Advertisement

Comparison of Data Envelopment Analysis and Multiple Objective Linear Programming

Structural Similarities Between DEA and MOLP
  • Tarja Joro
  • Pekka J. Korhonen
Chapter
  • 917 Downloads
Part of the International Series in Operations Research & Management Science book series (ISOR, volume 218)

Abstract

Charnes and Cooper have played significant role in the development of both areas: they have been the initiators of DEA in the late 1970s, but they have also had a significant impact on the development of multiple objective linear programming (MOLP) through the development of goal programming (Charnes and Cooper 1961). Although the methods have shared origins, researchers in these two camps have generally not paid much attention to research performed in the other camps. Neither has Charnes nor Cooper attempted to tie the two fields together. This is unfortunate, since—despite differences in terminology—DEA and MOLP address similar problems and the corresponding models are structurally very close to each other.

Keywords

Efficiency Score Data Envelopment Analysis Model Efficient Frontier MCDM Method Technical Efficiency Score 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Ballestero E (1999) Measuring efficiency by a single price system. Eur J Oper Res 115(3):616–623CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Belton V (1992) An IDEA—integrating data envelopment analysis with multiple criteria decision analysis. In: Goicoechea A, Duckstein L, Zionts S (eds) Multiple criteria decision making. Proceedings of the ninth international conference. Springer, Berlin, pp 71–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Belton V, Stewart T (1999) DEA and MCDA: competing or complementary approaches? In: Meskens N, Roubens M (eds) Advances in decision analysis. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 87–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Belton V, Vickers SP (1993) Demystifying DEA—a visual interactive approach based on multiple criteria analysis. J Oper Res Soc 44:883–896Google Scholar
  5. Bouyssou D (1999) DEA as a tool for MCDM: some remarks. J Oper Res Soc 50:974–978CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Charnes A, Cooper WW (1961) Management models and industrial applications of linear programming. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  7. Cook WD, Kress M (1991) A multiple criteria decision model with ordinal preference data. Eur J Oper Res 54:191–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cooper WW (1996) Personal communication. Commentary letter on the manuscript of the article “Structural comparison of data envelopment analysis and multiple objective linear programming” by Joro T, Korhonen P, Wallenius JGoogle Scholar
  9. Doyle RH, Green JR (1993) Data envelopment analysis and multiple criteria decision making. Omega 6:713–715CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Golany B (1988) An interactive MOLP procedure for the extension of DEA to effectiveness analysis. J Oper Res Soc 39:725–734CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Joro T, Korhonen P, Wallenius J (1998) Structural comparison of data envelopment analysis and multiple objective linear programming. Manag Sci 44(7):962–970CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Korhonen P (1987) VIG—a visual interactive support system for multiple criteria decision making. Belg J Oper Res Statist Comput Sci 27:3–15Google Scholar
  13. Korhonen P, Wallenius J (1988) A pareto race. Nav Res Log 35:615–623CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Korhonen P, Siljamäki A, Soismaa M (2002) On the use of value efficiency analysis and further developments. J Prod Anal 17(1/2):49–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kornbluth JSH (1991) Analysing policy effectiveness using cone restricted data envelopment analysis. J Oper Res Soc 42:1097–1104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Li X-B, Reeves GR (1999) A multiple criteria approach to data envelopment analysis. Eur J Oper Res 115:507–517CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Post T, Spronk J (1999) Performance benchmarking using interactive data envelopment analysis. Eur J Oper Res 115:472–487CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Spronk J (1981) Interactive multiple goal programming: applications to financial planning. Kluwer, BostonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Steuer RE (1986) Multiple criteria optimization: theory, computation and application. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  20. Steuer RE, Choo EU (1983) An interactive weighted Tchebycheff procedure for multiple objective programming. Math Program 26:326–344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Stewart TJ (1992) A critical survey on the status of multiple criteria decision making theory and practice. Omega 20:569–586CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Stewart TJ (1993) Data envelopment analysis and multiple criteria decision making: a response. Omega 22:205–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Stewart TJ (1996) Relationships between data envelopment analysis and multicriteria decision analysis. J Oper Res Soc 47:654–665CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Tofallis C (1996) Improving discernment in DEA using profiling. Omega 24(3):362–364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Wei Q, Zhang J, Zhang X (2000) An inverse DEA model for input/output estimate. Eur J Oper Res 121:151–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Yu G, Wei Q, Brockett P (1996a) A generalized data envelopment model: a unification and extension of existing methods for efficiency analysis of decision making units. Ann Oper Res 66:47–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Yu G, Wei Q, Brockett P, Zhou L (1996b) Construction of all DEA efficient surfaces of the production possibility set under the generalized data envelopment analysis model. Eur J Oper Res 95:491–510CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tarja Joro
    • 1
  • Pekka J. Korhonen
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Accounting, Operations and Information Systems Alberta School of BusinessUniversity of AlbertaEdmontonCanada
  2. 2.Department of Information and Service Economy School of BusinessAalto UniversityHelsinkiFinland

Personalised recommendations