Advertisement

Number of performance measures versus number of decision making units in DEA

  • Dariush Khezrimotlagh
  • Wade D. Cook
  • Joe ZhuEmail author
S.I.: Data Mining and Decision Analytics
  • 13 Downloads

Abstract

Sufficient numbers of decision-making units (DMUs) in comparison to the number performance measures that are classified as inputs and outputs has been a concern when applying data envelopment analysis (DEA) in real world settings. As the number of DMUs decreases (or the numbers of inputs and outputs increases) the discrimination power and accuracy of DEA with respect to the performance of DMUs decreases. The current study proposes a technique which increases the discrimination power of DEA and allows for increasing the numbers of inputs and outputs even if the number of DMUs is relatively small. An adjusted DEA methodology is proposed which is stronger and more accurate than the routine DEA methodology, and permits one to identify the reference units for each best-practice unit (more than the DMU itself) and to distinguish the performance and rank of DMUs relative to one another, thereby enhancing the discrimination power of DEA. The scores from the adjusted methodology are logically meaningful. The pros of the new approach are demonstrated by several examples and simulation experiments in controlled environments. The results show that the proposed technique significantly improves the discrimination power over that of the conventional DEA model when the number of DMUs decreases or the number of inputs and outputs increases. In addition, the proposed technique is used to evaluate the quality-of-life related to twelve input–output combinations for two sets of DMUs, namely fifteen USA cities and five international cities, where none of the rules of thumb are satisfied.

Keywords

DEA Best-practice Performance evaluation Simulation study 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We appreciate the valuable comments from the three anonymous reviewers as they aided to improve the clarity of our paper. This research is supported by Pennsylvania State University Harrisburg (No. 0206020 AC6ET), by the National Natural Science Funds of China (No. 71828101), and by the NSERC-the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research council of Canada (No. A8966).

References

  1. Adler, N., Friedman, L., & Sinuany-Stern, Z. (2002). Review of ranking methods in the data envelopment analysis context. European Journal of Operational Research, 140(2), 249–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Adler, N., & Yazhemsky, E. (2010). Improving discrimination in data envelopment analysis: PCA–DEA or variable reduction. European Journal of Operational Research, 202(1), 273–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Andersen, P., & Petersen, N. C. (1993). A procedure for ranking efficient units in data envelopment analysis. Management Science, 39(10), 1261–1264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Banker, R. D. (1993). Maximum likelihood, consistency and data envelopment analysis: A statistical foundation. Management Science, 39, 1265–1273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Banker, R. D., & Chang, H. (2006). The super-efficiency procedure for outlier identification, not for ranking efficient units. European Journal of Operational Research, 175(2), 1311–1320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Banker, R. D., Charnes, A., & Cooper, W. W. (1984). Some models for estimating technical and scale inefficiencies in data envelopment analysis. Management Science, 30(9), 1078–1092.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Banker, R. D., Charnes, A., Cooper, W. W., Swarts, W., & Thomas, D. (1989). An introduction to data envelopment analysis with some of its models and their uses. Research in Governmental and Nonprofit Accounting, 5(1), 125–163.Google Scholar
  8. Bland J. M. (2005). The half-normal distribution method for measurement error: Two case studies. Department of Health Sciences, University of York, Technical Report, 1–14.Google Scholar
  9. Charnes, A., Cooper, W. W., Golany, B., Seiford, L., & Stutz, J. (1985). Foundations of data envelopment analysis for Pareto-Koopmans efficient empirical production functions. Journal of Econometrics, 30(1–2), 91–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Charnes, A., Cooper, W. W., Huang, Z. M., & Sun, D. B. (1990). Polyhedral cone-ratio DEA models with an illustrative application to large commercial banks. Journal of Econometrics, 46(1–2), 73–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Charnes, A., Cooper, W. W., & Rhodes, E. (1978). Measuring the inefficiency of decision making units. European Journal of Operational Research, 2(6), 429–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cook, W. D., Kress, M., & Seiford, L. M. (1992). Prioritization models for frontier decision making units in DEA. European Journal of Operational Research, 59(2), 319–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cook, W. D., Tone, K., & Zhu, J. (2014). Data envelopment analysis: Prior to choosing a model. Omega, 44, 1–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cook, W. D., & Zhu, J. (2008). Classifying inputs and outputs in data envelopment analysis. European Journal of Operational Research, 180(2), 692–699.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cook, W. D., & Zhu, J. (2015). DEA cross efficiency in data envelopment analysis (pp. 23–43). US: Springer.Google Scholar
  16. Cooper, W. W., Seiford, L. M., & Tone, K. (2007). Data envelopment analysis: A comprehensive text with models, applications, references and DEA-solver software (2nd ed.). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  17. Dyson, R., Allen, R., Camanho, A., Podinovski, V., Sarrico, C., & Shale, E. (2001). Pitfalls and protocols in DEA. European Journal of Operational Research, 132(2), 245–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Friedman, L., & Sinuany-Stern, Z. (1998). Combining ranking scales and selecting factors in the DEA context: The case of industrial branches. Computers & Operations Research, 25(9), 781–791.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Golany, B. A., & Roll, Y. (1989). An application procedure for data envelopment analysis. Omega, 17(3), 237–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Jondrow, J., Lovell, C. K., Materov, I. S., & Schmidt, P. (1982). On the estimation of technical inefficiency in the stochastic frontier production function model. Journal of Econometrics, 19(2–3), 233–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Khezrimotlagh, D., Zhu, J., Cook, W. D., & Toloo, M. (2018). Data envelopment analysis and big data. European Journal of Operational Research (in press).Google Scholar
  22. Kneip, A., Park, B. U., & Simar, L. (1998). A note on the convergence of nonparametric DEA estimators for production efficiency scores. Econometric Theory, 14(6), 783–793.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Korostelev, A. P., Simar, L., & Tsybakov, A. B. (1994). On estimation of monotone and convex boundaries (No. 1139). Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE), XXXIX(1), 3–18.Google Scholar
  24. Korostelëv, A. P., Simar, L., & Tsybakov, A. B. (1995). Efficient estimation of monotone boundaries. The Annals of Statistics, 23, 476–489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Osman, I. H., Berbary, L. N., Sidani, Y., Al-Ayoubi, B., & Emrouznejad, A. (2011). Data envelopment analysis model for the appraisal and relative performance evaluation of nurses at an intensive care unit. Journal of Medical Systems, 35(5), 1039–1062.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Pedraja-Chaparro, F., Salinas-Jimenez, J., & Smith, P. (1999). On the quality of the data envelopment analysis model. The Journal of Operational Research Society, 50(6), 636–644.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Põldaru, R., & Roots, J. (2014). A PCA–DEA approach to measure the quality of life in Estonian counties. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 48(1), 65–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Russell, R. R. (1990). Continuity of measures of technical efficiency. Journal of Economic Theory, 51(2), 255–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Schmidt, P., & Lovell, C. K. (1979). Estimating technical and allocative inefficiency relative to stochastic production and cost frontiers. Journal of Econometrics, 9(3), 343–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Sexton, T. R., Silkman, R. H., & Hogan, A. J. (1986). Data envelopment analysis: Critique and extensions. New Directions for Evaluation, 1986(32), 73–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Thompson, R. G., Langemeier, L. N., Lee, C. T., Lee, E., & Thrall, R. M. (1990). The role of multiplier bounds in efficiency analysis with application to Kansas farming. Journal of Econometrics, 46(1–2), 93–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Toloo, M., Barat, M., & Masoumzadeh, A. (2015). Selective measures in data envelopment analysis. Annals of Operations Research, 226(1), 623–642.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Tone, K. (2001). A slacks-based measure of efficiency in data envelopment analysis. European Journal of Operational Research, 130(3), 498–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Zhu, J. (2001). Multidimensional quality-of-life measure with an application to Fortune’s best cities. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 35(4), 263–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of MathematicsPennsylvania State University HarrisburgMiddletownUSA
  2. 2.Schulich School of BusinessYork UniversityTorontoCanada
  3. 3.College of Auditing and EvaluationNanjing Audit UniversityNanjingChina
  4. 4.Foisie Business SchoolWorcester Polytechnic InstituteWorcesterUSA

Personalised recommendations