Evaluating Top Services-Prepackaged Software Firms in Standard and Poor’s 500 Index by Using a Multiple Objective Programming Based Data Envelopment Analysis

Part of the Smart Innovation, Systems and Technologies book series (SIST, volume 16)

Abstract

Services-prepackaged software firms are a field of Information technology (IT). IT is defined as the obtainment, procedure, storage and propagation of sounding, drawing, and textual information by combining microelectronics-based computing and telecommunications. Nowadays, IT has penetrated in daily life of human beings and become one part of the whole society. The importance of IT has become momentous. Therefore, to understand the performance of efficiency and productivity of the IT firms is critical for managers as well as for personal investors. Until now, there are very few researches tried to analyze final performance of the services-prepackaged software firms in IT sector. As a result, this research intends to use traditional Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) CCR or BCC models to evaluate the performance of the services-prepackaged software firms. However, the traditional DEA models are not fair models from the aspect of improper weight derivations. Thus, this paper intends to analyze the efficiency of the services-prepackaged software firms by using multiple objective programming (MOP) based DEA. The Decision Making Units (DMUs) on this research are chosen from the services-prepackaged software firms in S&P 500 based on publicly available financial reports of the fiscal year 2010. In a MOP based DEA approach, DMUs will be evaluated based on an equal standard and the results will be evaluated more fairly. In the empirical study, the MOP based DEA demonstrated that Autodesk Inc., BMC Software, and Citrix Systems should be the services-prepackaged software firms worthwhile to be invested. In the future, performance evaluation results can be served as foundations for investment strategies definition.

Keywords

Information Technology (IT) Standard and Poor’s 500 index Performance Evaluation Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) Multiple Objective Programming (MOP) 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Banker, R.D., Charnes, A., Cooper, W.W.: Some models for estimating technical and scale inefficiencies in data envelopment analysis. Management Science 30(9), 1078–1092 (1984)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Charnes, A., Clark, T., Cooper, W.W., Golany, B.: A developmental study of data envelopment analysis in measuring the efficiency of maintenance units in the US Air Force. Annals of Operations Research 2(1), 95–112 (1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Charnes, A., Cooper, W., Rhodes, E.: Measuring the efficiency of decision making units. European Journal of Operational Research 2(6), 429–444 (1978)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chiang, C.I., Tzeng, G.H.: A new efficiency measure for DEA: efficiency achievement measure established on fuzzy multiple objectives programming. Journal of Management 17(2), 369–388 (2000a) (Chinese)Google Scholar
  5. A New Efficiency Measure for DEA: Efficiency Achievement Measure Established on Fuzzy Multiple Objectives. Programming. Journal of Management 17(2), 369–388Google Scholar
  6. Chiang, C.I., Tzeng, G.H.: A multiple objective programming approach to data envelopment analysis. In: Shi, Y., Zeleny, M. (eds.) New Frontiers of Decision Making for the Information Technology Era, pp. 270–285. World Science Publishing Company, Singapore (2000b)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Coelli, T., Prasada Rao, D.S., O’Donnell, C.J., Battese, G.E.: An introduction to efficiency and productivity analysis. Springer, New York (2005)Google Scholar
  8. Cooper, W., Seiford, L.M., Zhu, J.: Data envelopment analysis, pp. 1–39. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston (2004)MATHGoogle Scholar
  9. Emrouznejad, A.: Data Envelopment Analysis Homepage (1995), http://www.DEAzone.com
  10. Fare, R., Hunsaker, W.: Notions of efficiency and their reference sets. Management Science 32(2), 237–243 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fare, R., Grabowaski, R., Grosskopf, S.: Technical efficiency of Philippine agriculture. Applied Economics 17(2), 205–214 (1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Farrell, M.J.: The measurement of productive efficiency. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society 120(3), 253–291 (1957)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Flynn, B., Schroeder, R., Sakakibara, S.: A framework for quality management research and an associated measurement instrument. Journal of Operations Management 11(4), 339–366 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Helms, M.M.: Encyclopaedia of Management, 5th edn. Thomson Gale (2006)Google Scholar
  15. Jorgenson, D.W.: Information Technology and the U.S. Economy. The American Economic Review 91(1), 1–32 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kasul, R.A., Motwani, J.G.: Performance measurements in worldclass operations: A strategic model. Benchmarking. An International Journal 2(2), 20–36 (1995)Google Scholar
  17. Keen, P.C.W.: Shaping the future. Harvard Business School Press, Boston (1991)Google Scholar
  18. Lewin, A.Y., Minton, J.W.: Determining organizational effectiveness: another look, and an agenda for research. Management Science 32(5), 514–538 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Liu, L.C., Lee, C., Tzeng, G.H.: DEA Approach of the Current-period and Cross-period Efficiency for Evaluating the Vocational Education. International Journal of Information Technology and Decision Making 3(2), 353–374 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ohta, H., Yamaguchi, T.: Multi-goal programming including fractional goal in consideration of fuzzy solutions. Journal of Japan Society for Fuzzy Theory and System 7(6), 1221–1228 (1995)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  21. Parker, R.P., Grimm, B.T.: Recognition of Business and Government Expenditures on Software as Investment: Methodology and Quantitative Impacts (2000)Google Scholar
  22. Phillips, P.A.: Performance measurement systems and hotels: a new conceptual framework. International Journal of Hospitality Management 18(2), 171–182 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Sakawa, M., Yano, H.: Interactive decision making for multi-objective linear fractional programming problems with parameters. Cybernetics and Systems: An International Journal 16(4), 377–394 (1985)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Sakawa, M., Yumine, T.: Interactive fuzzy decision-making for multi-objective linear fractional programming problems. Large Scale Systems 5(2), 105–114 (1983)MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  25. Skinner, W.: Production under pressure. Harvard Business Review 44(6), 139–146 (1966)Google Scholar
  26. Sumanth, D.J.: Productivity engineering and management. McGraw-Hill, New York (1994)Google Scholar
  27. Tangen, S.: Demystifying productivity and performance. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management 54(1), 34–46 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Tsai, H.C., Chen, C.M., Tzeng, G.H.: The comparative productivity efficiency for global telecoms. International Journal of Production Economics 103(2), 509–526 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Wheelwright, S.: Reflecting corporate strategy in manufacturing decisions. Business Horizons 21(1), 57–66 (1978)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Yu, J.R., Tzeng, Y.C., Tzeng, G.H., Yu, Z.Y., Sheu, H.J.: A fuzzy multiple objective programming to DEA with imprecise data. International Journal of Uncertainty, Fuzziness & Knowledge-Based Systems 12(5), 591–600 (2004)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Yu, J.R., Tzeng, G.H., Chiang, C.I.: Raw material supplier rating in the semiconductor manufacturing industry through fuzzy multiple objective programming to DEA. International Journal of Quantitative Management 13(4), 101–111 (2007)MATHGoogle Scholar
  32. Zimmermann, H.J.: Fuzzy programming and linear programming with several objective functions. Fuzzy. Sets and Systems 1(1), 45–55 (1978)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Industrial EducationNational Taiwan Normal UniversityTaipeiTaiwan
  2. 2.Department of Business and Entrepreneurial AdministrationKainan UniversityLuchuTaiwan
  3. 3.Institute of Management of TechnologyNational Chiao Tung UniversityHsinchuTaiwan

Personalised recommendations