Solving voting system by data envelopment analysis for assessing sustainability of suppliers

  • Mohammad Izadikhah
  • Reza Farzipoor SaenEmail author


Recently, sustainable supply chain management has attracted the attention of scholars and practitioners. Data envelopment analysis (DEA) is a useful tool for evaluating sustainability of suppliers. Ranking a system of voting is an important topic in DEA. Many firms apply voting systems to rank candidates. Generally, these kinds of methods rank candidates by their associated weights. In this paper, to increase discrimination power among candidates, a novel model for obtaining a suitable value of discriminating factor is proposed. Then, using the optimal value of the discriminating factor, a new model for calculating preference scores of candidates is presented. This model evaluates candidates based on different set of weights. To evaluate candidates based on common set of weights, using concept of ideal point, two new multiple objective programming models are proposed. The proposed method is applied for selecting the most sustainable suppliers that supply self-supporting cable for a power distribution company. Results show that candidates might be affected by changing the set of weights. Using our proposed models, full rankings are obtained.


Sustainable supply chain management (SSCM) Voting system Common set of weights (CSW) Data envelopment analysis (DEA) Ideal point Multiple objective programming Min–max approach Min-sum approach 



Authors would like to appreciate constructive comments of two anonymous Reviewers.


  1. Abdollahi M, Arvan M, Razmi J (2015) An integrated approach for supplier portfolio selection: lean or agile? Expert Syst Appl 42(1):679–690. Google Scholar
  2. Amindoust A, Ahmed S, Saghafinia A, Bahreininejad A (2012) Sustainable supplier selection: a ranking model based on fuzzy inference system. Appl Soft Comput 12(6):1668–1677. Google Scholar
  3. Andersen P, Petersen NC (1993) A procedure for ranking efficient units in data envelopment analysis. Manage Sci 39(10):1261–1264. Google Scholar
  4. Azadeh A, Alem SM (2010) A flexible deterministic, stochastic and fuzzy Data Envelopment Analysis approach for supply chain risk and vendor selection problem: simulation analysis. Expert Syst Appl 37(12):7438–7448. Google Scholar
  5. Azadi M, Jafarian M, Farzipoor Saen R, Mirhedayatian SM (2015) A new fuzzy DEA model for evaluation of efficiency and effectiveness of suppliers in sustainable supply chain management context. Comput Oper Res 54:274–285. Google Scholar
  6. Bai C, Sarkis J (2010) Integrating sustainability into supplier selection with grey system and rough set methodologies. Int J Prod Econ 124(1):252–264. Google Scholar
  7. Bai C, Sarkis J (2014) Determining and applying sustainable supplier key performance indicators. Supply Chain Manag Int J 19(3):275–291Google Scholar
  8. Ballew PD, Schnorbus RH (1994) The impact of the auto industry on the economy. Chic Fed Lett 79:1–4Google Scholar
  9. Calzada-Infante L, Sebastián Lozano S (2016) Analysing Olympic Games through dominance networks. Phys A 462:1215–1230Google Scholar
  10. Caporaletti LE, Dulá JH, Womer NK (1999) Performance evaluation based on multiple attributes with nonparametric frontiers. Omega 27(6):637–645Google Scholar
  11. Carrillo M, Jorge JM (2016) A multiobjective DEA approach to ranking alternatives. Expert Syst Appl 50:130–139. Google Scholar
  12. Çelebi D, Bayraktar D (2008) An integrated neural network and data envelopment analysis for supplier evaluation under incomplete information. Expert Syst Appl 35(4):1698–1710. Google Scholar
  13. Charnes A, Cooper WW, Rhodes E (1978) Measuring the efficiency of decision making units. Eur J Oper Res 2(6):429–444. Google Scholar
  14. Chebotarev PY, Shamis E (1998) Characterizations of scoring methods for preference aggregation. Ann Oper Res 80:299–332Google Scholar
  15. Chen Y-J (2011) Structured methodology for supplier selection and evaluation in a supply chain. Inf Sci 181(9):1651–1670. Google Scholar
  16. Chiang CI, Hwang MJ, Liu YH (2011) Determining a common set of weights in a DEA problem using a separation vector. Math Comput Model 54(9–10):2464–2470. Google Scholar
  17. Contreras I (2011a) A DEA-inspired procedure for the aggregation of preferences. Expert Syst Appl 38(1):564–570. Google Scholar
  18. Contreras I (2011b) A DEA-inspired procedure for the aggregation of preferences. Expert Syst Appl 38:564–570Google Scholar
  19. Cook WD, Kress M (1990) A data envelopment model for aggregating preference rankings. Manage Sci 36(11):1302–1310. Google Scholar
  20. Cook WD, Kress M (1991) A multiple criteria decision model with ordinal preference data. Eur J Oper Res 54:191–198Google Scholar
  21. Cook WD, Zhu J (2007) Within-group common weights in DEA: an analysis of power plant efficiency. Eur J Oper Res 178(1):207–216. Google Scholar
  22. Davoodi A, Rezai HZ (2012) Common set of weights in data envelopment analysis: a linear programming problem. CEJOR 20(2):355–365. Google Scholar
  23. Ebrahimnejad A, Tavana M, Santos-Arteaga FJ (2016) An integrated data envelopment analysis and simulation method for group consensus ranking. Math Comput Simul 119:1–17. Google Scholar
  24. Ehsanbakhsh H, Izadikhah M (2015) Applying bsc-dea model to performance evaluation of industrial cooperatives: an application of fuzzy inference system. Appl Res J 1(1):9–26Google Scholar
  25. Falagario M, Sciancalepore F, Costantino N, Pietroforte R (2012) Using a DEA-cross efficiency approach in public procurement tenders. Eur J Oper Res 218(2):523–529. Google Scholar
  26. Fishburn PC (1977) Condorcet social choice functions. SIAM J Appl Math 33(3):469–489Google Scholar
  27. Foroughi AA, Aouni B (2012a) New approaches for determining a common set of weights for a voting system. Int Trans Oper Res 19(4):521–530. Google Scholar
  28. Foroughi AA, Aouni B (2012b) New approaches for determining a common set of weights for a voting system. Int Trans Oper Res 19:521–530Google Scholar
  29. Green RH, Doyle JR, Cook WD (1996) Preference voting and project ranking using DEA and cross-evaluation. Eur J Oper Res 90(3):461–472. Google Scholar
  30. Handfield RB, Nichols EL (1999) Introduction to supply chain management. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle RiverGoogle Scholar
  31. Hardaway R (2008) Weighing Olympic gold. The Los Angeles Times. Accessed 22 08 2008
  32. Hashimoto A (1997) A ranked voting system using a DEA/AR exclusion model: a note. Eur J Oper Res 97(3):600–604. Google Scholar
  33. Hashimoto A, Wu D-A (2003) A DEA-compromise programming model for comprehensive ranking. J Oper Res Soc Jpn 47(2):73–81Google Scholar
  34. Hatami-Marbini A, Tavana M, Agrell PJ, Hosseinzadeh Lotfi F, Ghelej Beigi Z (2015) A common-weights DEA model for centralized resource reduction and target setting. Comput Ind Eng 79:195–203. Google Scholar
  35. Hatefi SM, Torabi SA (2010) A common weight MCDA-DEA approach to construct composite indicators. Ecol Econ 70(1):114–120. Google Scholar
  36. Hosseinzadeh Lotfi F, Hatami-Marbini A, Agrell PJ, Aghayi N, Gholami K (2013a) Allocating fixed resources and setting targets using a common-weights DEA approach. Comput Ind Eng 64(2):631–640. Google Scholar
  37. Hosseinzadeh Lotfi F, Rostamy-Malkhalifeh M, Aghayi N, Ghelej Beigi Z, Gholami K (2013b) An improved method for ranking alternatives in multiple criteria decision analysis. Appl Math Model 37(1–2):25–33. Google Scholar
  38. Izadikhah M, Farzipoor Saen R (2015) A new data envelopment analysis method for ranking decision making units: an application in industrial parks. Expert Syst 32(5):598–608. Google Scholar
  39. Izadikhah M, Farzipoor Saen R (2016a) Evaluating sustainability of supply chains by two-stage range directional measure in the presence of negative data. Transp Res Part D Transp Environ 49:110–126. Google Scholar
  40. Izadikhah M, Farzipoor Saen R (2016b) A new preference voting method for sustainable location planning using geographic information system and data envelopment analysis. J Clean Prod 137:1347–1367. Google Scholar
  41. Izadikhah M, Farzipoor Saen R, Ahmadi K (2017) How to assess sustainability of suppliers in volume discount context? A new data envelopment analysis approach. Transp Res Part D Transp Environ 51:102–121Google Scholar
  42. Jahanshahloo GR, Memariani A, Lotfi FH, Rezai HZ (2005) A note on some of DEA models and finding efficiency and complete ranking using common set of weights. Appl Math Comput 166(2):265–281. Google Scholar
  43. Jahanshahloo GR, Hosseinzadeh Lotfi F, Khanmohammadi M, Kazemimanesh M, Rezaie V (2010) Ranking of units by positive ideal DMU with common weights. Expert Syst Appl 37(12):7483–7488. Google Scholar
  44. Jahanshahloo GR, Hosseinzadeh Lotfi F, Khanmohammadi M, Kazemimanesh M (2012) A method for discriminating efficient candidates with ranked voting data by common weights. Math Comput Appl 17(1):1–8Google Scholar
  45. Jain V, Kumar A, Kumar S, Chandra C (2015) Weight restrictions in Data Envelopment Analysis: a comprehensive Genetic Algorithm based approach for incorporating value judgments. Expert Syst Appl 42(3):1503–1512. Google Scholar
  46. Karsak EE, Dursun M (2014) An integrated supplier selection methodology incorporating QFD and DEA with imprecise data. Expert Syst Appl 41(16):6995–7004. Google Scholar
  47. Khodabakhshi M, Aryavash K (2015) Aggregating preference rankings using an optimistic–pessimistic approach. Comput Ind Eng 85:13–16. Google Scholar
  48. Khodakarami M, Shabani A, Farzipoor Saen R, Azadi M (2015) Developing distinctive two-stage data envelopment analysis models: an application in evaluating the sustainability of supply chain management. Measurement 70:62–74. Google Scholar
  49. Klein J (2008) The medal rankings: which country leads the OLYMPICs? New York Times.
  50. Kleinsorge IK, Schary PB, Tanner RD (1992) Data envelopment analysis for monitoring customer supplier relationships. J Account Public Policy 11(4):357–372Google Scholar
  51. Kumar A, Jain V, Kumar S (2014) A comprehensive environment friendly approach for supplier selection. Omega 42(1):109–123. Google Scholar
  52. Kuo RJ, Wang YC, Tien FC (2010) Integration of artificial neural network and MADA methods for green supplier selection. J Clean Prod 18(12):1161–1170. Google Scholar
  53. Lin C, Madu CN, Kuei C-H, Tsai H-L, Wang K-N (2015) Developing an assessment framework for managing sustainability programs: a Analytic Network Process approach. Expert Syst Appl 42(5):2488–2501. Google Scholar
  54. Liu F-HF, Hai HL (2005) The voting analytic hierarchy process method for selecting supplier. Int J Prod Econ 97(3):308–317. Google Scholar
  55. Liu F-HF, Hsuan Peng H (2008) Ranking of units on the DEA frontier with common weights. Comput Oper Res 35(5):1624–1637. Google Scholar
  56. Liu J, Ding F, Lall V (2000) Using data envelopment analysis to compare suppliers for supplier selection and performance improvement. Supply Chain Manag Int J 5(3):143–150Google Scholar
  57. Llamazares B, Peña T (2009) Preference aggregation and DEA: an analysis of the methods proposed to discriminate efficient candidates. Eur J Oper Res 197:714–721Google Scholar
  58. Mahdiloo M, Saen RF, Lee K-H (2015) Technical, environmental and eco-efficiency measurement for supplier selection: an extension and application of data envelopment analysis. Int J Prod Econ 168:279–289. Google Scholar
  59. Mirhedayatian SM, Vahdat SE, Jelodar MJ, Saen RF (2013) Welding process selection for repairing nodular cast iron engine block by integrated fuzzy data envelopment analysis and TOPSIS approaches. Mater Des 43:272–282. Google Scholar
  60. Obata T, Ishii H (2003) A method for discriminating efficient candidates with ranked voting data. Eur J Oper Res 151(1):233–237. Google Scholar
  61. Oukil A, Amin GR (2015) Maximum appreciative cross-efficiency in DEA: a new ranking method. Comput Ind Eng 81:14–21. Google Scholar
  62. Ramezani-Tarkhorani S, Khodabakhshi M, Mehrabian S, Nuri-Bahmani F (2014) Ranking decision-making units using common weights in DEA. Appl Math Model 38(15–16):3890–3896. Google Scholar
  63. Ramón N, Ruiz JL, Sirvent I (2012) Common sets of weights as summaries of DEA profiles of weights: with an application to the ranking of professional tennis players. Expert Syst Appl 39(5):4882–4889. Google Scholar
  64. Razavi Hajiagha SH, Hashemi SS, Amoozad Mahdiraji H (2014) DEA with common set of weights based on a multi objective fractional programming problem. Int J Ind Eng Prod Res 25(3):207–214Google Scholar
  65. Roll Y, Cook W, Golany B (1991) Controlling factor weights in data envelopment analysis. IIE Trans 24:1–9Google Scholar
  66. Ruiz JL, Sirvent I (2016) Common benchmarking and ranking of units with DEA. Omega 65:1–9. Google Scholar
  67. Saati S, Nayebi N (2015) An algorithm for determining common weights by concept of membership function. J Linear Topol Algebra 4(3):165–172Google Scholar
  68. Salahi M, Torabi N, Amiri A (2016) An optimistic robust optimization approach to common set of weights in DEA. Measurement 93:67–73. Google Scholar
  69. Sinuany-Stern Z, Friedman L (1998) DEA and the discriminant analysis of ratios for ranking units. Eur J Oper Res 111:470–878Google Scholar
  70. Sitarz S (2012) Mean value and volume-based sensitivity analysis for Olympic rankings. Eur J Oper Res 216:232–238Google Scholar
  71. Sridhar K, Jones G (2013) The three fundamental criticisms of the Triple Bottom Line approach: an empirical study to link sustainability reports in companies based in the Asia-Pacific region and TBL shortcomings. Asian J Bus Ethics 2(1):91–111. Google Scholar
  72. Sun J, Wu J, Guo D (2013) Performance ranking of units considering ideal and anti-ideal DMU with common weights. Appl Math Model 37(9):6301–6310. Google Scholar
  73. Tahriri F, Osman R, Ali A, Yusuff RM, Esfandiary A (2008) AHP approach for supplier evaluation and selection in a steel manufacturing company. J Ind Eng Manag 1(2):54–76Google Scholar
  74. Talluri S, Narasimhan R, Nair A (2006) Vendor performance with supply risk: a chance-constrained DEA approach. Int J Prod Econ 100(2):212–222. Google Scholar
  75. Tao L, Chen Y, Liu X, Wang X (2012) An integrated multiple criteria decision making model applying axiomatic fuzzy set theory. Appl Math Model 36(10):5046–5058. Google Scholar
  76. Toloo M (2014a) An epsilon-free approach for finding the most efficient unit in DEA. Appl Math Model 38(13):3182–3192. Google Scholar
  77. Toloo M (2014b) The role of non-Archimedean epsilon in finding the most efficient unit: with an application of professional tennis players. Appl Math Model 38(21–22):5334–5346. Google Scholar
  78. Toloo M, Kresta A (2014) Finding the best asset financing alternative: a DEA-WEO approach. Measurement 55:288–294. Google Scholar
  79. Toloo M, Nalchigar S (2011) A new DEA method for supplier selection in presence of both cardinal and ordinal data. Expert Syst Appl 38(12):14726–14731. Google Scholar
  80. Trapp AC, Sarkis J (2016) Identifying Robust portfolios of suppliers: a sustainability selection and development perspective. J Clean Prod 112(Part 3):2088–2100. Google Scholar
  81. Wang Y-M, Chin K-S (2007) Discriminating DEA efficient candidates by considering their least relative total scores. J Comput Appl Math 206(1):209–215. Google Scholar
  82. Wang M, Li Y (2014) Supplier evaluation based on Nash bargaining game model. Expert Syst Appl 41(9):4181–4185. Google Scholar
  83. Wang N, Yi R, Liu D (2008) A solution method to the problem proposed by Wang in voting systems. J Comput Appl Math 221(1):106–113. Google Scholar
  84. Weber CA (1996) A data envelopment analysis approach to measuring vendor performance. Supply Chain Manag Int J 1(1):28–39Google Scholar
  85. Weber A, Current J, Desai A (2000) An optimization approach to determining the number of vendors to employ. Int J Supply Chain Manag 5(2):90–98Google Scholar
  86. Wu D (2009) Supplier selection: a hybrid model using DEA, decision tree and neural network. Expert Syst Appl 36(5):9105–9112. Google Scholar
  87. Wu DD (2010) A systematic stochastic efficiency analysis model and application to international supplier performance evaluation. Expert Syst Appl 37(9):6257–6264. Google Scholar
  88. Wu D, Olson DL (2008) Supply chain risk, simulation, and vendor selection. Int J Prod Econ 114(2):646–655. Google Scholar
  89. Wu J, Liang L, Zha Y (2009) Preference voting and ranking using dea game cross efficiency model. J Oper Res Soc Jpn 52(2):105–111Google Scholar
  90. Wu J, Chu J, Sun J, Zhu Q (2016) DEA cross-efficiency evaluation based on Pareto improvement. Eur J Oper Res 248(2):571–579. Google Scholar
  91. Yu VF, Hu K-J (2014) An integrated approach for resource allocation in manufacturing plants. Appl Math Comput 245:416–426Google Scholar
  92. Zerafat Angiz MZ, Emrouznejad A, Mustafa A, Rashidi Komijan A (2009) Selecting the most preferable alternatives in group decision making problem using DEA. Expert Syst Appl 36:9599–9602Google Scholar
  93. Zerafat Angiz M, Tajaddini A, Mustafa A, Jalal Kamali M (2012) Ranking alternatives in a preferential voting system using fuzzy concepts and data envelopment analysis. Comput Ind Eng 63(4):784–790. Google Scholar
  94. Zerafat Angiz M, Mustafa A, Kamali MJ (2013) Cross-ranking of decision making units in data envelopment analysis. Appl Math Model 37(1–2):398–405. Google Scholar
  95. Zeydan M, Çolpan C, Çobanoğlu C (2011) A combined methodology for supplier selection and performance evaluation. Expert Syst Appl 38(3):2741–2751. Google Scholar
  96. Zhou X, Pedrycz W, Kuang Y, Zhang Z (2016) Type-2 fuzzy multi-objective DEA model: an application to sustainable supplier evaluation. Appl Soft Comput 46:424–440. Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Mathematics, College of Science, Arak BranchIslamic Azad UniversityArākIran
  2. 2.Department of Industrial Management, Faculty of Management and Accounting, Karaj BranchIslamic Azad UniversityKarajIran

Personalised recommendations