Advertisement

Soft Computing

, Volume 22, Issue 22, pp 7315–7324 | Cite as

A hybrid genetic algorithm and DEA approach for multi-criteria fixed cost allocation

  • Parag C. Pendharkar
Focus

Abstract

This paper proposes a hybrid genetic algorithm and data envelopment analysis framework for solving the fixed cost allocation (FCA) problem. The proposed framework allows managers to incorporate different FCA sub-objectives for efficient and inefficient decision-making units (DMUs) and solves the FCA problem so that the total entropy of resource allocation for efficient DMUs is maximized, and correlation between resource allocation and efficiency scores of inefficient DMUs is minimized. The FCA sub-objectives and solutions are kept consistent with the overall management objective of rewarding efficient DMUs by allocating to them fewer fixed cost resources. We illustrate the application of our approach using an example from the literature. The results of our study indicate that the solution values obtained in our study are superior to those obtained in other studies under various criteria. Additionally, the relative gap between the solution obtained using our procedure, and the upper bound on the optimal value is approximately 1%, which indicates that our solution is very close to the optimal solution.

Keywords

Multi-criteria decision making Data envelopment analysis Genetic algorithms Fixed cost allocation 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

Author Parag Pendharkar declares that he has no conflict of interest.

Human and animal rights

This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors.

Informed consent

No human subjects were involved so informed consent was not applicable.

References

  1. Amirteimoori A, Kordrostami S (2005) Allocating fixed costs and target setting: a DEA-based approach. Appl Math Comput 171:136–151. doi: 10.1016/j.amc.2005.01.064 MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. Banker RD, Kemerer CF (1999) Scale economies in new software development. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 15:1199–1205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Banker RD, Slaughter S (1997) A field study of scale economies in software maintenance. Manag Sci 43:1709–1725CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beasley J (2003) Allocating fixed costs and resources via data envelopment analysis. Eur J Oper Res 147:198–216. doi: 10.1016/S0377-2217(02)00244-8 CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. Charnes A, Cooper WW, Rhodes E (1978) Measuring the efficiency of decision making units. Eur J Oper Res 2:429–444MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cook WD, Kress M (1999) Characterizing an equitable allocation of shared costs: a DEA approach. Eur J Oper Res 119:652–661. doi: 10.1016/S0377-2217(98)00337-3 CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. Cook WD, Zhu J (2005) Allocation of shared costs among decision making units: a DEA approach. Comput Oper Res 32:2171–2178. doi: 10.1016/j.cor.2004.02.007 CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. Du J, Cook WD, Liang L, Zhu J (2014) Fixed cost and resource allocation based on DEA cross-efficiency. Eur J Oper Res 235:206–214MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dyson RG, Thannassoulis E (1988) Reducing weight flexibility in data envelopment analysis. J Oper Res Soc 39:563–576CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Glover F, Laguna M (1997) Tabu search. Kluwer Academic Publishers, NorwellCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Goldberg DE (1989) Genetic algorithms in search, optimization and machine learning. Addison-Wesley, ReadingzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. Goldberg DE, Deb K (1991) A comparative analysis of selection schemes used in genetic algorithms, G. Rawlins. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, Inc., San MateoGoogle Scholar
  13. Hakim S, Seifi A, Ghaemi A (2016) A bi-level formulation for DEA-based centralized resource allocation under efficiency constraints. Comput Ind Eng 93:28–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hosseinzadeh Lotfi F, Hatami-Marbini A, Agrell PJ et al (2013) Allocating fixed resources and setting targets using a common-weights DEA approach. Comput Ind Eng 64:631–640. doi: 10.1016/j.cie.2012.12.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Jahanshahloo G, Hosseinzadeh Lotfi F, Shoja N, Sanei M (2004) An alternative approach for equitable allocation of shared costs by using DEA. Appl Math Comput 153:267–274. doi: 10.1016/S0096-3003(03)00631-3 MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. Jaynes ET (1957) Information theory and statistical mechanics. Phys Rev 106:620–630MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kennedy J, Eberhart R (2001) Swarm intelligence. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, Inc., San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  18. Kirkpatrick S, Gelatt CD, Vecchi MP (1983) Optimization by simulated annealing. Science 220:671–679MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Li Y, Yang M, Chen Y et al (2013) Allocating a fixed cost based on data envelopment analysis and satisfaction degree. Omega 41:55–60. doi: 10.1016/j.omega.2011.02.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lin R (2011) Allocating fixed costs or resources and setting targets via data envelopment analysis. Appl Math Comput 217:6349–6358. doi: 10.1016/j.amc.2011.01.008 MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. Lin R (2011) Allocating fixed costs and common revenue via data envelopment analysis. Appl Math Comput 218:3680–3688. doi: 10.1016/j.amc.2011.09.011 MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. Pendharkar PC (2008) Maximum entropy and least square error minimizing procedures for estimating missing conditional probabilities in Bayesian networks. Comput Stat Data Anal 52:3583–3602. doi: 10.1016/j.csda.2007.11.013 MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. Pendharkar PC (2013) Genetic learning of virtual team member preferences. Comput Hum Behav 29:1787–1798CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ray S (2016) Cost efficiency in an Indian bank branch network: a centralized resource allocation model. Omega Int J Manag Sci 65:69–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Si X, Liang L, Jia G et al (2013) Proportional sharing and DEA in allocating the fixed cost. Appl Math Comput 219:6580–6590. doi: 10.1016/j.amc.2012.12.085 MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  26. Tsionas EG, Mamatzakis EC (2017) Adjustment costs in the technical efficiency: an application to global banking. Eur J Oper Res 256:640–649MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Yang Z, Zhang Q (2015) Resource allocation based on DEA and modified Shapley value. Appl Math Comput 263:280–286MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Business AdministrationPennsylvania State University at HarrisburgMiddletownUSA

Personalised recommendations