Annals of Operations Research

, Volume 73, Issue 0, pp 13–34 | Cite as

Weights restrictions and value judgements in Data Envelopment Analysis: Evolution, development and future directions

  • R. Allen
  • A. Athanassopoulos
  • R.G. Dyson
  • E. Thanassoulis


This paper provides a review of the evolution, development and future research directions on the use of weights restrictions and value judgements in Data Envelopment Analysis. The paper argues that the incorporation of value judgements in DEA was motivated by applications of the method in real life organisations. The application driven development of the methods has led to a number of different approaches in the literature which have inevitably different uses and interpretations. The paper concentrates on the implications of weights restrictions on the efficiency, targets and peer comparators of inefficient Decision Making Units. The paper concludes with future research directions in the area of value judgements and weights restrictions.

Data Envelopment Analysis weights restrictions value judgements efficiency 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [1]
    A. Ali and L. Seiford, The mathematical programming approach to efficiency analysis, in: The Measurement of Productive Efficiency: Techniques and Applications, H. Fried K. Lovell and S. Schmidt, eds., University Press, New York, 1993.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    A. Ali, W. Cook and L. Seiford, Strict vs. weak ordinal relations for multipliers in Data Envelopment Analysis, Management Science 37(1991)733–738.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    T. Ahn and L. Seiford, Sensitivity of DEA to models and variables sets in a hypothesis test setting, forthcoming.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    R. Banker and R. Morey, Incorporating value judgements in efficiency analysis, Research In Governmental and Non-Profit Accounting 5(1989)245–267.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    R. Banker, A. Charnes and W. Cooper, Some models for estimating technical and scale inefficiencies in Data Envelopment Analysis, Management Science 30 (1994)1078–1092.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    J.E. Beasley, Comparing university departments, Omega, International Journal of Management Science 18(1990)171–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. [7]
    A. Bessent, W. Bessent, J. Elam and T. Clark, Efficiency frontier determination by constraint facet analysis, Operations Research 36(1988)785–796.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    A. Charnes, W. Cooper and E. Rhodes, Measuring the efficiency of decision making units, European Journal of Operational Research 2(1978)429–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. [9]
    A. Charnes, W. Cooper and E. Rhodes, Evaluating program and managerial efficiency: An application of Data Envelopment Analysis to program follow through, Management Science 27 (1981)668–697.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    A. Charnes, W. Cooper, B. Golany, L. Seiford and J. Stutz, Foundations of Data Envelopment Analysis for Pareto-Koopmans efficient empirical production functions, Journal of Econometrics 30(1985)91–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. [11]
    A. Charnes, W. Cooper and E. Rhodes, Short communication: Measuring efficiency of Decision Making Units, European Journal of Operational Research 3(1979)339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. [12]
    A. Charnes, W. Cooper, Z. Huang and D. Sun, Polyhedral cone-ratio DEA models with an illustrative application to large commercial banks, Journal of Econometrics 46(1990)73–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. [13]
    J. Chilingerian and D. Sherman, DEA and physician report cards: using assurance regions to benchmark clinical best practices in an HMO, Annals of Operations Research, this volume.Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    W.D. Cook, A. Kazakov and Y. Roll, On the measurement and monitoring of relative efficiency of highway maintenance patrols, in: Data Envelopment Analysis: Theory, Methodology and Applications, A. Charnes, W. Cooper, A. Lewin and L. Seiford, eds., forthcoming.Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    W.D. Cook, A. Kazakov, Y. Roll and L. Seiford, A Data Envelopment approach to measuring efficiency: Case analysis of highway maintenance patrols, Journal of Socio-Economics 20(1991) 83–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. [16]
    W.D. Cook, M. Kress and L Seiford, Prioritisation models for frontier Decision Making Units in DEA, European Journal of Operational Research 59(1992)319–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. [17]
    W.D. Cook and M. Kress, A Data Envelopment Analysis model for aggregating preference rankings, Management Science 36(1990)1302–1310.Google Scholar
  18. [18]
    W.D. Cook and L. Seiford, Priority ranking and consensus formation, Journal of the Operational Research Society 24(1978)1721–1732.Google Scholar
  19. [19]
    R.G. Dyson and E. Thanassoulis, Reducing weight flexibility in DEA, Journal of the Operations Research Society 39(1988)563–576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. [20]
    M.J. Farrell, The measurement of productive efficiency, Journal of the Royal Society of Statistics 120(1957)253–281.Google Scholar
  21. [21]
    B. Golany, A note on including ordinal relations among multipliers in DEA, Management Science 34(1988)1029–1033.Google Scholar
  22. [22]
    R. Green and J. Doyle, On maximising discrimination in multiple-criteria decision making, Journal of the Operational Research Society 46(1995)192–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. [23]
    J. Kornbluth, Analysing policy effectiveness using cone restricted Data Envelopment Analysis, Journal of the Operational Research Society 42(1991)1097–1104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. [24]
    K. Lovell, Production frontiers and productive efficiency, in: The Measurement of Productive Efficiency Techniques and Applications, H. Fried, K. Lovell and S. Schmidt, eds., Oxford University Press, New York, 1993Google Scholar
  25. [25]
    O. Olesen and N. Petersen, Collinearity in Data Envelopment Analysis: An extended facet approach, Working paper No. 1/1991, Department of Management, Odense University, Denmark, 1991.Google Scholar
  26. [26]
    Y. Rol, W. Cook and B. Golany, Controlling factor weights in DEA, IIE Transactions 23(1991) 2–9.Google Scholar
  27. [27]
    Y. Roll and B. Golany, Alternative methods of treating factor weights in DEA, Omega, International Journal of Management Science 21(1993)99–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. [28]
    Y. Roll, B. Golany and D. Seroussy, Measuring the efficiency of maintenance units in the Israeli Air Force, European Journal of Operational Research 43(1989)136–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. [29]
    L. Seiford, A bibliography of Data Envelopment Analysis (1978–1990), Technical Report, Department of Industrial Engineering and Operations Research, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, 1991.Google Scholar
  30. [30]
    E. Thanassoulis, R.G. Dyson and M. Foster, Relative efficiency assessments using Data Envelopment Analysis: An application to data on rates departments, Journal of the Operational Research Society 38(1987)397–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. [31]
    E. Thanassoulis and R. Dyson, Estimating preferred targets input-output levels using Data Envelopment Analysis, European Journal of Operational Research 56(1992)80–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. [32]
    E. Thanassoulis, A. Boussofiane and R.G. Dyson, Exploring output quality targets in the provision of perinatal care in England using DEA, European Journal of Operational Research 60(1995) 588–608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. [33]
    R.G. Thompson and R. Thrall, Polyhedral assurance regions with linked constraints, in: New Directions in Computational Economics, Kluwer Academic, New York, 1993.Google Scholar
  34. [34]
    R.G. Thompson, P. Dharmapala, L. Rothenberg and R. Thrall, DEA ARs and CRs applied to worldwide major oil companies, Journal of Productivity Analysis 5(1994)181–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. [35]
    R.G. Thompson, L. Langemeier, C. Lee, E. Lee and R. Thrall, The role of multiplier bounds in efficiency analysis with application to Kansas farming, Journal of Econometrics 46(1990)93–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. [36]
    R.G. Thompson, E. Lee and R. Thrall, DEA/AR-efficiency of US independent oil/gas producers over time, Computers and Operations Research 19(1992)377–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. [37]
    R.G. Thompson, F. Singleton, R. Thrall and B. Smith, Comparative site evaluations for locating a high-energy physics lab in Texas, Interfaces 16(1986)35–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. [38]
    Y-H.B. Wong and J. Beasley, Restricting weight flexibility in DEA, Journal of the Operational Research Society 41(1990)829–835.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • R. Allen
  • A. Athanassopoulos
  • R.G. Dyson
  • E. Thanassoulis

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations