Soft Computing

, Volume 21, Issue 5, pp 1271–1290 | Cite as

RED: a new method for performance ranking of large decision making units

Methodologies and Application
  • 176 Downloads

Abstract

Data envelopment analysis (DEA) method has been widely used in many economic and industrial applications to measure efficiency and rank performances of decision making units (DMUs). Improving the accuracy and computation time in measuring the efficiency of DMUs have been two main challenges for the DEA. Specifically, with large DMUs, the DEA-based methods are argued to require large amount of memory space and CPU time to measure DMUs efficiencies, and suffer from inability to obtain complete performance ranking. To address these issues, in this paper, a new alternative method that is based on input oriented model (IOM) and efficiency ratio (ER), called ratio efficiency dominance (RED), is proposed. The proposed method seeks to minimize the inputs while maximizing the outputs to obtain efficiency or performance scores, which is independent of DEA method and the use of linear programming (LP). It is also to overcome the drawbacks of uncontrolled convergence, non-generalization and instability induced from integrating prediction techniques such as neural networks (NNs) with DEA. To evaluate the proposed method, experiments were performed on small, large and very large DMUs data sets to show the effectiveness of proposed method. The experimental results demonstrated that, in all cases, the proposed method is able to produce a complete and more accurate ranking compared to the conventional DEA methods or its hybrids.

Keywords

Data envelopment analysis Large decision making units  Prediction methods Ratio efficiency dominance Input oriented model DMUs ranking 

References

  1. Abe S (2010) Support vector machines for pattern classification. Springer, New YorkCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. Adler N, Golany B (2001) Evaluation of deregulated airline networks using data envelopment analysis combined with principal component analysis with an application to Western Europe. Eur J Oper Res 132(2):260–273CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. Apice A, Ceci M, Malerba D (2003) Mining model trees: a multi-relational approach. In: Inductive Logic Programming. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 4–21Google Scholar
  4. Ali AI (1990) Data envelopment analysis: computational issues. Comput Environ Urban Syst 14(2):157–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ali AI (1993) Streamlined computation for data envelopment analysis. Eur J Oper Res 64(1):61–67CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. Ali AI (1994) Computational aspects of DEA. Springer, The NetherlandsCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. Ali AI, Seiford LM (1993) Computational accuracy and infinitesimals in data envelopment analysis. Infor 31(4):290–297MATHGoogle Scholar
  8. Andersen P, Petersen NC (1993) A procedure for ranking efficient units in data envelopment analysis. Manag Sci 39(10):1261–1264CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. Banker RD, Charnes A, Cooper WW (1984) Some models for estimating technical and scale inefficiencies in data envelopment analysis. Manag Sci 30(9):1078–1092CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. Barr RS, Durchholz ML (1997) Parallel and hierarchical decomposition approaches for solving large-scale data envelopment analysis models. Ann Oper Res 73:339–372CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. Barr RS, Killgo KA, Siems TF, Zimmel S (2002) Evaluating the productive efficiency and performance of US commercial banks. Manag Finance 28(8):3–25Google 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):1698–1710CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chang CC, Lin CJ (2011) LIBSVM: a library for support vector machines. ACM Trans Intell Syst Technol 2(3):27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Charnes A, Cooper WW, Rhodes E (1978) Measuring the efficiency of decision making units. Eur J Oper Res 2(6):429–444MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. Charnes A, Cooper WW, Golany B, Seiford L, Stutz J (1985) Foundations of data envelopment analysis for Pareto-Koopmans efficient empirical production functions. J Econom 30(1):91–107MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. Chen CM, van Dalen J (2010) Measuring dynamic efficiency: theories and an integrated methodology. Eur J Oper Res 203(3):749–760CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. Chen JX, Deng M (2011) A cross-dependence based ranking system for efficient and inefficient units in DEA. Expert Syst Appl 38(8):9648–9655CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Chen JX, Deng M, Gingras S (2011) A modified super-efficiency measure based on simultaneous input–output projection in data envelopment analysis. Comput Oper Res 38(2):496–504MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. Chen Y, Sherman HD (2004) The benefits of non-radial vs. radial super-efficiency DEA: an application to burden-sharing amongst NATO member nations. Soc Econ Plan Sci 38(4):307–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Chen Y, Du J, Huo J (2013) Super-efficiency based on a modified directional distance function. Omega 41(3):621–625CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Cooper WW, Seiford LM, Tone K (2007) Data envelopment analysis: a comprehensive text with models, applications, references and DEA-Solver Software, 2nd edn. Springer, New York, p 490 ISBN 387452818MATHGoogle Scholar
  22. Cooper WW, Seiford LM, Zhu J (2011) Handbook on data envelopment analysis, vol 164. Springer, New YorkMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. Cortes C, Vapnik V (1995) Support-vector networks. Mach Learn 20(3):273–297MATHGoogle Scholar
  24. Cristianini N, Shawe-Taylor J (2000) An introduction to support vector machines and other kernel-based learning methods. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  25. Debreu G (1951) The coefficient of resource utilization. Econometrica:273–292Google Scholar
  26. Doyle J, Green R (1994) Efficiency and cross-efficiency in DEA: derivations, meanings and uses. J Oper Res Soc:567-578Google Scholar
  27. Dula JH (2008) A computational study of DEA with massive data sets. Comput Oper Res 35(4):1191–1203CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  28. Emrouznejad A, Shale E (2009) A combined neural network and DEA for measuring efficiency of large scale data sets. Comput Ind Eng 56(1):249–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Farahmand M, Desa MI, Nilashi M (2014) Hybrid data envelopment analysis and neural networks for suppliers efficiency prediction and ranking. Int Conf Recent Trends Inf Commun Technol:392–401Google Scholar
  30. Farahmand M, Desa MI, Nilashi M (2014b) A combined data envelopment analysis and support vector regression for efficiency evaluation of large decision making units. Int J Eng Technol:2310–2321Google Scholar
  31. Farahmand M, Desa MI, Nilashi M, Wibowo A (2014c) An improved method for predicting and ranking suppliers efficiency using data envelopment analysis. J Teknol 73(2)Google Scholar
  32. Farahmand M, Desa MI, Nilashi M (2015) A comparative study of CCR-(\(\varepsilon \)-SVR) and CCR-(\(\nu \)-SVR) models for efficiency prediction of large decision making units. J Soft Comput Decis Support Syst 2(1):8–17Google Scholar
  33. Färe R, Knox Lovell CA (1978) Measuring the technical efficiency of production. J Econ Theory 19(1):150–162MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  34. Farrell MJ (1957) The measurement of productive efficiency. J Royal Stat Soc Ser A:253-290Google Scholar
  35. Guo D, Wu J (2013) A complete ranking of DMUs with undesirable outputs using restrictions in DEA models. Math Comput Model 58(5):1102–1109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Guosheng H, Guohong Z (2008) Comparison on neural networks and support vector machines in suppliers’ selection. Syst Eng Electron J 19(2):316–320CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  37. Ho W, Xu X, Dey PK (2010) Multi-criteria decision making approaches for supplier evaluation and selection: A literature review. Eur J Oper Res 202(1):16–24CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  38. Hosseinzadeh Lotfi F, Jahanshahloo GR, Khodabakhshi M, Rostamy-Malkhlifeh M, Moghaddas Z, Vaez-Ghasemi M (2013) A review of ranking models in data envelopment analysis. J Appl MathGoogle Scholar
  39. Hosseinzadeh Lotfi F, Noora AA, Jahanshahloo GR, Reshadi M (2011) One DEA ranking method based on applying aggregate units. Expert Syst Appl 38(10):13468–13471CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Jahanshahloo GR, Hosseinzadeh Lotfi F, Zhiani Rezai H, Rezai Balf F (2007) Finding strong defining hyperplanes of production possibility set. Eur J Oper Res 177(1):42–54MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  41. 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):265–281MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  42. Jahanshahloo GR, Pourkarimi L, Zarepisheh M (2006) Modified MAJ model for ranking decision making units in data envelopment analysis. Appl Math Comput 174(2):1054–1059MATHGoogle Scholar
  43. Jiang B, Chen W, Zhang H, Pan W (2013) Supplier’s efficiency and performance evaluation using DEA-SVM approach. J Softw 8(1):25–30Google Scholar
  44. Kao C (2010) Malmquist productivity index based on common-weights DEA: the case of Taiwan forests after reorganization. Omega 38(6):484–491CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Khezrimotlagh D, Salleh S, Mohsenpour Z (2013) A new method for evaluating decision making units in DEA. J Oper Res Soc 65(5):694–707CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Kontis AP, Vrysagotis V (2011) Supplier selection problem: a literature review of multi-criteria approaches based on DEA. Adv Manag Appl Econ 1(2):207–219Google Scholar
  47. Koopmans TC (1951) Analysis of production as an efficient combination of activities. Act Anal Prod Alloc 13:33–37MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  48. Li S, Jahanshahloo GR, Khodabakhshi M (2007) A super-efficiency model for ranking efficient units in data envelopment analysis. Appl Math Comput 184(2):638–648MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  49. Liu FHF, Hsuan Peng H (2008) Ranking of units on the DEA frontier with common weights. Comput Oper Res 35(5):1624–1637CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  50. Lu WM, Lo SF (2009) An interactive benchmark model ranking performers–application to financial holding companies. Math Comput Model 49(1):172–179MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  51. Mehrabian S, Alirezaee MR, Jahanshahloo GR (1999) A complete efficiency ranking of decision making units in data envelopment analysis. Comput Optim Appl 14(2):261–266MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  52. Mo Y (2014) Applications of SVR to the Aveiro discretization method. Soft Comput:1–13Google Scholar
  53. Nadimi R, Shakouri H (2011) Factor Analysis (FA) as ranking and an efficient data reducing approach for decision making units: SAFA rolling & Pipe Mills Company Case Study. Appl Math Sci 5(79):3917–3927MATHGoogle Scholar
  54. Narasimhan R, Talluri S, Mendez D (2001) Supplier evaluation and rationalization via data envelopment analysis: an empirical examination. J Supply Chain Manag 37(2):28–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Nilashi M, Ibrahim OB, Ithnin N, Zakaria R (2014) A multi-criteria recommendation system using dimensionality reduction and neuro-fuzzy techniques. Soft Comput:1–35Google Scholar
  56. Ozdemir D, Temur GT (2009) DEA ANN approach in supplier evaluation system. World Acad Sci Eng Technol 54(538):343–348Google Scholar
  57. Paradi JC, Zhu H, Edelstein B (2012) Identifying managerial groups in a large Canadian bank branch network with a DEA approach. Eur J Oper Res 219(1):178–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Pastor JT, Ruiz JL, Sirvent I (1999) An enhanced DEA Russell graph efficiency measure. Eur J Oper Res 115(3):596–607CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  59. Podinovski VV (2001) DEA models for the explicit maximization of relative efficiency. J Oper Res Soc 131(3):572–586MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  60. Podinovski VV (2005) The explicit role of weight bounds in models of data envelopment analysis. J Oper Res Soc 56(12):1408–1418CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  61. 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):4882–4889CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Salo A, Punkka A (2011) Ranking intervals and dominance relations for ratio-based efficiency analysis. Manage Sci 57(1):200–214CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  63. Samoilenko S, Osei-Bryson KM (2010) Determining sources of relative inefficiency in heterogeneous samples: methodology using cluster analysis, dea and neural networks. Eur J Oper Res 206(2):479–487CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  64. Sexton TR (1986) The methodology of data envelopment analysis. New Dir Prog Eval 1986(32):7–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Soltanifar M, Hosseinzadeh Lotfi F (2011) The voting analytic hierarchy process method for discriminating among efficient decision making units in data envelopment analysis. Comput Ind Eng 60(4):585–592CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Soltanifar M, Shahghobadi S (2014) Survey on rank preservation and rank reversal in data envelopment analysis. Knowl Based Syst 60:10–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Sueyoshi T (1999) DEA non-parametric ranking test and index measurement: slack-adjusted DEA and an application to Japanese agriculture cooperatives. Omega 27(3):315–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Tone K (2001) A slacks-based measure of efficiency in data envelopment analysis. Eur J Oper Res 130(3):498–509MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  69. Torgersen AM, Førsund FR, Kittelsen SA (1996) Slack-adjusted efficiency measures and ranking of efficient units. J Prod Anal 7(4):379–398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Vapnik V (1995) The nature of statistical learning theory. Springer, New YorkCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  71. Wang YM, Luo Y, Liang L (2009) Ranking decision making units by imposing a minimum weight restriction in the data envelopment analysis. J Comput Appl Math 223(1):469–484MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  72. Wen M, Qin Z, Kang R, Yang Y (2014) Sensitivity and stability analysis of the additive model in uncertain data envelopment analysis. Soft Comput:1–10Google Scholar
  73. Wu D (2009) Supplier selection: a hybrid model using DEA, decision tree and neural network. Expert Syst Appl 36(5):9105–9112Google Scholar
  74. Zerafat Angiz M, Mustafa A, Kamali MJ (2013) Cross-ranking of decision making units in data envelopment analysis. Appl Math Model 37(1):398–405MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  75. Zhu J (1998) Data envelopment analysis vs. principal component analysis: an illustrative study of economic performance of Chinese cities. Eur J Oper Res 111(1):50–61CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Mathematics and Computer, Abarkouh BranchIslamic Azad UniversityAbarkouhIran
  2. 2.Faculty of Information and Communication TechnologyUniversiti Teknikal Malaysia Melaka (UTeM)MelakaMalaysia

Personalised recommendations