Internal resource waste and centralization degree in two-stage systems: An efficiency analysis

Internal resource waste refers to the waste in the intermediate resources between the upstream stage and downstream stage in a production or service system. This study examines a system with a two-stage structure, in which the outputs from the first stage are taken as the inputs for the second stage. Two-stage systems can exist in centralized, decentralized, or mixed organizational modes. In this paper, we propose two-stage DEA models considering a degree of centralization that makes it possible to measure internal resource waste in different system modes. Some managerial insights are tested and verified from the perspective of efficiency analysis. We find that: 1) when there is only one intermediate measure in a centralized two-stage system, internal resource waste can be eliminated completely, and 2) a higher degree of centralization in a two-stage system can lead to less internal resource waste and more expected outputs. Finally, we present a numerical example and two practical real-world examples that illustrate our approach and findings.

[1]  Joe Zhu,et al.  Partial Input to Output Impacts in DEA: Production Considerations and Resource Sharing among Business Subunits , 2013 .

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

[3]  Herbert F. Lewis,et al.  Resolving the deposit dilemma: A new DEA bank efficiency model , 2011 .

[4]  Helu Xiao,et al.  Estimation of portfolio efficiency via DEA , 2015 .

[5]  Aude Deville,et al.  Branch Banking Network Assessment Using DEA: A Benchmarking Analysis — A Note , 2009 .

[6]  Joe Zhu,et al.  A bargaining game model for measuring performance of two-stage network structures , 2011, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[7]  Anthony D. Ross,et al.  An integrated benchmarking approach to distribution center performance using DEA modeling , 2002 .

[8]  Joe Zhu,et al.  Best-performing US mutual fund families from 1993 to 2008: Evidence from a novel two-stage DEA model for efficiency decomposition , 2012 .

[9]  Joe Zhu,et al.  Measuring performance of two-stage network structures by DEA: A review and future perspective , 2010 .

[10]  K. Ambrose,et al.  Principles of management. , 2005, Emergency nurse : the journal of the RCN Accident and Emergency Nursing Association.

[11]  Joe Zhu,et al.  Equivalence in two-stage DEA approaches , 2009, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[12]  R. Matousek,et al.  Efficiency of Turkish banking: Two-stage network system. Variable returns to scale model , 2011 .

[13]  Chiang Kao,et al.  Efficiency decomposition in two-stage data envelopment analysis: An application to non-life insurance companies in Taiwan , 2008, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[14]  Joe Zhu,et al.  Measuring Information Technology's Indirect Impact on Firm Performance , 2004, Inf. Technol. Manag..

[15]  Chiang Kao,et al.  Decomposition of technical and scale efficiencies in two-stage production systems , 2011, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[16]  A. Morrison,et al.  Deposit insurance and subsidized recapitalizations , 2011 .

[17]  Kaoru Tone,et al.  Decomposing Efficiency and Returns to Scale in Two-Stage Network Systems , 2014 .

[18]  Chyan Yang,et al.  Managerial efficiency in Taiwan bank branches: A network DEA , 2012 .

[19]  Kaoru Tone,et al.  Decomposing technical efficiency and scale elasticity in two-stage network DEA , 2014, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[20]  Lawrence M. Seiford,et al.  Data envelopment analysis (DEA) - Thirty years on , 2009, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[21]  Joe Zhu,et al.  DEA models for supply chain efficiency evaluation , 2006, Ann. Oper. Res..

[22]  Joe Zhu,et al.  Deriving the DEA frontier for two-stage processes , 2010, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[23]  Rosemary R. Fullerton,et al.  The production performance benefits from JIT implementation , 2001 .

[24]  K. Amasaka Applying New JIT-Toyota's global production strategy: Epoch-making innovation of the work environment , 2005 .

[25]  Hong Yan,et al.  Network DEA model for supply chain performance evaluation , 2011, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[26]  L. Seiford,et al.  Profitability and Marketability of the Top 55 U.S. Commercial Banks , 1999 .