Advertisement

Annals of Operations Research

, Volume 145, Issue 1, pp 339–365 | Cite as

Validating DEA as a ranking tool: An application of DEA to assess performance in higher education

  • Marie-Laure Bougnol
  • José H. Dulá
Article

Abstract

There is a general interest in ranking schemes applied to complex entities described by multiple attributes. Published rankings for universities are in great demand but are also highly controversial. We compare two classification and ranking schemes involving universities; one from a published report, ‘Top American Research Universities’ by the University of Florida's TheCenter and the other using DEA. Both approaches use the same data and model. We compare the two methods and discover important equivalences. We conclude that the critical aspect in classification and ranking is the model. This suggests that DEA is a suitable tool for these types of studies.

Keywords

Nonparametric efficient frontiers Data envelopment analysis (DEA) Tiered data envelopment analysis (TDEA) Linear programming 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Adolphson, D.L., G.C. Cornia, and L.C. Walters. (1990). “A Unified Framework for Classifying DEA Models.” In H.E. Bradley (ed.), Operational Research ’90: Selected Papers from the Twelfth IFORS International Conference on Operational Research, Athens, Greece, 25 June 1990, PP. 647–657. Pergamon Press (1991).Google Scholar
  2. Ahn, T., V. Arnold, A. Charnes, and W.W. Cooper. (1989). “DEA and Ratio Efficiency Analyses for Public Institutions of Higher Learning in Texas.” Research in Governmental and Nonprofit Accounting, 5, 165–185.Google Scholar
  3. Ahn, T., A. Charnes, and W.W. Cooper. (1988). “Some Statistical and DEA Evaluations of Relative Efficiencies of Public and Private Institutions of Public and Private Institutions of Higher Learning.” Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 22(6), 259–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ahn, T. and L.M. Seiford. (1993). “Sensitivity of DEA to Models and Variable Sets in a Hypothesis Test Setting: The Efficiency of University Operations.” Creative and Innovative Approaches to the Science of Management, Quorum Books: Westport, Connecticut, PP. 191–208.Google Scholar
  5. Banker, R.D., H. Chang, S.N. Janakiraman, and C. Konstans. (2004). “A Balanced Scorecard Analysis of Performance Metrics.” European Journal of Operational Research, 154(2), 423–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Banker, R.D., A. Charnes, and W.W. Cooper. (1984). “Some Models for Estimating Technological and Scale Inefficiencies in Data Envelopment Analysis.” Management Science, 30(9), 1078–1092.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Barnett, V. (1976). “The Ordering of Multivariate Data.” J. Royal Statistical Soc. A, 139(Part 3), 318–344.Google Scholar
  8. Barr, R.S., M.L. Durchholz, and L. Seiford. (2000). “Peeling the DEA Onion: Layering and Rank-Ordering DMUs Using Tiered DEA.” Southern Methodist University Technical Report, USA.Google Scholar
  9. Breu, T.M. and R.L. Raab. (1994). “Efficiency and Perceived Quality of the Nation's ‘Top 25’ National Universities and National Liberal Arts Colleges: An Application of Data Envelopment Analysis to Higher Education.” Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 28(1), 35–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Caporaletti, L.E., J. H. Dulá, and N. K. Womer. (1999). Performance Evaluation Based on Multiple Attributes with Nonparametric Frontiers. Omega, 27, 637–645.Google Scholar
  11. Charnes, A., W.W. Cooper, B. Golany, L.M. Seiford, and J. Stutz. (1985). “Foundations of Data Envelopment Analysis for Pareto-Koopmans Efficient Empirical Production Functions.” Journal of Econometrics, 30, 91–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Charnes, A., W.W. Cooper, and E. Rhodes. (1978). “Measuring the Efficiency of Decision Making Units.” European Journal of Operational Research, 2(6), 429–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Johnson, S.A. and J. Zhu. (2003). “Identifying ‘Best’ Applicants in Recruiting Using Data Envelopment Analysis.” Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 37(2), 125–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Liu, R. (1990). “On a Notion of Data Depth Based on Random Simplices.” The Annals of Statistics, 18(1), 405–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lombardi, J., E.D. Capaldi, D.D. Craig, L.N. Collis, D.S. Gater, and D.A. Roak. (2002). “The Top American Research Universities.” TheCenter's Annual Report, www.thecenter.ufl.edu.
  16. Sarrico, C.S., S.M. Hogan, R.G. Dyson, and A.D. Athanassopoulos. (1997). “Data Envelopment Analysis and University Selection.” Journal of the Operational Research Society, 48(12), 1163–1177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Zhu, J. (2001). Multidimensional Quality-of-Life Measure with an Application to Fortune's Best Cities. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 35(4), 263–284.Google Scholar
  18. Zhu, J. DEAFrontier, www.deafrontier.com.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Haworth College of BusinessWestern Michigan UniversityKalamazooU.S.A
  2. 2.School of BusinessVirginia Commonwealth UniversityRichmondU.S.A

Personalised recommendations