Skip to main content

On the Use of DEA Models with Weight Restrictions for Benchmarking and Target Setting

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Advances in Efficiency and Productivity

Abstract

This chapter discusses the use of DEA models with weight restrictions for purposes of benchmarking and target setting. Weight restrictions have been used in the literature to incorporate into the analysis both value judgments (managerial preferences or prior views about the relative worth of inputs and outputs) and technological judgments (assumptions on production trade-offs). An important consideration in the use of restricted models for the benchmarking is that they may provide targets that are outside the production possibility set (PPS). Such difficulties are overcome if weight restrictions represent production trade-offs, because in those cases restricted models lead to a meaningful expansion of the production technology. However, if weight restrictions are only used as a way of incorporating preferences or value judgments, then there could be no reason to consider the targets derived from those models as attainable. Despite the classical restricted DEA formulations may yield targets within the PPS, it is claimed here that an approach based on a more appropriate selection of benchmarks would be desirable. We develop some restricted models which provide the closest targets within the PPS that are Pareto-efficient. Thus, if weight restrictions represent value judgments, the proposed approach allows us to identify best practices which show the easiest way for improvement and are desirable (in the light of prior knowledge and expert opinion) in addition to technically achievable.

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

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 189.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 249.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 249.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    We note that in (7.2) and (7.3) it suffices to consider the set E of extreme efficient DMUs. See Charnes et al. (1986) for the classification of DMUs into the sets E, E’, F, NE, NE’ and NF. This paper includes a procedure that allows to differentiating between the DMUs in E and E’.

  2. 2.

    Other papers dealing with closest targets in DEA include Portela et al. (2003), Tone (2010), Fukuyama et al. (2014), Aparicio and Pastor (2014) and Ruiz and Sirvent (2016).

  3. 3.

    Credit is the unit of measurement of the academic load of the subject of a programme.

References

  • Adler N, Liebert V, Yazhemsky E (2013) Benchmarking airports from a managerial perspective. Omega 41(2):442–458

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allen R, Athanassopoulos A, Dyson RG, Thanassoulis E (1997) Weights restrictions and value judgments in data envelopment analysis: evolution development and future directions. Ann Oper Res 73:13–34

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aparicio J, Pastor JT (2014) Closest targets and strong monotonicity on the strongly efficient frontier in DEA. Omega (United Kingdom) 44:51–57

    Google Scholar 

  • Aparicio J, Ruiz JL, Sirvent I (2007) Closest targets and minimum distance to the Pareto-efficient frontier in DEA. J Prod Anal 28(3):209–218

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Atici KK, Podinovski VV (2015) Using data envelopment analysis for the assessment of technical efficiency of units with different specialisations: an application to agriculture. Omega 54:72–83

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beale EML, Tomlin JA (1970) Special facilities in a general mathematical programming system for non-convex problems using ordered sets of variables. In: Lawrence J (ed). Proceedings of the fifth international conference on operational research. Tavistock Publications, London, pp 447–454

    Google Scholar 

  • Beasley JE (1990) Comparing university departments. Omega 18(2):171–183

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Charnes A, Cooper WW (1962) Programming with linear fractional functionals. Naval Res. Logistics Q 9(3–4):181–186

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Charnes A, Cooper WW, Rhodes E (1978) Measuring the efficiency of decision making units. Eur J Oper Res 2(6):429–444

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Charnes A, Cooper WW, Thrall RM (1986) Classifying and characterizing inefficiencies in data envelopment analysis. Oper Res Lett 5(3):105–110

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Charnes A, Cooper WW, Golany B, Seiford L, Stutz J (1985) Foundations of data envelopment analysis for Pareto-Koopmans efficient empirical productions functions. J Econometrics 30(1–2):91–107

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Charnes A, Cooper WW, Golany B, Seiford L, Stutz J (1987) A dimensionless efficiency measure for departures from pareto optimality. Research report CCS 480, center for cybernetic studies. The University of Texas, Austin

    Google Scholar 

  • Charnes A, Cooper WW, Huang ZM, Sun DB (1990) Polyhedral cone-ratio DEA models with an illustrative application to large commercial banks. J Econometrics 46(1):73–91

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Charnes A, Cooper WW, Lewin AY, Seiford LW (1994) Data envelopment analysis: theory, methodology and applications. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Germany

    Book  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooper WW, Pastor JT, Borrás F, Aparicio J, Pastor D (2011a) BAM: a bounded adjusted measure of efficiency for use with bounded additive models. J Prod Anal 35(2):85–94

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooper WW, Park KS, Pastor JT (1999) RAM: a range adjusted measure of inefficiency for use with additive models, and relations to other models and measures in DEA. J Prod Anal 11(1), 5–42

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooper WW, Seiford LM, Tone K (2007) Data envelopment analysis: a comprehensive text with models, applications, references and DEA-solver software, 2nd edn. Springer Science & Business Publishers, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooper WW, Ruiz JL, Sirvent I (2009) Selecting non-zero weights to evaluate effectiveness of basketball players with DEA. Eur J Oper Res 195(2):563–574

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooper WW, Ruiz JL, Sirvent I (2011b) Choices and uses of DEA weights. In: Cooper WW, Seiford LW, Zhu J (eds) Handbook on data envelopment analysis. Springer, Berlin, pp 93–126

    Google Scholar 

  • Dai X, Kuosmanen T (2014) Best-practice benchmarking using clustering methods: application to energy regulation. Omega 42(1):179–188

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fukuyama H, Maeda Y, Sekitani K, Shi J (2014) Input–output substitutability and strongly monotonic p-norm least distance DEA measures. Eur J Oper Res 237(3):997–1007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hung SW, Lu WM, Wang TP (2010) Benchmarking the operating efficiency of Asia container ports. Eur J Oper Res 203(3):706–713

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lins MPE, Sollero MKV, Calôba GM, da Silva ACM (2007) Integrating the regulatory and utility firm perspectives, when measuring the efficiency of electricity distribution. Eur J Oper Res 181(3):1413–1424

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lovell CAK, Pastor JT (1995) Units invariant and translation invariant DEA models. Oper Res Lett 18(3):147–151

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Podinovski VV (2004) Production trade-offs and weight restrictions in data envelopment analysis. J Oper Res Soc 55(12):1311–1322

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Podinovski VV (2007a) Improving data envelopment analysis by the use of production trade-offs. J Oper Res Soc 58(10):1261–1270

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Podinovski VV (2007b) Computation of efficient targets in DEA models with production trade-offs and weight restrictions. Eur J Oper Res 181(2):586–591

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Podinovski VV (2015) DEA models with production trade-offs and weight restrictions. In: Zhu J (ed.) Data envelopment analysis: a handbook of models and methods. Springer, Berlin, pp 105–144

    Google Scholar 

  • Portela MCAS, Borges PC, Thanassoulis E (2003) Finding closest targets in non-oriented DEA models: the case of convex and non-convex technologies. J Prod Anal 19(2–3):251–269

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Portela MCAS, Camanho AS, Borges D (2012) Performance assessment of secondary schools: the snapshot of a country taken by DEA. J Oper Res Soc 63(8):1098–1115

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ruiz JL, Segura JV, Sirvent I (2015) Benchmarking and target setting with expert preferences: an application to the evaluation of educational performance of Spanish universities. Eur J Oper Res 242(2):594–605

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ruiz JL, Sirvent I (2016) Common benchmarking and ranking of units with DEA. Omega 65:1–9

    Google Scholar 

  • Saaty TL (1980) The analytic hierarchy process. McGraw-Hill International Book Company, USA

    Google Scholar 

  • Thanassoulis E, Portela MCAS, Allen R (2004) Incorporating value judgments in DEA. In: Cooper WW, Seiford LW, Zhu J (eds) Handbook on data envelopment analysis. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Thanassoulis E, Portela MCAS, Despić O (2008) Data envelopment analysis: the mathematical programming approach to efficiency analysis. In: Harold, OF, Knox Lovell CA, Schmidt SS (eds.), The measurement of productive efficiency and productivity growth. Oxford University Press, New York, NY (US)

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson RG, Singleton FD, Thrall RM, Smith BA (1986) Comparative site evaluations for locating a high-energy physics lab in Texas. Interfaces 16(6):35–49

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thrall RM (1996) Duality, classification and slacks in DEA. Ann Oper Res 66(2):109–138

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thrall RM (2000) Measures in DEA with an Application to the Malmquist Index. J Prod Anal 13(2):125–137

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tone K (2010) Variations on the theme of slacks-based measure of efficiency in DEA. Eur J Oper Res 200(3):901–907

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wong Y-HB, Beasley JE (1990) Restricting weight flexibility in data envelopment analysis. J Oper Res Soc 41(9):829–835

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zanella A, Camanho AS, Dias TG (2013) Benchmarking countries environmental performance. J Oper Res Soc 64(3):426–438

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Inmaculada Sirvent .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Ramón, N., Ruiz, J.L., Sirvent, I. (2016). On the Use of DEA Models with Weight Restrictions for Benchmarking and Target Setting. In: Aparicio, J., Lovell, C., Pastor, J. (eds) Advances in Efficiency and Productivity. International Series in Operations Research & Management Science, vol 249. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-48461-7_7

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics