Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

DEA cross-efficiency evaluation under variable returns to scale

  • General Paper
  • Published:
Journal of the Operational Research Society

Abstract

Cross-efficiency evaluation in data envelopment analysis (DEA) has been developed under the assumption of constant returns to scale (CRS), and no valid attempts have been made to apply the cross-efficiency concept to the variable returns to scale (VRS) condition. This is due to the fact that negative VRS cross-efficiency arises for some decision-making units (DMUs). Since there exist many instances that require the use of the VRS DEA model, it is imperative to develop cross-efficiency measures under VRS. We show that negative VRS cross-efficiency is related to free production of outputs. We offer a geometric interpretation of the relationship between the CRS and VRS DEA models. We show that each DMU, via solving the VRS model, seeks an optimal bundle of weights with which its CRS-efficiency score, measured under a translated Cartesian coordinate system, is maximized. We propose that VRS cross-efficiency evaluation should be done via a series of CRS models under translated Cartesian coordinate systems. The current study offers a valid cross-efficiency approach under the assumption of VRS—one of the most common assumptions in performance evaluation done by DEA.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Type II free production of outputs can be interpreted as consumption (opposite to production) of outputs without any inputs, and it can be considered as extended free disposability of outputs, which may not be unacceptable. However, we pursue our development assuming it is unacceptable in this paper, which provides a more general framework. In case type II free production of outputs is acceptable; the developed framework of VRS cross-efficiency can be easily simplified to suit the case.

  2. We should note that O″ is not the only choice for O* along that does not give rise to the negative-output problem, and resulting cross-efficiencies depend on the choice of O*. However, the choice of an adjusted origin on the x-axis makes it possible to derive a general formula (that does not depend on coefficients β k ) for VRS cross-efficiency as shown in the subsequent paragraphs.

References

  • Ali AI and Seiford LM (1990). Translation invariance in data envelopment analysis. Operations Research Letters 9 (6): 403–405.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson TR, Hollingsworth KB and Inman LB (2002). The fixed weighting nature of a cross-evaluation model. Journal of Productivity Analysis 17 (3): 249–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Banker RD, Charnes A and Cooper WW (1984). Some models for estimating technical and scale inefficiencies in data envelopment analysis. Management Science 30 (9): 1078–1092.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Banker RD, Cooper WW, Seiford LM and Zhu J (2011). Returns to scale in data envelopment analysis. In Cooper WW, Seiford LM and Zhu J (eds). Handbook on Data Envelopment Analysis. Springer: New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Charnes A, Cooper WW and Rhodes E (1978). Measuring the efficiency of decision making units. European Journal of Operational Research 2 (6): 429–444.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen C-M and Zhu J (2011). Efficient resource allocation via efficiency bootstraps: An application to R&D project budgeting. Operations Research 59 (3): 729–741.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cook WD, Tone K and Zhu J (2014). Data envelopment analysis: Prior to choosing a model. Omega 44: 1–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doyle J and Green R (1994). Efficiency and cross-efficiency in DEA: Derivations, meanings and uses. Journal of the Operational Research Society 45 (5): 567–578.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Green R, Doyle J and Cook WD (1996). Preference voting and project ranking using DEA and cross-evaluation. European Journal of Operational Research 90 (3): 461–472.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liang L, Wu J, Cook WD and Zhu J (2008a). Alternative secondary goals in DEA cross-efficiency evlauation. International Journal of Production Economics 113 (2): 1025–1030.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liang L, Wu J, Cook WD and Zhu J (2008b). The DEA game cross-efficiency model and its Nash equilibrium. Operations Research 56 (5): 1278–1288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lim S (2012). Minimax and maximin formulations of cross-efficiency in DEA. Computers & Industrial Engineering 62 (3): 726–731.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lim S and Zhu J (2013). Use of DEA cross-efficiency evaluation in portfolio selection: An application to Korean stock market. European Journal of Operational Research published online 8 December, doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2013.12.002.

  • Oral M, Kettani O and Lang P (1991). A methodology for collective evaluation and selection of industrial R&D projects. Management Science 37 (7): 871–885.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pastor JT (1996). Translation invariance in data envelopment analysis: A generalization. Annals of Operations Research 66 (2): 91–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Podinovski VV and Bouzdine-Chameeva T (2013). Weight restrictions and free production in data envelopment analysis. Operations Research 61 (2): 426–437.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ramón N, Ruiz JL and Sirvent I (2011). Reducing differences between profiles of weights: A ‘peer-restricted’ cross-efficiency evaluation. Omega 39 (6): 634–641.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salo A and Punkka A (2011). Ranking intervals and dominance relations for ratio-based efficiency analysis. Management Science 57 (1): 200–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seiford LM and Zhu J (1998). On alternative optimal solutions in the estimation of returns to scale in DEA. European Journal of Operational Research 108 (1): 149–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sexton TR, Silkman RH and Hogan AJ (1986). Data envelopment analysis: Critique and extensions. New Directions for Program Evaluation 1986 (32): 73–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stewart TJ (1996). Relationships between data envelopment analysis and multicriteria decision analysis. Journal of the Operational Research Society 47 (5): 654–665.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu J, Liang L and Chen Y (2009). DEA game cross-efficiency approach to Olympic rankings. Omega 37 (4): 909–918.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to the two anonymous referees for their constructive comments and suggestions on a previous version of this paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Dongguk Business School, Dongguk University, Seoul, South Korea

    Sungmook Lim

  2. School of Business, Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester, USA

    Joe Zhu

Authors
  1. Sungmook Lim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Joe Zhu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sungmook Lim.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lim, S., Zhu, J. DEA cross-efficiency evaluation under variable returns to scale. J Oper Res Soc 66, 476–487 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1057/jors.2014.13

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/jors.2014.13

Keywords

Search

Navigation