Advertisement

Central European Journal of Operations Research

, Volume 27, Issue 4, pp 1221–1244 | Cite as

The network data envelopment analysis models for non-homogenous decision making units based on the sun network structure

  • Qingyou Yan
  • Fei Zhao
  • Xu Wang
  • Guoliang Yang
  • Tomas BaležentisEmail author
  • Dalia Streimikiene
Original Paper

Abstract

This paper seeks to propose a network data envelopment analysis (DEA) framework for analysis of heterogeneous systems. The paper introduces the dummy connector so that every network structure can be transformed into the sun network structure. In his case, the dummy connector allows for heterogeneity of the decision making units (DMUs) in terms of their inner structure. Based on the sun network structure, the static and dynamic network DEA models are established. Thus, DMUs with different structures can be evaluated according to the static and dynamic network DEA models. The efficiency of each sub-unit, each period and each sub-unit in each period can also be obtained. Two simulated examples are presented using the static and dynamic DEA models.

Keywords

Data envelopment analysis (DEA) Network DEA Dynamic DEA Dummy connector Heterogeneous structures Sun network structure 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research is funded by the European Social Fund according to the activity ‘Improvement of researchers’ qualification by implementing world-class R&D projects’ of Measure No. 09.3.3-LMT-K-712. This research was supported by the 111 Project (No. B18021).

References

  1. Barat M, Tohidi G, Sanei M (2018) DEA for nonhomogeneous mixed networks. Asia Pac Manag Rev.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmrv.2018.02.003 Google Scholar
  2. Charnes A, Cooper WW, Rhodes E (1978) Measuring the efficiency of decision making units. Eur J Oper Res 2(6):429–444Google Scholar
  3. Charnes A, Cooper WW, Golany B, Halek R, Klopp G, Schmitz E, Thomas D (1986) Two-phase data envelopment analysis approaches to policy evaluation and management of army recruiting activities: tradeoffs between joint services and army advertising. Technical Report, Research Report CCS, 532Google Scholar
  4. Chen Y, Zhu J (2004) Measuring information technology’s indirect impact on firm performance. Inf Technol Manag 5(1–2):9–22Google Scholar
  5. Chen K, Zhu J (2018) Scale efficiency in two-stage network DEA. J Oper Res Soc.  https://doi.org/10.1080/01605682.2017.1421850 Google Scholar
  6. Chen Y, Cook WD, Li N, Zhu J (2009) Additive efficiency decomposition in two-DEA. Eur J Oper Res 196(3):1170–1176Google Scholar
  7. Chen Y, Cook WD, Zhu J (2010) Deriving the DEA frontier for the two-stage process. Eur J Oper Res 202(1):138–142Google Scholar
  8. Chen CL, Zhu J, Yu JY, Noori H (2012) A new methodology for evaluating sustainable product design performance with two-stage network data envelopment analysis. Eur J Oper Res 221(2):348–359Google Scholar
  9. Chen Y, Cook WD, Kao C, Zhu J (2013) Network DEA pitfall: divisional efficiency and frontier projection under general network structures. Eur J Oper Res 226(3):507–515Google Scholar
  10. Cook WD, Seiford LM (2011) Data envelopment analysis (DEA)—thirty years on. Eur J Oper Res 212(2):411–416Google Scholar
  11. Cook WD, Liang L, Zhu J (2010) Measuring performance of two-stage network structures by DEA: a review and future perspective. Omega 38(6):423–430Google Scholar
  12. Du J, Liang L, Chen Y, Cook WD, Zhu J (2011) A bargaining game model for measuring performance of two-stage network structures. Eur J Oper Res 210(2):390–397Google Scholar
  13. Emrouznejad A, Parker BR, Tavares G (2008) Evaluation of research in efficiency and productivity: a survey and analysis of the first 30 years of scholar literature in DEA. Socio Econ Plan Sci 42(3):151–157Google Scholar
  14. Fang ST, Ji X, Ji XH, Wu J (2018) Sustainable urbanization performance evaluation and benchmarking: an efficiency perspective. Manag Env Qual 29(2):240–254.  https://doi.org/10.1108/MEQ-07-2017-0063 Google Scholar
  15. Färe R, Grosskopf S, Brannlund R (1996) Intertemporal production frontiers: with dynamic DEA. Kluwer Academic, BostonGoogle Scholar
  16. Färe R, Grabowski R, Grosskopf S, Kraft S (1997) Efficiency of a fixed but allocatable input: a non-parametric approach. Econ Lett 56(2):187–193Google Scholar
  17. Guo C, Shureshjani RA, Foroughi AA, Zhu J (2017) Decomposition weights and overall efficiency in two-stage additive network DEA. Eur J Oper Res 257(3):896–906Google Scholar
  18. Jablonsky J (2016) Efficiency analysis in multi-period systems: an application to performance evaluation in Czech higher education. Cent Eur J Oper Res 24:283–296.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10100-015-0401-z Google Scholar
  19. Jablonsky J (2018) Ranking of countries in sporting events using two-stage data envelopment analysis models: a case of Summer Olympic Games 2016. Cent Eur J Oper Res.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10100-018-0537-8 Google Scholar
  20. Kao C (2014) Network data envelopment analysis: a review. Eur J Oper Res 239:1–16Google Scholar
  21. Kapelko M (2018) Measuring inefficiency for specific inputs using data envelopment analysis: evidence from construction industry in Spain and Portugal. Cent Eur J Oper Res 26:43–66.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10100-017-0473-z Google Scholar
  22. Keshavarz Ghorabaee M, Amiri M, Olfat L, Khatami Firouzabadi SMA (2017) Designing a multi-product multi-period supply chain network with reverse logistics and multiple objectives under uncertainty. Technol Econ Dev Eco 23(3):520–548Google Scholar
  23. Li H, Chen C, Cook WD, Zhang J, Zhu J (2018) Two-stage network DEA: who is the leader? Omega 74:15–19Google Scholar
  24. Lim SM, Zhu J (2013) Integrated data envelopment analysis: global vs. local optimum. Eur J Oper Res 229(1):276–278Google Scholar
  25. Lv KJ, Wang D, Cheng Y (2017) Measuring the dynamic performances of innovation production process from the carry-over perspective: an empirical study of China’s high-tech industry. Transform Bus Econ 16(3C):345–361Google Scholar
  26. Mahdiloo M, Toloo M, Duong TT, Farzipoor Saen R, Tatham P (2018) Integrated data envelopment analysis: linear vs. nonlinear model. Eur J Oper Res 268:255–267Google Scholar
  27. Park S, Park KT (2009) Measurement of multiperiod aggregative efficiency. Eur J Oper Res 193(2):567–580Google Scholar
  28. Seiford LM, Zhu J (1999a) Profitability and marketability of the top 55 US commercial banks. Manage Sci 45(9):1270–1288Google Scholar
  29. Seiford LM, Zhu J (1999b) An investigation of returns to scale in data envelopment analysis. Omega 27:1–11Google Scholar
  30. Song ML, Peng L, Wang JL, Zhao JJ (2018) Environmental efficiency and economic growth of China: a Ray slack-based model analysis. Eur J Oper Res 269(1):51–63Google Scholar
  31. Toloo M, Emrouznejad A, Moreno P (2015) A linear relational DEA model to evaluate two-stage processes with shared inputs. Comput Appl Math 36(1):45–61Google Scholar
  32. Toloo M, Nalchigar S, Sohrabi B (2018) Selecting most efficient information system projects in presence of user subjective opinions: a DEA approach. Cent Eur J Oper Res.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10100-018-0549-4 Google Scholar
  33. Tone K (2001) A slacks-based measure of efficiency in data envelopment analysis. Eur J Oper Res 130:498–509Google Scholar
  34. Tone K, Tsutsui M (2009) Network DEA: a slacks-based measure approach. Eur J Oper Res 197(1):243–252Google Scholar
  35. Tran CDT, Villano RA (2018) Measuring efficiency of Vietnamese public colleges: an application of the DEA-based dynamic network approach. Int Trans Oper Res 25(2):683–703Google Scholar
  36. Villa G, Lozano S (2018) Dynamic network DEA approach to basketball games efficiency. J Oper Res Soc.  https://doi.org/10.1080/01605682.2017.1409158 Google Scholar
  37. Wei QL, Chang TS (2011) Optimal system design series-network DEA models. J Oper Res Soc 62(9):1109–1119Google Scholar
  38. Yin CB (2017) Environmental efficiency and its determinants in the development of China’s western regions in 2000–2014. Chin J Popul Resour Environ 15(2):157–166.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10042857.2017.1327687 Google Scholar
  39. Zhu J (2000) Multi-factor performance measure model with an application to fortune 500 companies. Eur J Oper Res 123(1):105–124Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Economics and ManagementNorth China Electric Power UniversityBeijingChina
  2. 2.Institutes of Science and DevelopmentChinese Academy of SciencesBeijingChina
  3. 3.Lithuanian Institute of Agrarian EconomicsVilniusLithuania

Personalised recommendations