Journal of the Operational Research Society

, Volume 55, Issue 9, pp 911–935 | Cite as

Content analysis of data envelopment analysis literature and its comparison with that of other OR/MS fields

General Paper

Abstract

Content analysis was performed on the data envelopment analysis (DEA) literature appearing in refereed journals. The extant DEA literature, reported in Gattoufi et al was subdivided into two ways. The first considers all articles appearing during the life cycle of 22 selected major DEA publishing journals. The second considers all post-1995 DEA articles. Content was judged on the basis of a two-point scale representing advancements in theory; a five-point scale indicating contributions to practice; and on seven distinguishable strategies applied by the authors in pursuing their research. Lastly, DEA was compared with similarly obtained results describing the life cycle literatures of flow shop scheduling and of cell manufacturing. This analysis has proven the vitality, robustness, and real-world grounding of DEA on its own and vis-à-vis other OR/MS sub-disciplines. Moreover, the breadth of its diffusion into other disciplines and professions has been shown to be extraordinary.

Keywords

Data envelopment analysis DEA efficiency analysis content analysis classification philosophy of OR practice of OR meta-review research on research 

References

  1. Gattoufi S, Oral M and Reisman A (2003). Data envelopment analysis literature: a bibliography update (1996–2001). Socio Econ Plan Sci, forthcoming. Corrected proof available online at http://www.sciencedirect.com/science.
  2. Avkiran NK (2002). Productivity Analysis in the Service Sector with Data Envelopment Analysis, 2nd edn. Queensland (http://www.uq.edu.au/financesite/aboutbook.htm).
  3. Gattoufi S, Oral M, Kumar A and Reisman A (2003). Epistemology of data envelopment analysis and comparison with other fields of OR/MS for relevance to applications. Socio Econ Plan Sci, forthcoming. Corrected proof available online at http://www.sciencedirect.com/science.
  4. Reisman A (2003). Data envelopment analysis: preface to a special issue of socio-economic planning sciences. Socio Econ Plan Sci, forthcoming. Corrected proof available online at http://www.sciencedirect.com/science.
  5. Førsund FR and Sarafoglou N (2002). On the origins of data envelopment analysis. J Prod Anal 17: 23–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Charnes A, Cooper WW and Rhodes E (1978). Measuring the efficiency of decision making units. Eur J Opl Res 2: 429–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Førsund FR and Sarafoglou N (2003). The tale of two research communities: the diffusion of research on productivity efficiency. Working Paper, Department of Economics, University of Oslo, Norway.Google Scholar
  8. Farrell MJ (1957). The measurement of productive efficiency. J R Stat Soc Ser A CXX: 253–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Debreu G (1951). The coefficient of resource utilisation. Econometrica 19: 273–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Koopmans TC (1951). An analysis of production as an efficient combination of activities. In: Koopmans TC (Ed). Activity Analysis of Production and Allocation, Cowles Commission for Research in Economics, Monograph 13. Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
  11. Gattoufi S, Oral M and Reisman A (2003). A taxonomy for data envelopment analysis. Socio Econ Plan Sci, in press. Corrected proof available online at: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science.
  12. Reisman A (1988). On alternative strategies for doing research in the management and social sciences. IEEE Trans Eng Mngt 35: 215–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Reisman A (1992). Management Science Knowledge: It's Creation, Generalization and Consolidation. Quorum Books Publishing Company: Westport, CT.Google Scholar
  14. Reisman A, Kumar A and Motwani J (1997). Flowshop scheduling/sequencing research: a statistical review of the literature 1952–1994. IEEE Trans Eng Mngt 44: 316–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Reisman A, Kumar A, Motwani J and Cheng CH (1997). Cellular manufacturing: a statistical review of the literature (1965–1995). Opns Res 45: 508–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Reisman A, Kumar A and Motwani J (2001). A meta review of game theory publications in the flagship US-based OR/MS journals. Mngt Decis 39: 147–155.Google Scholar
  17. Reisman A and Kirschnick F (1994). The devolution of OR/MS: implications from a statistical content analysis of papers in flagship journals. Opns Res 42: 577–588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Reisman A and Kirschnick F (1995). Research strategies used by OR/MS workers as shown by an analysis of papers in flagship journals. Opns Res 43: 731–740.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Seiford LM (1996). Data envelopment analysis: the evolution of the state of the art (1978–1995). J Prod Anal 7: 99–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Seiford LM (1997). A bibliography for data envelopment analysis (1978–1996). Ann Opns Res 73: 393–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ormerod RJ (1997). An observation on publication habits based on the analysis of MS/OR journals. Omega 25: 599–603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ormerod RJ and Kiossis I (1997). OR/MS publications: extension of an analysis of US flagship journals to the UK. Opns Res 45: 179–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Sarafoglou N (1998). The most influential DEA publications: a comment on Seiford. J Prod Anal 9: 279–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Simar L and Wilson P (1998). Sensitivity of efficiency scores: how to bootstrap in nonparametric frontier models. Mngt Sci 44: 49–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Reisman A, Oral M and Gattoufi S (2003). Absolutely positively operations research: 50 years of contributions by William Wager Cooper. Working Paper SUGSM—02-10, Sabanci University, Istanbul, Turkey 2001. Socio Econ Plan Sci, in press.Google Scholar
  26. Day JE and Hottenstein MP (1970). Review of sequencing research. Nav Res Logist Q 17: 11–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Dudek RA, Panwalkar SS and Smith ML (1992). The lessons of flowshop sequencing research. Opns Res 40: 7–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hyer NL and Wemmerlov U (1982). MRP/GT: a framework for production planning and control of cellular manufacturing. Decis Sci 13: 681–701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Wemmerlov U and Hyer NL (1987). Research issues in cellular manufacturing. Int J Prod Res 25: 413–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Offodile OF (1994). Cellular manufacturing: a taxonomic review framework. J Manuf Syst 13: 196–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Abbott A (1988). The Systems of Professions: An Essay on the Division of Expert Labour. University of Chicago Press: Chicago, USA.Google Scholar
  32. Corbett CJ and Van Wassenhove LN (1993). The natural drift: what happened to Operations Research? Opns Res 41: 625–640.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Miser H (1987). Science and professionalism in Operations Research. Opns Res 35: 314–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Ackoff R (1987). OR: a post mortem. Opns Res 35: 471–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Reisman A (1979). Systems Analysis in Health-Care Delivery. Lexington Books: Lexington, MA.Google Scholar
  36. Banker RD (1990). A game theoretic approach to measuring efficiency. Eur J Opl Res 52: 62–66.Google Scholar
  37. Banker RD, Charnes A, Cooper WW and Clarke R (1989). Constrained game formulations and interpretations for data envelopment analysis. Eur J Opl Res 40: 299–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Bogetoft P (1994). Incentive efficient production frontiers — an agency perspective on DEA. Mngt Sci 40: 959–968.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Bogetoft P (2000). DEA and activity planning under asymmetric information. J Prod Anal 13: 7–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Charnes A, Clarke RL and Cooper WW (1989). An approach to testing for organisational slack with Banker's game theoretic formulation of DEA. Res Govern Non-Profit Account 5: 211–230.Google Scholar
  41. Charnes A, Huang ZM, Rousseau JJ and Wei QL (1990). Cone extremal solutions of multi-payoff games with cross-constrained strategy sets. Optimisation 21: 51–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Chobot M and Institoris J (1998). Comparison of data envelopment analysis and game theory approaches to efficiency evaluation. Cent Eur J Opns Res Econ 6: 275–278.Google Scholar
  43. Hao G, Wei QL and Yan H (2000). A game theoretical model of DEA efficiency. J Opl Res Soc 51: 1319–1329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Rousseau JJ and Semple JH (1995). Two-person ratio efficiency games. Mngt Sci 41: 435–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Semple J (1997). Constrained games for evaluating organizational performance. Eur J Opl Res 96: 103–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Talluri S, Huq F and Pinney WE (1997). Application of data envelopment analysis for cell performance evaluation and process improvement in cellular manufacturing. Int J Prod Res 35: 2157–2170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Horner P (2003). The science of better. OR/MS Today, December: 20–23.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Palgrave Macmillan Ltd 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Sabanci UniversityIstanbulTurkey
  2. 2.Grand Valley State UniversityGrand RapidsUSA
  3. 3.Reisman and AssociatesShaker HeightsUSA

Personalised recommendations