Advertisement

Value Efficiency Analysis

Most Preferred Unit-Based Approach
  • Tarja Joro
  • Pekka J. Korhonen
Chapter
  • 889 Downloads
Part of the International Series in Operations Research & Management Science book series (ISOR, volume 218)

Abstract

A basic assumption in multiple criteria decision-making research is that there is no objectively best solution for the problem. The best solution depends on a rational DM’s preferences. The term “rational” means that the DM wants to choose the solution for which there is no other solution that is equally good on all given criteria and better at least on one criterion. As we have defined in Chap.  4, such solutions are called nondominated.

Keywords

Value Efficiency Analysis Efficiency Scores Pseudoconcave Tangent Cone Inefficiency Values 
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. Bazaraa M, Sherali HD, Shetty CM (1993) Nonlinear programming: theory and algorithms, 2nd edn. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  2. Charnes A, Cooper WW, Rhodes E (1978) Measuring efficiency of decision making units. Eur J Oper Res 2:429–444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Charnes A, Cooper WW, Rhodes E (1979) Short communication: measuring efficiency of decision making units. Eur J Oper Res 3:339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Charnes A, Cooper WW, Wei QL, Huang ZM (1989) Cone ratio data envelopment analysis and multi-objective programming. Int J Syst Sci 20:1099–1118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Charnes A, Cooper WW, Huang ZM, Sun DB (1990) Polyhedral cone-ratio DEA models with an illustrative application to large commercial banks. J Econ 46:73–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Coelli TJ, Rao DSP, O’Donnell CJ, Battese GE (2005) An introduction to efficiency and productivity analysis, 2nd edn. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  7. Farrell MJ (1957) The measurement of productivity efficiency. J R Stat Soc Ser A 120:253–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Halme M, Joro T, Korhonen P, Salo S, Wallenius J (1999) A value efficiency approach to incorporating preference information in data envelopment analysis. Manage Sci 45(1):103–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Halme M, Korhonen P (2000) Restricting weights in value efficiency analysis. Eur J Oper Res 126(1):175–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Korhonen P, Laakso J (1986) A visual interactive method for solving the multiple criteria problem. Eur J Oper Res 24:277–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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
  12. Korhonen P, Syrjänen M (2005) On the interpretation of value efficiency. J Prod Anal 24(2):197–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Soleimani-damaneh M, Korhonen PJ, Wallenius J (2014) On value efficiency. Optimization, 63(4):617–631CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Thanassoulis E, Dyson RG (1992) Estimating preferred target input-output levels using data envelopment analysis. Eur J Oper Res 56:80–97CrossRefGoogle 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