Advertisement

Annals of Operations Research

, Volume 261, Issue 1–2, pp 207–232 | Cite as

A DEA ranking method based on cross-efficiency intervals and signal-to-noise ratio

  • Shiang-Tai Liu
Original Paper

Abstract

Cross-efficiency evaluation is a useful approach to ranking decision making units (DMUs) in data envelopment analysis (DEA). The possible existence of multiple optimal weights for the DEA may reduce the usefulness of the cross-efficiency evaluation since the ranking is according to the choice of weights that different DMUs make. Most of existing approaches for cross-efficiency evaluation employ the average cross-efficiency to further discriminate among the DEA efficient units or focus on how to determine input and output weights uniquely, but lay little emphasis on the consideration of the ranges and variances of cross-efficiencies as alternative ranking factors. In this paper we consider cross-efficiency intervals and their variances for ranking DMUs. The aggressive and benevolent formulations are taken into account at the same time. Consequently, a number of cross-efficiency intervals is obtained for each DMU. The signal-to-noise (SN) ratio, originally designed for optimizing the robustness of a process, is constructed as a numerical index for ranking DMUs. A nonlinear fractional program with bound constraints is formulated to find the optimal value of the SN ratio. By model reduction and variable substitution, this nonlinear fractional program is transformed into a quadratic one for deriving the global optimum solution. With the derived SN ratios, we are able to fully rank all DMUs accordingly. Two examples are given to illustrate the effectiveness of the methodology proposed in this paper.

Keywords

Data envelopment analysis Cross-efficiency Signal-to-noise ratio Ranking 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Research was supported by the Ministry of Science and Technology of Taiwan under Contract No. MOST104-2410-H-238-002-MY2. The author is indebted to the editor and the reviewers that significantly improve the quality of the paper.

References

  1. Alcaraz, J., Ramón, N., Ruiz, J. L., & Sirvent, I. (2013). Ranking ranges in cross-efficiency evaluations. European Journal of Operational Research, 226, 516–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aly, H. Y., Grabowski, R., Pasurka, C., & Rangan, N. (1990). Technical scale, and allocative efficiencies in U.S. banking: An empirical investigation. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 72, 211–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anderson, T. R., Hollingsworth, K. B., & Inman, L. B. (2002). The fixed weighting nature of a cross-evaluation model. Journal of Productivity analysis, 17, 249–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baker, P. C., & Talluri, S. (1997). A closer look at the use of data envelopment analysis for technology selection. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 32, 101–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bazaraa, M. S., Sherali, H. D., & Shetty, C. M. (1993). Nonlinear programming-theory and algorithm (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  6. Benson, H. P. (2006). Fractional programming with convex quadratic forms and functions. European Journal of Operational Research, 173, 351–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Boussofiane, A., Dyson, R. G., & Thanassoulis, E. (1991). Applied data envelopment analysis. European Journal of Operational Research, 52, 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chang, C. T. (2002). On the posynomial fractional programming problem. European Journal of Operational Research, 143, 42–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Charnes, A., & Cooper, W. W. (1962). Programming with linear fractional functional. Naval Research Logistics Quarterly, 9, 181–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Charnes, A., Cooper, W. W., & Rhodes, E. (1978). Measuring the efficiency of decision making units. European Journal of Operational Research, 2, 429–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cooper, W. W., Seiford, L. M., & Tone, K. (2007). Data envelopment analysis: A comprehensive text with models, applications, references and DEA-solver software. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  12. Despotis, D. K. (2002). Improving the discriminating power of DEA: Focus on globally efficient units. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 53, 314–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Doyle, J. R., & Green, R. H. (1994). Efficiency and cross efficiency in DEA: Derivations, meanings and uses. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 45, 567–578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Du, F., Cook, E. D., Liang, L., & Zhu, J. (2014). Fixed cost and resource allocation based on DEA cross-efficiency. European Journal of Operational Research, 235, 206–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Falagario, M., Sciancalepore, F., Costaniyo, N., & Pietroforte, R. (2012). Using a DEA-cross efficiency approach in public procurement tenders. European Journal of Operational Research, 218, 523–529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fowlkes, W. Y., & Creveling, C. M. (1995). Engineering methods for robust product design. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  17. Hladík, M. (2010). Generalized linear fractional programming under interval efficiency. European Journal of Operational Research, 205, 42–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hsiao, H. C., Chang, H., Cianci, A. M., & Huang, L. H. (2010). First Financial Restructuring and operating efficiency: Evidence from Taiwanese commercial banks. Journal of Banking & Finance, 2010(34), 1461–1471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jahanshahloo, G. R., Hosseinzadeh Lofti, F., Jafari, Y., & Maddahi, R. (2011). Selecting symmetric weights as a secondary goal in DEA cross-efficiency evaluation. Applied Mathematical Modelling, 35, 544–549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kao, C., & Liu, S. T. (2009). Stochastic data envelopment analysis in measuring the efficiency of Taiwan commercial banks. European Journal of Operational Research, 2009(196), 312–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kao, C., & Liu, S. T. (2014). Measuring performance improvement of Taiwanese commercial banks under uncertainty. European Journal of Operational Research, 235, 755–764.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lahdelma, R., & Salminen, P. (2001). SMAA_2: Stochastic multicriteria acceptability anyalysis for group decision making. Operations Research, 49, 444–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lam, K. F. (2010). In the determination weight sets to compute cross-efficiency ratios in DEA. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 61, 134–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Liang, L., Wu, J., Cook, W. D., & Zhu, J. (2008a). The DEA game cross efficiency model and its Nash equilibrium. Operations Research, 56, 1278–1288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Liang, L., Wu, J., Cook, W. D., & Zhu, J. (2008b). Alternative secondary goals in DEA cross efficiency evaluation. International Journal of Production Economics, 113, 1025–1030.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lim, S. (2012). Minimax and maxmini formulations of cross-efficiency in DEA. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 62, 101–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lim, S., Oh, K. W., & Zhu, J. (2014). Use of DEA cross-efficiency evaluation in portfolio selection: An application to Korean stock market. European Journal of Operational Research, 236, 361–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Liu, S. T. (2016). Fractional transportation problem with fuzzy parameters. Soft Computing, 20, 3629–3636.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lu, W. M., & Lo, S. F. (2007). A closer look at the economic-environmental disparities for regional development in China. European Journal of Operational Research, 183, 882–894.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Oral, M., Kettani, O., & Lang, P. (1991). A methodology for collective evaluation and selection of industrial R&D projects. Management Science, 37, 871–885.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Oral, M., Oukil, A., Malouin, J.-L., & Kettani, O. (2014). The appreciative democratic voice of DEA: A case of faculty academic performance evaluation. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 48, 20–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Oral, M., Amin, G. R., & Oukil, A. (2015). Cross-efficiency in DEA: A maximum resonated appreciative model. Measurement, 63, 159–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Oukil, A., & Amin, G. R. (2015). Maximum appreciative cross-efficiency in DEA: A new ranking method. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 81, 14–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Örkcü, H. H., Ünsal, M. G., & Bal, H. (2015). A modification of a mixed integer linear programming (MILP) model to avoid the computational complexity. Annals of Operations Research, 235, 599–623.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Pardalos, P. M. (1986). An algorithm for a class of nonlinear fractional problems using ranking of the vertices. BIT, 26, 392–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Ramón, N., Ruiz, J. L., & Sirvent, I. (2011). Reducing differences between profiles of weights: A ”peer restricted” cross-efficiency evaluation. OMEGA, 39, 634–641.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Ramón, N., Ruiz, J. L., & Sirvent, I. (2014). Dominance relations and ranking of units by using interval number ordering with cross-efficiency intervals. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 65, 1336–1343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Sexton, T. R., Silkman, R. H., & Hogan, A. J. (1986). Data envelopment analysis: Critique and extensions. In R. H. Silkman (Ed.), Measuring efficiency: An assessment of data envelopment analysis. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  39. Su, C. T. (2013). Quality Engineering: Off-line methods and applications. Boca Raton: CRC Press.Google Scholar
  40. Sun, S. (2002). Assessing computer numerical control machines using data envelopment analysis. International Journal of Production Research, 40, 2011–2039.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Taguchi, G., Chowdhury, S., & Wu, Y. (2005). Taguchi’s quality engineering handbook. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  42. Vavasis, S. A. (1991). Nonlinear optimization: Complexity issues. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Wang, Y. M., & Chin, K. S. (2010). A neural DEA model for cross-efficiency evaluation and its extension. Expert Systems with Applications, 37, 3666–3675.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Wang, Y. M., Chin, K. S., & Jiang, P. (2011). Weight determination in the cross-efficiency evaluation. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 61, 497–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Wang, C. F., & Shen, P. P. (2008). A global optimization algorithm for linear fractional programming. Applied Mathematics and Computation, 204, 281–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Wheelock, D. C., & Wilson, P. W. (1999). Technical progress, inefficiency, and productivity changes in U. S. banking 1984–1993. Journal of Money, Credit, and Banking, 31, 212–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Wong, Y. H. B., & Beasley, J. E. (1990). Restricting weight flexibility in data envelopment analysis. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 41, 829–835.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 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, 722–730.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Wu, J., & Liang, L. (2012). A multiple criteria ranking method based on game cross-evaluation approach. Annals of Operations Research, 197, 191–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Wu, J., Sun, J., & Liang, L. (2012). Cross efficiency evaluation method based on weight-balanced data envelopment analysis model. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 63, 513–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Yang, F., Ang, S., Xia, Q., & Yang, C. (2012). Ranking DMUs by using interval DEA cross efficiency matrix with acceptability analysis. European Journal of Operational Research, 223, 483–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Yu, M. M., Ting, S. C., & Chen, M. (2010). Evaluating the cross efficiency of information sharing in supply chains. Expert Systems with Applications, 37, 2891–2897.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Graduate School of Business and ManagementVanung UniversityChung-LiTaiwan, ROC

Personalised recommendations