A survey on measuring efficiency through the determination of the least distance in data envelopment analysis

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to provide an outline of the major contributions in the literature on the determination of the least distance in data envelopment analysis (DEA). The focus herein is primarily on methodological developments. Specifically, attention is mainly paid to modeling aspects, computational features, the satisfaction of properties and duality. Finally, some promising avenues of future research on this topic are stated. Design/methodology/approach DEA is a methodology based on mathematical programming for the assessment of relative efficiency of a set of decision-making units (DMUs) that use several inputs to produce several outputs. DEA is classified in the literature as a non-parametric method because it does not assume a particular functional form for the underlying production function and presents, in this sense, some outstanding properties: the efficiency of firms may be evaluated independently on the market prices of the inputs used and outputs produced; it may be easily used with multiple inputs and outputs; a single score of efficiency for each assessed organization is obtained; this technique ranks organizations based on relative efficiency; and finally, it yields benchmarking information. DEA models provide both benchmarking information and efficiency scores for each of the evaluated units when it is applied to a dataset of observations and variables (inputs and outputs). Without a doubt, this benchmarking information gives DEA a distinct advantage over other efficiency methodologies, such as stochastic frontier analysis (SFA). Technical inefficiency is typically measured in DEA as the distance between the observed unit and a “benchmarking” target on the estimated piece-wise linear efficient frontier. The choice of this target is critical for assessing the potential performance of each DMU in the sample, as well as for providing information on how to increase its performance. However, traditional DEA models yield targets that are determined by the “furthest” efficient projection to the evaluated DMU. The projected point on the efficient frontier obtained as such may not be a representative projection for the judged unit, and consequently, some authors in the literature have suggested determining closest targets instead. The general argument behind this idea is that closer targets suggest directions of enhancement for the inputs and outputs of the inefficient units that may lead them to the efficiency with less effort. Indeed, authors like Aparicio et al. (2007) have shown, in an application on airlines, that it is possible to find substantial differences between the targets provided by applying the criterion used by the traditional DEA models, and those obtained when the criterion of closeness is utilized for determining projection points on the efficient frontier. The determination of closest targets is connected to the calculation of the least distance from the evaluated unit to the efficient frontier of the reference technology. In fact, the former is usually computed through solving mathematical programming models associated with minimizing some type of distance (e.g. Euclidean). In this particular respect, the main contribution in the literature is the paper by Briec (1998) on Holder distance functions, where formally technical inefficiency to the “weakly” efficient frontier is defined through mathematical distances. Findings All the interesting features of the determination of closest targets from a benchmarking point of view have generated, in recent times, the increasing interest of researchers in the calculation of the least distance to evaluate technical inefficiency (Aparicio et al., 2014a). So, in this paper, we present a general classification of published contributions, mainly from a methodological perspective, and additionally, we indicate avenues for further research on this topic. The approaches that we cite in this paper differ in the way that the idea of similarity is made operative. Similarity is, in this sense, implemented as the closeness between the values of the inputs and/or outputs of the assessed units and those of the obtained projections on the frontier of the reference production possibility set. Similarity may be measured through multiple distances and efficiency measures. In turn, the aim is to globally minimize DEA model slacks to determine the closest efficient targets. However, as we will show later in the text, minimizing a mathematical distance in DEA is not an easy task, as it is equivalent to minimizing the distance to the complement of a polyhedral set, which is not a convex set. This complexity will justify the existence of different alternatives for solving these types of models. Originality/value As we are aware, this is the first survey in this topic.

[1]  Patrick T. Harker,et al.  Projections Onto Efficient Frontiers: Theoretical and Computational Extensions to DEA , 1999 .

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

[3]  Peter Nijkamp,et al.  A distance friction minimization approach in data envelopment analysis: A comparative study on airport efficiency , 2010, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[4]  Israfil Roshdi,et al.  DIRECTIONAL CLOSEST-TARGET BASED MEASURES OF EFFICIENCY: HOLDER NORMS APPROACH , 2013 .

[5]  Tim Coelli,et al.  A multi-stage methodology for the solution of orientated DEA models , 1998, Oper. Res. Lett..

[6]  Juan Aparicio,et al.  Decomposing technical inefficiency using the principle of least action , 2014, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[7]  Marc Nerlove,et al.  Estimation and identification of Cobb-Douglas production functions , 1965 .

[8]  Juan Aparicio,et al.  Benchmarking and Data Envelopment Analysis. An Approach based on Metaheuristics , 2014, ICCS.

[9]  David P. Dobkin,et al.  The quickhull algorithm for convex hulls , 1996, TOMS.

[10]  Juan Aparicio,et al.  Application of Genetic Algorithms to Determine Closest Targets in Data Envelopment Analysis , 2013, DCAI.

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

[12]  Kazuyuki Sekitani,et al.  Efficiency measurement with a non-convex free disposal hull technology , 2016, J. Oper. Res. Soc..

[13]  Walter Briec,et al.  Hölder Distance Function and Measurement of Technical Efficiency , 1999 .

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

[15]  Juan Aparicio,et al.  Using Genetic Algorithms for Maximizing Technical Efficiency in Data Envelopment Analysis , 2015, ICCS.

[16]  Kazuyuki Sekitani,et al.  Distance optimization approach to ratio-form efficiency measures in data envelopment analysis , 2014 .

[17]  Juan Aparicio,et al.  The relevance of DEA benchmarking information and the Least-Distance Measure: Comment , 2010, Math. Comput. Model..

[18]  M. Farrell The Measurement of Productive Efficiency , 1957 .

[19]  J. Pastor,et al.  On how to properly calculate the Euclidean distance-based measure in DEA , 2014 .

[20]  F. Hosseinzadeh Lotfi,et al.  Finding strong defining hyperplanes of Production Possibility Set , 2007, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[21]  Jesús T. Pastor,et al.  An enhanced DEA Russell graph efficiency measure , 1999, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[22]  O. H. Brownlee,et al.  ACTIVITY ANALYSIS OF PRODUCTION AND ALLOCATION , 1952 .

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

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

[25]  F. Hosseinzadeh Lotfi,et al.  Finding weak defining hyperplanes of PPS of the BCC model , 2010 .

[26]  R. Färe,et al.  The measurement of efficiency of production , 1985 .

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

[28]  Kaoru Tone,et al.  A slacks-based measure of super-efficiency in data envelopment analysis , 2001, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[29]  Atsuhiko Kai,et al.  LEAST DISTANCE BASED INEFFICIENCY MEASURES ON THE PARETO-EFFICIENT FRONTIER IN DEA , 2012 .

[30]  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 .

[31]  Ole Bent Olesen,et al.  Identification and Use of Efficient Faces and Facets in DEA , 2003 .

[32]  Chulwoo Baek,et al.  The relevance of DEA benchmarking information and the Least-Distance Measure , 2009, Math. Comput. Model..

[33]  Cláudia S. Sarrico,et al.  Data Envelopment Analysis: A Comprehensive Text with Models, Applications, References and DEA-Solver Software , 2001, J. Oper. Res. Soc..

[34]  W. Briec,et al.  Technical efficiency and distance to a reverse convex set , 1999, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

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

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

[37]  Kaoru Tone,et al.  A slacks-based measure of efficiency in data envelopment analysis , 1997, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[38]  Juan Aparicio,et al.  The determination of the least distance to the strongly efficient frontier in Data Envelopment Analysis oriented models: Modelling and computational aspects ☆ , 2016 .

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

[40]  Eduardo González,et al.  From efficiency measurement to efficiency improvement: The choice of a relevant benchmark , 2001, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[41]  Victor R Fuchs,et al.  Health Care Expenditures Reexamined , 2005, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[42]  A. Charnes,et al.  Sensitivity and stability of efficiency classifications in Data Envelopment Analysis , 1996 .

[43]  R. R. Russell,et al.  Measures of technical efficiency , 1985 .

[44]  R. Robert Russell,et al.  Axiomatic foundations of efficiency measurement on data-generated technologies , 2009 .

[45]  Juan Aparicio,et al.  Benchmarking in Data Envelopment Analysis: An Approach Based on Genetic Algorithms and Parallel Programming , 2014, Adv. Oper. Res..

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

[47]  Laurens Cherchye,et al.  A comment on multi-stage DEA methodology , 2001, Oper. Res. Lett..

[48]  F. Hosseinzadeh Lotfi,et al.  Finding the piecewise linear frontier production function in data envelopment analysis , 2005, Appl. Math. Comput..

[49]  Fernando Borrás,et al.  Benchmarking in Healthcare: An Approach Based on Closest Targets , 2014 .

[50]  Alireza Amirteimoori,et al.  A Euclidean distance-based measure of efficiency in data envelopment analysis , 2010 .

[51]  Akiko Takeda,et al.  On measuring the inefficiency with the inner-product norm in data envelopment analysis , 2001, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[52]  Rolf Färe,et al.  Measuring the technical efficiency of production , 1978 .

[53]  Juan Aparicio,et al.  A well-defined efficiency measure for dealing with closest targets in DEA , 2013, Appl. Math. Comput..

[54]  R. Färe,et al.  Profit, Directional Distance Functions, and Nerlovian Efficiency , 1998 .

[55]  Walter Briec,et al.  Metric Distance Function and Profit: Some Duality Results , 1999 .

[56]  Sebastián Lozano,et al.  Determining a sequence of targets in DEA , 2005, J. Oper. Res. Soc..

[57]  David Parkin,et al.  Economic Analysis in Health Care , 2007 .