Advertisement

Annals of Operations Research

, Volume 226, Issue 1, pp 379–396 | Cite as

Measuring Olympics achievements based on a parallel DEA approach

  • Xiyang Lei
  • Yongjun Li
  • Qiwei Xie
  • Liang Liang
Article

Abstract

Measuring the performance of participating nations in the Olympic Games is an important application of data envelopment analysis (DEA). Prior literature only considers participating nations’ performance in the Summer Olympic Games. It may be unfair to some nations who are good at the Winter Olympics, but poor at the Summer Olympics. Therefore, we believe it is better to consider the two Olympics together when measuring performance of participants. This paper treats the two Olympics as a parallel system in which each subsystem corresponds to a Summer Olympics or a Winter Olympics, and extends a parallel DEA approach to evaluate the efficiency of each participant. An efficiency decomposition procedure is proposed to obtain the efficiency rang of each Olympic subsystem. Finally, we apply the proposed approach to the latest real data set of the 2012 Summer Olympics and 2010 Winter Olympics.

Keywords

Data envelopment analysis Olympics achievements Parallel structure Efficiency decomposition 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the editor-in-chief Professor Endre Boros and the reviewers for their constructive comments and suggestions, which have helped to improve the quality of this paper. The authors also thank Professor Alec Morton for his valuable suggestions and his technical check on this paper. This research is supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grants (No. 61101219, 71271196), the Foundation for Innovative Research Groups of the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 71121061), the Fund for International Cooperation and Exchange of the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 71110107024) and the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities.

References

  1. Ali, A. I. (1994). Computational aspects of DEA. In A. Charnes, W. W. Cooper, A. Lewin, & L. M. Seiford (Eds.), Data envelopment analysis: Theory, methodology and applications (pp. 63–88). Boston: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Amirteimoori, A., & Nashtaei, R. A. (2006). The role of time in multi-component efficiency analysis: An application. Applied Mathematics and Computation, 177(1), 11–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Azizi, H., & Wang, Y. M. (2013). Improved DEA models for measuring interval efficiencies of decision-making units. Measurement, 46(3), 1325–1332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beasley, J. E. (1995). Determining teaching and research efficiencies. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 46, 441–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bogetoft, P. (1997). DEA-based yardstick competition: The optimality of best practice regulation. Annals of Operations Research, 73, 277–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bougnol, M. L., & Dulá, J. H. (2006). Validating DEA as a ranking tool: An application of DEA to assess performance in higher education. Annals of Operations Research, 145(1), 339–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Castelli, L., Pesenti, R., & Ukovich, W. (2010). A classification of DEA models when the internal structure of the decision making units is considered. Annals of Operations Research, 173(1), 207–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Charnes, A., Cooper, W. W., & Rhodes, E. (1978). Measuring the efficiency of decision making units. European Journal of Operational Research, 2(6), 429–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chen, Y., Cook, W. D., Li, N., & Zhu, J. (2009). Additive efficiency decomposition in two-stage DEA. European Journal of Operational Research, 196(3), 1170–1176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chen, Y., Du, J., David Sherman, H., & Zhu, J. (2010). DEA model with shared resources and efficiency decomposition. European Journal of Operational Research, 207(1), 339–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chen, W. C., & Johnson, A. L. (2010). The dynamics of performance space of Major League Baseball pitchers 1871–2006. Annals of Operations Research, 181(1), 287–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chen, Y., Liang, L., & Yang, F. (2006). A DEA game model approach to supply chain efficiency. Annals of Operations Research, 145(1), 5–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chiang, C. I., Hwang, M. J., & Liu, Y. H. (2011). Determining a common set of weights in a DEA problem using a separation vector. Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 54(9), 2464–2470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Churilov, L., & Flitman, A. (2006). Towards fair ranking of Olympics achievements: The case of Sydney 2000. Computers & Operations Research, 33(7), 2057–2082.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cook, W. D., & Green, R. H. (2004). Multicomponent efficiency measurement and core business identification in multiplant firms: A DEA model. European Journal of Operational Research, 157(3), 540–551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cook, W. D., Hababou, M., & Tuenter, H. J. (2000). Multicomponent efficiency measurement and shared inputs in data envelopment analysis: An application to sales and service performance in bank branches. Journal of Productivity Analysis, 14(3), 209–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cook, W. D., & Zhu, J. (2010). Context-dependent performance standards in DEA. Annals of Operations Research, 173(1), 163–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. De França, J. M. F., de Figueiredo, J. N., & dos Santos Lapa, J. (2010). A DEA methodology to evaluate the impact of information asymmetry on the efficiency of not-for-profit organizations with an application to higher education in Brazil. Annals of Operations Research, 173(1), 39–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Du, J., Liang, L., Chen, Y., Cook, W. D., & Zhu, J. (2011). A bargaining game model for measuring performance of two-stage network structures. European Journal of Operational Research, 210(2), 390–397.Google Scholar
  20. Du, J., Wang, J., Chen, Y., Chou, S. Y., & Zhu, J. (2014). Incorporating health outcomes in Pennsylvania hospital efficiency: An additive super-efficiency DEA approach. Annals of Operations Research, 221, 161–172.Google Scholar
  21. Emrouznejad, A. (2014). Advances in data envelopment analysis. Annals of Operations Research, 214, 1–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Emrouznejad, A., Anouze, A. L., & Thanassoulis, E. (2010). A semi-oriented radial measure for measuring the efficiency of decision making units with negative data, using DEA. European Journal of Operational Research, 200(1), 297–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Emrouznejad, A., Parker, B. R., & Tavares, G. (2008). Evaluation of research in efficiency and productivity: A survey and analysis of the first 30 years of scholarly literature in DEA. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 42(3), 151–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Färe, R., Grabowski, R., Grosskopf, S., & Kraft, S. (1997). Efficiency of a fixed but allocatable input: A non-parametric approach. Economics Letters, 56(2), 187–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Grigoroudis, E., Tsitsiridi, E., & Zopounidis, C. (2013). Linking customer satisfaction, employee appraisal, and business performance: An evaluation methodology in the banking sector. Annals of Operations Research, 205(1), 5–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hai, H. L. (2007). Using vote-ranking and cross-evaluation methods to assess the performance of nations at the Olympics. WSEAS Transactions on Systems, 6(6), 1196–1198.Google Scholar
  27. Jahanshahloo, G. R., Amirteimoori, A. R., & Kordrostami, S. (2004). Measuring the multi-component efficiency with shared inputs and outputs in data envelopment analysis. Applied Mathematics and Computation, 155(1), 283–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kao, C. (2012). Efficiency decomposition for parallel production systems. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 63(1), 64–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kao, C., & Hwang, S. N. (2008). Efficiency decomposition in two-stage data envelopment analysis: An application to non-life insurance companies in Taiwan. European Journal of Operational Research, 185(1), 418–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kao, C., & Lin, P. H. (2012). Efficiency of parallel production systems with fuzzy data. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 198, 83–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Khodabakhshi, M., & Aryavash, K. (2014). The fair allocation of common fixed cost or revenue using DEA concept. Annals of Operations Research, 214(1), 187–194.Google Scholar
  32. Li, Y., Chen, Y., Liang, L., & Xie, J. (2012). DEA models for extended two-stage network structures. Omega, 40(5), 611–618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Li, Y., Liang, L., Chen, Y., & Morita, H. (2008). Models for measuring and benchmarking olympics achievements. Omega, 36(6), 933–940.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Liang, L., Cook, W. D., & Zhu, J. (2008). DEA models for two-stage processes: Game approach and efficiency decomposition. Naval Research Logistics (NRL), 55(7), 643–653.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lins, M. P. E., Gomes, E. G., Soares de Mello, J. C. C., & Soares de Mello, A. J. R. (2003). Olympic ranking based on a zero sum gains DEA model. European Journal of Operational Research, 148(2), 312–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lozano, S., Villa, G., Guerrero, F., & Cortés, P. (2002). Measuring the performance of nations at the Summer Olympics using data envelopment analysis. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 53(5), 501–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Molinero, C. M. (1996). On the joint determination of efficiencies in a data envelopment analysis context. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 47(10), 1273–1279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Moreno, P., & Lozano, S. (2014). A network DEA assessment of team efficiency in the NBA. Annals of Operations Research, 214(1), 99–124.Google Scholar
  39. Prior, D. (2006). Efficiency and total quality management in health care organizations: A dynamic frontier approach. Annals of Operations Research, 145(1), 281–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Soares de Mello, J. C. C. B., Angulo-Meza, L., & Da Silva, B. P. B. (2009). A ranking for the Olympic Games with unitary input DEA models. IMA Journal of Management Mathematics, 20(2), 201–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Soares de Mello, J. C. C. B., Angulo-Meza, L., & Lacerda, F. G. (2012). A dea model with a non discritionary variable for olympic evaluation. Pesquisa Operacional, 32(1), 21–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Tsai, P. F., & Mar Molinero, C. (2002). A variable returns to scale data envelopment analysis model for the joint determination of efficiencies with an example of the UK health service. European Journal of Operational Research, 141(1), 21–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Wu, J., Liang, L., & Chen, Y. (2009). DEA game cross-efficiency approach to Olympic rankings. Omega, 37(4), 909–918.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Wu, J., Liang, L., & Yang, F. (2009). Achievement and benchmarking of countries at the Summer Olympics using cross efficiency evaluation method. European Journal of Operational Research, 197(2), 722–730.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Wu, J., Zhou, Z. X., & Liang, L. (2010). Measuring the performance of nations at Beijing Summer Olympics using integer-valued DEA model. Journal of Sports Economics, 11(5), 549–566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Yang, C. C. (2014). An enhanced DEA model for decomposition of technical efficiency in banking. Annals of Operations Research, 214, 167–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Yang, C. H., Lin, H. Y., & Chen, C. P. (2014). Measuring the efficiency of NBA teams: Additive efficiency decomposition in two-stage DEA. Annals of Operations Research, 217(1), 565–589.Google Scholar
  48. Yang, Y., Ma, B., & Koike, M. (2000). Efficiency-measuring DEA model for production system with k independent subsystems. Journal of the Operations Research Society of Japan-Keiei Kagaku, 43(3), 343–354.Google Scholar
  49. Yu, M. M. (2008). Measuring the efficiency and return to scale status of multi-mode bus transit-evidence from Taiwan’s bus system. Applied Economics Letters, 15(8), 647–653.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Zhang, D., Li, X., Meng, W., & Liu, W. (2009). Measuring the performance of nations at the Olympic Games using DEA models with different preferences & star. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 60(7), 983–990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Zha, Y., & Liang, L. (2010). Two-stage cooperation model with input freely distributed among the stages. European Journal of Operational Research, 205(2), 332–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Zhou, Z., Wang, M., Ding, H., Ma, C., & Liu, W. (2013). Further study of production possibility set and performance evaluation model in supply chain DEA. Annals of Operations Research, 206(1), 585–592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of ManagementUniversity of Science and Technology of ChinaHefeiPeople’s Republic of China
  2. 2.Department of Electronics and InformationToyota Technological InstituteNagoyaJapan
  3. 3.Institute of AutomationChinese Academy of SciencesBeijingPeople’s Republic of China

Personalised recommendations