Determining common weights in data envelopment analysis based on the satisfaction degree

The traditional data envelopment analysis model allows the decision-making units (DMUs) to evaluate their maximum efficiency values using their most favourable weights. This kind of evaluation with total weight flexibility may prevent the DMUs from being fully ranked and make the evaluation results unacceptable to the DMUs. To solve these problems, first, we introduce the concept of satisfaction degree of a DMU in relation to a common set of weights. Then a common-weight evaluation approach, which contains a max–min model and two algorithms, is proposed based on the satisfaction degrees of the DMUs. The max–min model accompanied by our Algorithm 1 can generate for the DMUs a set of common weights that maximizes the least satisfaction degrees among the DMUs. Furthermore, our Algorithm 2 can ensure that the generated common set of weights is unique and that the final satisfaction degrees of the DMUs constitute a Pareto-optimal solution. All of these factors make the evaluation results more satisfied and acceptable by all the DMUs. Finally, results from the proposed approach are contrasted with those of some previous methods for two published examples: efficiency evaluation of 17 forest districts in Taiwan and R&D project selection.

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

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

[3]  Mehdi Toloo,et al.  An improved MCDM DEA model for technology selection , 2006 .

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

[5]  J. Cubbin,et al.  Public Sector Efficiency Measurement: Applications of Data Envelopment Analysis , 1992 .

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

[7]  Liang Liang,et al.  Allocating a fixed cost based on data envelopment analysis and satisfaction degree , 2013 .

[8]  W. Cook,et al.  Preference voting and project ranking using DEA and cross-evaluation , 1996 .

[9]  Adel Hatami-Marbini,et al.  Allocating fixed resources and setting targets using a common-weights DEA approach , 2013, Comput. Ind. Eng..

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

[11]  Chiang Kao,et al.  Reorganization of forest districts via efficiency measurement , 1992 .

[12]  Yaakov Roll,et al.  A Dea Model For Measuring The Relative Eeficiency Of Highway Maintenance Patrols , 1990 .

[13]  B. Golany,et al.  Controlling Factor Weights in Data Envelopment Analysis , 1991 .

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

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

[16]  Ray Y. Zhong,et al.  Allocation of emission permits using DEA: centralised and individual points of view , 2014 .

[17]  Adel Hatami-Marbini,et al.  A Common Set of Weight Approach Using an Ideal Decision Making Unit in Data Envelopment Analysis , 2012 .

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

[19]  Zilla Sinuany-Stern,et al.  DEA and the discriminant analysis of ratios for ranking units , 1998, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[20]  Jie Wu,et al.  Ranking approach of cross-efficiency based on improved TOPSIS technique , 2011 .

[21]  E. Ertugrul Karsak,et al.  Improved common weight MCDM model for technology selection , 2008 .

[22]  Kwai-Sang Chin,et al.  A note on the application of the data envelopment analytic hierarchy process for supplier selection , 2009 .

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

[24]  S. Zionts,et al.  Programming with linear fractional functionals , 1968 .

[25]  Bo Guo,et al.  Determining Common Weights in Data Envelopment Analysis with Shannon's Entropy , 2014, Entropy.

[26]  Ahmad Makui,et al.  A compromise solution approach for finding common weights in DEA: an improvement to Kao and Hung's approach , 2010, J. Oper. Res. Soc..

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

[28]  Muhittin Oral,et al.  A methodology for collective evaluation and selection of industrial R&D projects , 1991 .

[29]  Jie Wu,et al.  Performance ranking of units considering ideal and anti-ideal DMU with common weights , 2013 .

[30]  Fuh-Hwa Franklin Liu,et al.  Ranking of units on the DEA frontier with common weights , 2008, Comput. Oper. Res..

[31]  Alireza Alinezhad,et al.  Finding common weights based on the DM's preference information , 2011, J. Oper. Res. Soc..

[32]  Liang Liang,et al.  New approach to determine common weights in DEA efficiency evaluation model , 2010 .

[33]  Ya Chen,et al.  Efficiency ranking with common set of weights based on data envelopment analysis and satisfaction degree , 2014, Int. J. Inf. Decis. Sci..

[34]  C. Kao,et al.  Data envelopment analysis with common weights: the compromise solution approach , 2005, J. Oper. Res. Soc..

[35]  B. Golany,et al.  Alternate methods of treating factor weights in DEA , 1993 .

[36]  Liang Liang,et al.  Internal resource waste and centralization degree in two-stage systems: An efficiency analysis , 2016 .