A new DEA model for technology selection in the presence of ordinal data

  • Gholam R. Amin
  • Ali Emrouznejad


This paper suggests a data envelopment analysis (DEA) model for selecting the most efficient alternative in advanced manufacturing technology in the presence of both cardinal and ordinal data. The paper explains the problem of using an iterative method for finding the most efficient alternative and proposes a new DEA model without the need of solving a series of LPs. A numerical example illustrates the model, and an application in technology selection with multi-inputs/multi-outputs shows the usefulness of the proposed approach.


Technology selection Data envelopment analysis (DEA) Ordinal data Decision-making units (DMUs) 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Amin GR, Toloo M, Sohrabi B (2006) An improved MCDM DEA model for technology selection. Int J Prod Res 44:2681–2686zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Amin GR, Emrouznejad A (2007) A note on DEA models in technology selection: an improvement of Karsak and Ahiska's approach. Int J Prod Res 45:2313–2316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Amin GR (2008) A note on an improved MCDM DEA model for technology selection. Int J Prod Res 46(24):7073–7075CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Karsak EE, Ahiska SS (2005) Practical common weight multi-criteria decision-making approach with an improved discriminating power for technology selection. Int J Prod Res 43:1537–1554zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Karsak EE, Ahiska SS (2008) Improved common weight MCDM model for technology selection. Int J Prod Res 46(24):6933–6944CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Talluri S, Yoon KP (2000) A cone-ratio DEA approach for AMT justification. Int J Prod Econ 66:119–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Farzipoor Saen R (2009) Technology selection in the presence of imprecise data, weight restrictions, and nondiscretionary factors. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 41(7–8):827–838CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Braglia M, Petroni A (1999) Evaluating and selecting investments in industrial robots. Int J Prod Res 37:4157–4178zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cook WD, Kress M, Seiford LM (1996) Data envelopment analysis in the presence of both quantitative and qualitative factors. J Oper Res Soc 47:945–953zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Karsak EE (2008) Using data envelopment analysis for evaluating flexible manufacturing systems in the presence of imprecise data. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 35(9–10):867–874CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ertay T, Ruan D, Tuzkaya UR (2006) Integrating data envelopment analysis and analytic hierarchy for the facility layout design in manufacturing systems. Info Sci 176:237–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Wang YM, Chin KS (2009) A new approach for the selection of advanced manufacturing technologies: DEA with double frontiers. Int J Prod Res 47(23):6663–6679zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Azadeh A, Anvari M, Ziaei B, Sadeghi K (2010) An integrated fuzzy DEA–fuzzy C-means–simulation for optimization of operator allocation in cellular manufacturing systems. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 46(1–4):361–375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Chuu SJ (2009) Selecting the advanced manufacturing technology using fuzzy multiple attributes group decision making with multiple fuzzy information. Comput Ind Eng 57(3):1033–1042CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Amin GR, Toloo M, Sheikhan M (2010) Inputs and outputs scaling in advanced manufacturing technology: theory and application. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 50(9–12):1235–1241Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Cooper WW, Seiford LM, Tone K (2006) Introduction to data envelopment analysis and its uses with DEA-solver software and references. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kahraman C, Kaya I, Çevik S, Ates NY, Gülbay M (2008) Fuzzy multi-criteria evaluation of industrial robot systems using TOPSIS. In: Kahraman C (ed) Fuzzy multi-criteria decision making, Springer Optimization and Its Applications, 2008, Volume 16, I, 159–186Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Operations Management and Business Statistics, College of Commerce and EconomicsSultan Qaboos UniversityMuscatOman
  2. 2.Aston Business SchoolAston UniversityBirminghamUK

Personalised recommendations