RAM: A Range Adjusted Measure of Inefficiency for Use with Additive Models, and Relations to Other Models and Measures in DEA

Journal of Productivity Analysis volume 11, pages5–42(1999)Cite this article

Abstract

Generalized Efficiency Measures (GEMS) for use in DEA are developed and analyzed in a context of differing models where they might be employed. The additive model of DEA is accorded a central role and developed in association with a new measure of efficiency referred to as RAM (Range Adjusted Measure). The need for separately treating input oriented and output oriented approaches to efficient measurement is eliminated because additive models effect their evaluations by maximizing distance from the efficient frontier (in ℓ1, or weighted ℓ1, measure) and thereby simultaneously maximize outputs and minimize inputs. Contacts with other models and approaches are maintained with theorems and accompanying proofs to ensure the validity of the thus identified relations. New criteria are supplied, both managerial and mathematical, for evaluating proposed measures. The concept of “approximating models” is used to further extend these possibilities. The focus of the paper is on the “physical” aspects of performance involved in “technical” and “mix” inefficiencies. However, an Appendix shows how “overall,” “allocative” and “technical” inefficiencies may be incorporated in additive models.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Ahn, T., A. Charnes, and W.W. Cooper. (1988). “A Note on the Efficiency Characterizations Obtained in Different DEA Models.” Socio-Economic Planning Sciences 23, 253–257.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Aida, K., W. W. Cooper, J. T. Pastor, and T. Sueyoshi. (1998). “Evaluating Water Supply Services in Japan with RAM–—A Range-Adjusted Measure of Inefficiency.” Omega 26, 207–232.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Ali, I., and L. Seiford. (1990). “Translation Invariance in Data Envelopment Analysis.” Operations Research Letters 9, 403–405.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Ali, I., and L. Seiford. (1993). “Computational Accuracy and Infinitesimals in Data Envelopment Analysis.” INFOR 31, 290–297.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Allen, R. G. D. (1939). Mathematical Analysis for Economists. London: MacMillan & Co.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Arnold, V., I. Bardhan, W. W. Cooper, and A. Gallegos. (1997). “Primal and Dual Optimality in Computer Codes Using Two-Stage Solution Procedures in DEA.” In J. Aranson and S. Zionts (eds.), Operations Research: Models, Methods and Applications. A volume in honor of G. L. Thompson. Boston: Greenwood Publishing Co.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Athanassopoulos, A. (1998). “Decision Support for Target-Based Resource Allocation of Public Services.” Management Science 44(2), 173–187.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Banker, R. D., I. Bardhan, and W. W. Cooper. (1996). “A Note on Returns to Scale in DEA.” European Journal of Operational Research 88, 583–585.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Banker, R. D., H. Chang, and W. W. Cooper. (1996). “Equivalence and Implementation of Alternative Methods for Determining Returns to scale in DEA.” European Journal of Operational Research 89, 473–481.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Banker, R. D., and W.W. Cooper. (1994). “Validation and Generalization of DEA and Its Uses.” TOP 2, 249–314. Sociedad Española de Estadistica e Investigación Operativa, Madrid, Spain.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Banker, R. D., and R. M. Thrall. (1992). “Estimation of Returns to Scale Using Data Envelopment Analysis.” European Journal of Operational Research 62, 74–84.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Bardhan, I., W. F. Bowlin, W. W. Cooper, and T. Sueyoshi. (1996). “Models for Efficiency Dominance in DEA.” Journal of the Operational Research Society of Japan 39. Part I: “Additive Models and MED Measures.” 322–332. Part II: “Free Disposal Hull (FDH) and Russell Measure (RM) Approaches.” 333–344.

  13. Berger, A. N., and D. B. Humphrey. (1997). “Efficiency of Financial Institutions: International Survey and Directions for Future Research.” European Journal of Operational Research 98, 175–212.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Blackorby, C., and R. R. Russell. (1989). “Will the Real Elasticity of Substitution Please Stand Up? (A Comparison of the Allen/Uzawa and Morishima Elasticities).” The American Economic Review 79, 882–888.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Briec, W. (1997). “A Graph-Type Extension of Farrell Technical Efficiency Measure.” Journal of Productivity Analysis 8, 95–110.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Brockett, P. L., and W.W. Cooper. (1990). “DEA, Logistic Regression and Artificial Intelligence Approaches for Use in Insurance Industry Early Warning Systems.” A Report to the Office of the State Auditor, State of Texas, Austin, Texas.

  17. Brockett, P. L., W. W. Cooper, H. C. Shin, and Yuying Wang. (1998). “Congestion and Inefficiency in Chinese Production Before and After the 1978 Economic Reforms.” Socio-Economic Planning Sciences 32, 1–20.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Chambers, R. G., Y. Chung, and R. Färe. (1996). “Benefit and Distance Functions.” Journal of Economic Theory 70, 407–419.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Charnes, A., and W.W. Cooper. (1961). Management Models and Industrial Applications of Linear Programming. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Charnes, A., and W. W. Cooper. (1962). “Programming with Linear Fractional Functionals.” Naval Research Logistics Quarterly 9, 181–186.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Charnes, A., and W.W. Cooper. (1984). “The Non-Archimedean CCR Ratio for Efficiency Analysis: A Rejoinder to Boyd and Färe.” European Journal of Operational Research 15, 333–334.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Charnes, A., W. W. Cooper, D. Divine, T. W. Ruefli, and D. Thomas. (1989). “Comparison of DEA and Existing Ratio and Regression Systems for Effecting Efficiency Evaluations of Regulated Electric Cooperatives in Texas.” Research in Governmental and Nonprofit Accounting 5, 187–210.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Charnes, A., W. W. Cooper, B. Golany, L. Seiford, and J. Stutz. (1985). “Foundations of Data Envelopment Analysis and Pareto-Koopmans Empirical Production Functions.” Journal of Econometrics 30, 91–107.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Charnes, A., W. W. Cooper, A. Y. Lewin, and L. M. Seiford (eds.). (1993). Data Envelopment Analysis: Theory, Methodology and Applications. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Charnes, A., W. W. Cooper, and E. Rhodes. (1978). “Measuring the Efficiency of Decision Making Units.” European Journal of Operational Research 2, 429–444.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Charnes, A., W. W. Cooper, J. Rousseau, and J. Semple. (1987). “Data Envelopment Analyses and Axiomatic Notions of Efficiency and Reference Sets.” Research Report, Center for Cybernetic Studies, The University of Texas at Austin.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Charnes, A., W. W. Cooper, L. Seiford, and J. Stutz. (1982). “A Multiplicative Model for Efficiency Analysis.” Socio-Economic Planning Sciences 16, 223–224.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Charnes, A., W. W. Cooper, L. Seiford, and J. Stutz. (1983). “Invariant Multiplicative Efficiency and Piecewise Cobb-Douglas Envelopments.” Operations Research Letters 2, 101–103.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Charnes, A., W. W. Cooper, and Q. L. Wei. (1986). “A Semi-Infinite Multicriteria Programming Approach to Data Envelopment Analysis with Infinitely Many DMUs.” Research Report CCS 551, Center for Cybernetic Studies, The University of Texas at Austin.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Charnes, A., W. W. Cooper, and S. Zlobec. (1991). “Efficiency Evaluations in Perturbed Data Envelopment Analysis.” In Jürgen Guddat, Hubertus Jongen, Bernd Kummer and Frantisek Nozicka (eds.), Parametric Optimization and Related Topics II, Mathematische Forschung, Band 62. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Cooper, W.W., Z. Huang, V. Lelas, S. Li, and O. Olesen. (1998). “Chance Constrained Formulations for Stochastic Characterizations of Efficiency and Efficiency Dominance in DEA.” Journal of Productivity Analysis 9, 53–79.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Cooper, W. W., S. Kumbhakar, R. M. Thrall, and X. Yu. (1995). “DEA and Stochastic Frontier Analyses of the Effects of the 1978 Chinese Economic Reforms.” Socio-Economic Planning Sciences 29, 85–117.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Cooper, W. W., K. S. Park, and G. Yu. (1997). “IDEA and AR-IDEA: Models for Dealing with Imprecise Data in DEA.” Management Science (submitted).

  34. Cooper, W. W., and J. T. Pastor. (1995). “Global Efficiency Measurement in DEA.” Working Paper, Depto Est e Inv. Oper. Universidad Alicante, Alicante, Spain.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Cooper, W.W., R. G. Thompson, and R. M. Thrall. (1996). “Extensions and New Developments in DEA.” Annals of Operations Research 66, 3–46.

    Google Scholar 

  36. De Borger, B., G. Ferrier, and K. Kerstens. (1998). “The Choice of a Technical Efficiency Measure on the FDH: A Comparison Using US Banking Data.” European Journal of Operational Research 105, 427–446.

    Google Scholar 

  37. De Borger, B., and K. Kerstens. (1996). “Radial and Nonradial Measures of Technical Efficiency: An Empirical Illustration for Belgian Local Government Using an FDH Reference Technology.” Journal of Productivity Analysis 7, 41–62.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Debreu, G. (1951). “The Coefficient of Resource Utilization.” Econometrica 19, 273–292.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Färe, R., and S. Grosskopf. (1996). Intertemporal Production Frontiers with Dynamic DEA. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Färe, R., S. Grosskopf, and C. A. K. Lovell. (1985). The Measurement of Efficiency of Production. Boston: Kluwer-Nijhoff Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Färe, R., S. Grosskopf, C. A. K. Lovell, and C. Pasurka. (1989). “Multilateral Productivity Comparisons When Some Outputs are Undesirable, A Nonparametric Approach.” Review of Economics and Statistics 71(1), 90–98.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Färe, R., S. Grosskopf, and P. Roos. (1996). “Profit, Productivity and Quality: A Directional Distance Approach.” In Measurement of Productivity and Quality Change, Proceedings of a Conference on Methodological Issues in Official Statistics, Stockholm, Sweden.

  43. Fäe, R., and C. A. K. Lovell. (1978). “Measuring the Technical Efficiency of Production.” Journal of Economic Theory 19, 150–162.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Farrell, M. (1957). “The Measurement of Productive Efficiency.” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society (Series A: General) 120, 253–281.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Ferrier, G., K. Kerstens, and P. Vanden Eeckaut. (1994). “Radial and Nonradial Technical EfficiencyMeasures on a DEA Reference Technology: A Comparison Using US Banking Data.” Recherches Economiques de Louvain 60, 449–479.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Green, R. H., W. Cook, and V. Doyle. (1997). “A Note on the Additive Data Envelopment Analysis Model.” Journal of the Operational Research Society 48, 446–448.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Halme, M., T. Joro, P. Korhonen, S. Salo, and J. Wallenius. (1998). “AValue Efficiency Approach to Incorporating Preference Information in Data Envelopment Analysis.” Management Science (forthcoming).

  48. Jong, R., and W. M. Quade. (1967). Dimensional Analysis for Economists. Amsterdam: North Holland.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Koopmans, T. C. (1957). Three Essays on the State of Economic Science. New York, McGraw-Hill, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Lovell, C. A. K. (1995). “Measuring the Macroeconomics Performance of the Taiwanese Economy.” International Journal of Production Economics 39, 165–178.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Lovell, C. A. K., and J. T. Pastor. (1995). “Units Invariant and Translation Invariant DEA Models.” Operations Research Letters, 147–151.

  52. Lovell, C. A. K., J. T. Pastor, and J. S. Turner. (1995). “Measuring Macroeconomics Performance in the OECD: A Comparison of European and Non-European Countries.” European Journal of Operational Research 87, 507–518.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Pastor, J. T. (1994). “New Additive Models for Handling Zero and Negative Data.” Working Paper, Alicante, Spain: University of Alicante, Dept. de Est. e Inv. Oper.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Pastor, J. T. (1995). “Improving the New DEA-Efficiency Measure of Tone.” Working Paper, Alicante, Spain: University of Alicante, Dept. de Est. e Inv. Oper.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Pastor, J. T. (1996). “Translation Invariance in DEA: A Generalization.” Annals of Operations Research 66, 93–102.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Pastor, J. T., J. L. Ruiz, and I. Sirvent. (1997). “An Enhanced DEA Russell-Graph Efficiency Measure.” Departmanto de Estadistica y Mathematica Aplicada, Universidad Miguel Hernandez, Elche (Alicante), Spain.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Russell, R. (1985). “Measures of Technical Efficiency.” Journal of Economic Theory 35, 109–126.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Russell, R. (1988). “On the Axiomatic Approach to the Measurement of Technical Efficiency.” In W. Eichorn (ed.), Measurement in Economics. Heidelberg, Physica-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Russell, R. (1990). “Continuity of Measures of Technical Efficiency.” Journal of Economic Theory 51, 255–267.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Schaible, S. (1996). “Fractional Programming.” In S. I. Gass and C. M. Harris (eds.), Encyclopedia of Operations Research and Management Science. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Shephard, R. W. (1970). Theory of Cost and Production Functions. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Thanassoulis, E., and R. Dyson. (1992). “Estimating Preferred Target Input-Output Levels Using Data Envelopment Analysis.” European Journal of Operational Research 56, 80–97.

    Google Scholar 

  63. Thompson, R. G., and R. M. Thrall. (1994). “Polyhedral Assurance Regions with Linked Constraints.” In W.W. Cooper and A. Whinston (eds.), NewDirections in Computational Economics. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 121–133.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Thrall, R. M. (1996a). “The Lack of Invariance of Optimal Dual Solutions Under Translation.” Annals of Operations Research 66, 103–108.

    Google Scholar 

  65. Thrall, R. M. (1996b). “Duality, Classification and Slacks in DEA.” Annals of Operations Research 66, 109–138.

    Google Scholar 

  66. Thrall, R. M. (1997). “GoalVectors forDEAEfficiency and Inefficiency.” Working Paper No. 128, Rice University, Houston, Texas.

    Google Scholar 

  67. Tone, K. (1993). “An ε-Free DEA and a New Measure of Efficiency.” Journal of the Operational Research Society of Japan 36, 167–174.

    Google Scholar 

  68. Tone, K. (1997). “A Slacks Based Measure of Efficiency in Data Envelopment Analysis.” Working Paper, Saitama University, Saitama, Urawa, Japan.

    Google Scholar 

  69. Torgersen, A. M., F. R. Førsund, and S. A. C. Kittelsen. (1996). “Slack Adjusted Efficiency Measures and Ranking of Efficient Units.” Journal of Productivity Analysis 7, 379–398.

    Google Scholar 

  70. Tulkens, H. (1993). “On FDH Efficiency Analysis: Some Methodological Issues and Applications to Retail Banking, Courts and Urban Transit.” Journal of Productivity Analysis 4, 183–210.

    Google Scholar 

  71. Zieschang, K. (1984). “An Extended Farrell Efficiency Measure.” Journal of Economic Theory 33, 387–396.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Graduate School of Business, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas, 78712-1174, USA

    William W. Cooper & Jesus T. Pastor

  2. Graduate School of Management, Korea Advanced Institute of Science & Technology, Kaist 207-43 Cheongryang, Dongdaemun, Seoul, 130-012, Korea

    Kyung Sam Park

Authors
  1. William W. Cooper
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kyung Sam Park
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jesus T. Pastor
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Cooper, W.W., Park, K.S. & Pastor, J.T. RAM: A Range Adjusted Measure of Inefficiency for Use with Additive Models, and Relations to Other Models and Measures in DEA. Journal of Productivity Analysis 11, 5–42 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007701304281

Download citation

  • DEA models
  • Efficiency measures
  • Model relations
  • Types of inefficiency