Advertisement

OPSEARCH

pp 1–12 | Cite as

Avoiding dissimilarity between the weights of the optimal DEA solutions

  • Dariush AkbarianEmail author
Application Article
  • 2 Downloads

Abstract

The zero weights in data envelopment analysis evaluation causes some problems such as ignoring the some inputs and/or outputs of DMUs under evaluation. Moreover, some authors claimed that the great differences in weights might be a problem. The aim of this paper is to extend the multiplier bound approach to avoid zero weights and great differences in the values of multipliers more. We show that our proposed model is equivalent to the type I assurance region model that will be used in the evaluation efficiency.

Keywords

Data envelopment analysis Non-zero weights Assurance region 

Notes

References

  1. 1.
    Charnes, A., Cooper, W.W., Rodes, E.: Measuring the efficiency of decision making units. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2(6), 429–444 (1978)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Banker, R.D., Charnes, A., Cooper, W.W.: Some models for estimating technical and scale inefficiencies in data envelopment analysis. Manag. Sci. 30, 1078–1092 (1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cooper, W.W., Seiford, L.M., Tone, K.: Data Envelopment Analysis: A Comprehensive Text with Models, Applications, References and DEA-Solver Software, 2nd edn. Springer, New York (2007)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sun, J., Yang, R., Ji, X., Wu, J.: Evaluation of decision-making units based on the weight-optimized DEA model. Kybernetika 53(2), 244–262 (2017)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Golany, B.: A note on including ordinal relations among multipliers in DEA. Manag. Sci. 34, 1029–1033 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Thompson, R.G., Langemeier, L., Lee, C., Lee, E., Thrall, R.: The role of multiplier bounds inefficiency analysis with application to Kansas farming. J. Econom. 46, 93–108 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Podinovski, V.V.: Production trade-offs and weight restrictions in data envelopment analysis. J. Oper. Res. Soc. 55, 1311–1322 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hatami-Marbini, A., Rostamy-Malkhalifeh, M., Agrell, P.J., Tavana, M., Mohammadi, F.: Extended symmetric and asymmetric weight assignment methods in data envelopment analysis. Comput. Ind. Eng. 87, 621–631 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dimitrov, S., Sutton, W.: Promoting symmetric weight selection in data envelopment analysis: a penalty function approach. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 200(1), 281–288 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Patel, G.N., Bose, A.: Seeking alternative DEA benchmarks. OPSEARCH 51(1), 23–35 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ramón, N., Ruiz, J.L., Sirvent, I.: A multiplier bound approach to assess relative efficiency in DEA without slacks. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 203(1), 261–269 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Charnes, A., Cooper, W.W., Thrall, R.M.: A structure for classifying and characterizing efficiency and inefficiency in data envelopment analysis. J. Prod. Anal. 2, 197–237 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Charnes, A., Cooper, W.W.: Programming with linear fractional functional. Naval Res. Logist. Q. 9, 181–185 (1962)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Operational Research Society of India 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Mathematics, Arak BranchIslamic Azad UniversityArakIran

Personalised recommendations