Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Weight-restricted DEA in action: from expert opinions to mathematical models

  • Case-oriented Paper
  • Published:
Journal of the Operational Research Society

Abstract

A common problem in real-world DEA applications is that all inputs and outputs may not be equally relevant to the organizations analysed and their stakeholders. In many cases, one is also faced with a data set where the decision-making units do not clearly outnumber the quantity of inputs and outputs. This study reports an application where DEA embellished with weight restrictions is used to analyse the efficiency of public organizations to overcome the above-mentioned problems. Whereas there are numerous documented applications of weight-restricted DEA in the literature, the process of defining the actual weight restrictions is seldom described. However, that part — defining the actual weights restrictions based on price, preference or value information — is the most difficult step involved in using the weight-restricted DEA. Comparing various weight restriction schemes with real data suggests that the ability to consider and include preference information in DEA adds important insights into the analysis.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Figure 1
Figure 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Charnes A, Cooper WW and Rhodes E (1978). Measuring efficiency of decision making units. Eur J Opl Res 2: 429–444.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allen R, Athanassopoulos A, Dyson RG and Thanassoulis E (1997). Weights restrictions and value judgements in data envelopment analysis: evolution, development and future directions. Ann Opn Res 73: 13–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pedraja-Chaparro F, Salinas-Jimenez J and Smith P (1997). On the role of weight restrictions in Data Envelopment Analysis. J Prod Anal 8: 215–230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roll Y and Golany B (1993). Alternate methods of treating factor weights in DEA. Omega 21: 99–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seiford LM (1996). Data envelopment analysis: the evolution of the state of the art (1978–1995). J Prod Anal 7: 99–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kao C and Yang YC (1991). Measuring the efficiency of forest management. For Sci 37: 1239–1252.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kao C and Yang YC (1992). Reorganization of forest districts via efficiency measurement. Eur J Opl Res 58: 356–362.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kao C (1998). Measuring the efficiency of forest districts with multiple working circles. J Opl Res Soc 49: 583–590.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kao C (2000). Measuring the performance improvement of Taiwan forests after reorganization. For Sci 46: 577–584.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kao C, Chang P and Hwang SN (1993). Data envelopment analysis in measuring the efficiency of forest management. J Environ Mngt 38: 73–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Viitala EJ and Hänninen H (1998). Measuring the efficiency of public forestry organizations. For Sci 44: 298–307.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bogetoft P, Thorsen BJ and Strange N (2003). Efficiency and merger gains in the Danish forestry extension service. For Sci 49: 585–595.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dyson RG and Thanassoulis E (1988). Reducing weight flexibility in data envelopment analysis. J Opl Res Soc 39: 563–576.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roll Y, Cook WD and Golany B (1991). Controlling factor weights in data envelopment analysis. IIE Trans 23: 2–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Golany B (1988). A note on including ordinal relations among multipliers in data envelopment analysis. Mngt Sci 34: 1029–1033.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ali AI, Cook WD and Seiford LM (1991). Strict vs. weak ordinal relations for multipliers in data envelopment analysis. Mngt Sci 37: 733–738.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson RG, Singleton Jr. FR, Thrall RM and Smith BA (1986). Comparative site evaluation for locating a high-energy physics lab in Texas. Interfaces 16 (6): 35–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson RG, Langemeier LM, Lee CT, Lee E and Thrall RM (1990). The role of multiplier bounds in efficiency analysis with application to Kansas farming. J Econom 46: 93–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Halme M and Korhonen P (2000). Restricting weights in value efficiency analysis. Eur J Opl Res 126: 175–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Banker RD, Charnes A and Cooper WW (1984). Some models for estimating technical and scale inefficiencies in data envelopment analysis. Mngt Sci 30: 1078–1092.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wong YHB and Beasley JE (1990). Restricting weight flexibility in data envelopment analysis. J Opl Res Soc 41: 829–835.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Charnes A, Cooper WW, Huang ZM and Sun DB (1990). Polyhedral cone-ratio DEA models with an illustrative application to large commercial banks. J Econom 46: 73–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Halme M, Joro T, Korhonen P, Salo S and Wallenius J (1999). A value efficiency approach to incorporating preference information in data envelopment analysis. Mngt Sci 45: 103–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Golany B and Roll YA (1994). Incorporating standards via DEA. In: Charnes A, Cooper WW, Lewin AY and Seiford LM (eds). Data Envelopment Analysis: Theory, Methodology and Applications. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, pp 313–328.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Allen R and Thanassoulis E (2004). Increasing envelopment in data envelopment analysis. Eur J Opl Res 154: 363–379.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Professor Pekka Korhonen and an anonymous reviewer for helpful comments and Mr Tapani Honkanen and Mr Hannu Niemelä from the National Forestry Service for their assistance in providing data.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Alberta School of Business, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada

    T Joro

  2. Finnish Forest Research Institute, Helsinki, Finland

    E-J Viitala

Authors
  1. T Joro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. E-J Viitala
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to T Joro.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Joro, T., Viitala, EJ. Weight-restricted DEA in action: from expert opinions to mathematical models. J Oper Res Soc 55, 814–821 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jors.2601752

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jors.2601752

Keywords

Search

Navigation