PCA-DEA or variable reduction , 2010, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

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

[21]  Hiroshi Morita,et al.  SELECTING INPUTS AND OUTPUTS IN DATA ENVELOPMENT ANALYSIS BY DESIGNING STATISTICAL EXPERIMENTS( Operations Research for Performance Evaluation) , 2009 .

[22]  Joe Zhu,et al.  Multidimensional quality-of-life measure with an application to Fortune's best cities , 2001 .

[23]  Peter Smith,et al.  Model misspecification in Data Envelopment Analysis , 1997, Ann. Oper. Res..

[24]  Boaz Golany,et al.  Evaluation of deregulated airline networks using data envelopment analysis combined with principal component analysis with an application to Western Europe , 2001, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[25]  Babak Rezaee,et al.  Improving discriminating power in data envelopment models based on deviation variables framework , 2019, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[26]  Jesús T. Pastor,et al.  A Statistical Test for Nested Radial Dea Models , 2002, Oper. Res..

[27]  T. R. Nunamaker,et al.  Using data envelopment analysis to measure the efficiency of non‐profit organizations: A critical evaluation , 1985 .

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

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

[30]  W. Liu,et al.  Measuring the performance of nations at the Olympic Games using DEA models with different preferences , 2009, J. Oper. Res. Soc..

[31]  Yaakov Roll,et al.  An application procedure for DEA , 1989 .

[32]  C Serrano Cinca,et al.  Selecting DEA specifications and ranking units via PCA , 2004 .

[33]  Larry Jenkins,et al.  A multivariate statistical approach to reducing the number of variables in data envelopment analysis , 2003, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[34]  Ioannis E. Tsolas,et al.  Incorporating risk into bank efficiency: A satisficing DEA approach to assess the Greek banking crisis , 2015, Expert Syst. Appl..

[35]  C. Lovell,et al.  One Market, One Number? A Composite Indicator Assessment of EU Internal Market Dynamics , 2005 .

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

[37]  Yongjun Li,et al.  Increasing the discriminatory power of DEA in the presence of the undesirable outputs and large dimensionality of data sets with PCA , 2009, Expert Syst. Appl..

[38]  Lawrence M. Seiford,et al.  An acceptance system decision rule with data envelopment analysis , 1998, Comput. Oper. Res..

[39]  Boaz Golany,et al.  Including principal component weights to improve discrimination in data envelopment analysis , 2002, J. Oper. Res. Soc..

[40]  R. Raab,et al.  Identifying Subareas that Comprise a Greater Metropolitan Area: The Criterion of County Relative Efficiency , 2002 .

[41]  Cláudia S. Sarrico,et al.  Pitfalls and protocols in DEA , 2001, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[42]  Joseph Sarkis,et al.  A comparative analysis of DEA as a discrete alternative multiple criteria decision tool , 2000, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[43]  Jesús T. Pastor,et al.  Radial DEA models without inputs or without outputs , 1999, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[44]  Alan R. Hevner,et al.  Design Science in Information Systems Research , 2004, MIS Q..

[45]  Carsten Homburg,et al.  Using data envelopment analysis to benchmark activities , 2001 .

[46]  Zilla Sinuany-Stern,et al.  Combining ranking scales and selecting variables in the DEA context: the case of industrial branches , 1998, Comput. Oper. Res..