Abstract
The paper focuses upon situations in which decision-making units carry out their production activities with some inputs or outputs unobservable (or possibly omitted), and when there are a priori known constraints on the relative significance of otherwise observable (or explicitly considered) inputs and outputs. For such settings, the paper proposes a modification that alters traditional construction of the production possibility set and isolates the role of the unobservable (or omitted) variables in production by means of restrictions on virtual inputs and outputs being converted into production trade-offs. In effect, the proposed procedure induces unit-specific production possibility sets that derive from production trade-offs framed for units assessed separately to reflect their specific observed production conditions. The modification is implemented within a weighted slacks-based measure with restricted direction of slacks in order to make technical efficiency measurement more informative and consistent with the operating conditions under which production activities are accomplished. These ideas are illustrated and models implemented in a case study of bank branch performance measurement.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Allen R, Athanassopoulos A, Dyson RG, Thanassoulis E (1997) Weights restrictions and value judgements in data envelopment analysis: evolution, development and future directions. Ann Oper Res 73:13–34. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1018968909638
Banker RD, Chang H (2006) The super-efficiency procedure for outlier identification, not for ranking efficient units. Eur J Oper Res 175(2):1311–1320. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2005.06.028
Banker RD, Morey RC (1986) Efficiency analysis for exogenously fixed inputs and outputs. Oper Res 34(4):513–521. https://doi.org/10.1287/opre.34.4.513
Banker RD, Charnes A, Cooper WW (1984) Some models for estimating technical and scale inefficiencies in data envelopment analysis. Manag Sci 30(9):1078–1092. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.30.9.1078
Banker RD, Chang HD, Zheng ZD (2017) On the use of super-efficiency procedures for ranking efficient units and identifying outliers. Ann Oper Res 250(1):21–35. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-015-1980-8
Barber CB, Habel K, Grasman R, Gramacy RB, Stahel A, Sterratt DC (2015) Geometry: mesh generation and surface tesselation. R package version 0.3-6. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/geometry/index.html
Chambers RG, Chung Y, Färe R (1996) Benefit and distance functions. J Econ Theory 70(2):407–419. https://doi.org/10.1006/jeth.1996.0096
Chambers RG, Chung Y, Färe R (1998) Profit, directional distance functions, and Nerlovian efficiency. J Optim Theory Appl 98(2):351–364. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022637501082
Cherchye L, Moesen W, Rogge N, van Puyenbroeck T (2007) An introduction to “benefit of the doubt” composite indicators. Soc Indic Res 82(1):111–145. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-006-9029-7
Chilingerian JA, Sherman HD (2011) Health care applications. In: Cooper WW, Seiford LM, Zhu J (eds) Handbook on data envelopment analysis, 2nd edn. Springer, New York, pp 445–493. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-6151-8_16
Cooper WW, Seiford LM, Tone K (2007) Data envelopment analysis: a comprehensive text with models, applications, references and DEA-Solver software, 2nd edn. Springer, New York. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-45283-8
Cooper WW, Ruiz JL, Sirvent I (2011) (2011) Choices and uses of DEA weights. In: Cooper WW, Seiford LM, Zhu J (eds) Handbook on data envelopment analysis, 2nd edn. Springer, New York, pp 93–126. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-6151-8_4
De Witte K, Marques RC (2010) Designing performance incentives, an international benchmark study in the water sector. Cent Eur J Oper Res 18:31–62. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10100-009-0108-0
Debreu G (1959) Theory of value: an axiomatic analysis of economic equilibrium, 2008. Yale University Press, London
Färe R, Grosskopf S, Lovell CAK (1985) The measurement of efficiency of production. Kluwer, Boston
Førsund FR (2013) Weight restrictions in DEA: misplaced emphasis? J Prod Anal 40(3):271–283. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11123-012-0296-9
Frisch R (1965) Theory of production. D. Riedel/Rand McNally, Dortrecht/Chicago
García-Sánchez I-M, Rodríguez-Domínguez L, Parra-Domínguez J (2013) Yearly evolution of police efficiency in Spain and explanatory factors. CEJOR 21:31–62. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10100-011-0207-6
Golany B, Thore S (1997) Restricted best practice selection in DEA: an overview with a case study evaluating the socio-economic performance of nations. Ann Oper Res 73:117–140. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1018916925568
Jablonský J (2016) Efficiency analysis in multi-period systems: an application to performance evaluation in Czech higher education. CEJOR 24:283–296. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10100-015-0401-z
Khalili M, Camanho AS, Portela MCAS, Alirezaee MR (2010) The measurement of relative efficiency using data envelopment analysis with assurance regions that link inputs and outputs. Eur J Oper Res 203(3):761–770. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2009.09.002
Lim D-J (2016) DJL: distance measure based judgment and learning. R package version 2.6. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/DJL/index.html
Lins MPE, da Silva ACM, Lovell CAK (2007) Avoiding infeasibility in DEA models with weight restrictions. Eur J Oper Res 181(2):956–966. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2006.05.041
Liu WB, Zhang DQ, Meng W, Lie XX, Xu F (2011) A study of DEA models without explicit inputs. Omega 39(5):472–480. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2010.10.005
Liu JS, Lu LYY, Lu WM, Lin BJY (2013) A survey of DEA applications. Omega 41(1):893–902. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2012.11.004
Lovell CAK, Pastor JT (1997) Target setting: an application to a bank branch network. Eur J Oper Res 98(2):290–299. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(96)00348-7
Lovell CAK, Pastor JT (1999) Radial DEA models without inputs or without outputs. Eur J Oper Res 118(1):46–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(98)00338-5
Manandhar R, Tang JCS (2002) The evaluation of bank branch performance using data envelopment analysis: a framework. J High Technol Manag Res 13(1):1–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1047-8310
McFadden D (1978) Cost, revenue, and profit functions. In: Fuss M, McFadden D (eds) Production economics: a dual approach to theory and applications, vol I. The theory of production. North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp 3–109
Oh D-H, Suh D (2013) nonparaeff: nonparametric methods for measuring efficiency and productivity. R package version 0.5-8. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/nonparaeff/index.html
Ozcan YA (2008) Health care benchmarking and performance evaluation. Springer, New York. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-75448-2
Paradi JC, Zhu H (2013) A survey on bank branch efficiency and performance research with data envelopment analysis. Omega 41(1):61–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2011.08.010
Paradi JC, Rouatt S, Zhu H (2011) Two-stage evaluation of bank branch efficiency using data envelopment analysis. Omega 39(1):99–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2010.04.002
Pedraja-Chaparo F, Salinas-Jimenez J, Smith P (1997) On the role of weight restrictions in data envelopment analysis. J Prod Anal 8(2):215–230. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007715912664
Podinovski VV (2004) Production trade-offs and weight restrictions in data envelopment analysis. J Oper Res Soc 55(12):1311–1322. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jors.2601794
Podinovski VV (2007) Computation of efficient targets in DEA models with production trade-offs and weight restrictions, 2001. Eur J Oper Res 181(2):586–591. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2006.06.041
Podinovski VV (2015) DEA models with production trade-offs and weight restrictions. In: Zhu J (ed) Data envelopment analysis. Springer, New York, pp 105–144. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-7553-9_5
Podinovski VV (2016) Optimal weights in DEA models with weight restriction. Eur J Oper Res 254(3):916–924. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2016.04.035
Podinovski VV, Thanassoulis E (2007) Improving discrimination in data envelopment analysis: some practical suggestions. J Prod Anal 28(1–2):117–126. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11123-007-0042-x
R Core Team (2016) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. http://www.r-project.org
Roháčová V (2015) ADEA based approach for optimization of urban public transport system. CEJOR 23:215–233. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10100-013-0314-7
Rousseeuw PJ, van Zomeren BC (1990) Unmasking multivariate outliers and leverage points. J Am Stat Assoc 85(411):633–639
Sarrico CS, Dyson RG (2004) Restricting virtual weights in data envelopment analysis. Eur J Oper Res 159(1):17–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(03)00402-8
Thanassoulis E, Portela MCS, Despić O (2008) Data envelopment analysis: the mathematical programming approach to efficiency analysis. In: Fried HO, Lovell CAK, Schmidt SS (eds) The measurement of productive efficiency and productivity growth. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 251–420. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195183528.003.0003
Tone K (2001) A slacks-based measure of efficiency in data envelopment analysis. Eur J Oper Res 130(3):498–509. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(99)00407-5
Tone K (2002) A slacks-based measure of super-efficiency in data envelopment analysis. Eur J Oper Res 143(1):32–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(01)00324-1
Wong Y-HB, Beasley JE (1990) Restricting weight flexibility in data envelopment analysis. J Oper Res Soc 41(9):829–835. https://doi.org/10.2307/2583498
Acknowledgement
This paper arose in fulfillment of the grant schemes VEGA No. 1/0608/19 and GA ČR No. 16-01821S.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendices
Appendix A
1.1 Derivation of the simplified version of the unit-specific estimate of the production possibility set
Consider the general estimate \( \hat{\wp }_{o} ({\varvec{\Gamma}}_{{\varvec{\uplambda}}} ) \) of the production possibility set \( \wp_{o} ({\varvec{\Gamma}}_{{\varvec{\uplambda}}} ) \) formulated in (2), in which only two input and two output trade-offs are applied in order to translate the weight restrictions (1) into envelopment space. Whilst the input trade-offs are represented by vectors \( {\mathbf{p}}_{o1} = ((1 - w_{oU}^{{\mathbf{x}}} ){\kern 1pt} ,\; - w_{oU}^{{\mathbf{x}}} {\mathbf{x}}_{o}^{obs \prime} )^{\prime} \) and \( {\mathbf{p}}_{o2} = - {\mathbf{p}}_{o1} \), the output trade-offs are captured similarly by vectors \( {\mathbf{q}}_{o1} = ((1 - w_{oU}^{{\mathbf{y}}} ){\kern 1pt} ,\; - w_{oU}^{{\mathbf{y}}} {\mathbf{y}}_{o}^{obs \prime} )^{\prime} \) and \( {\mathbf{q}}_{o2} = - {\mathbf{q}}_{o1} \). It is easy to see that the inequalities in (2) may be rewritten in the fashion of Podinovski (2004, p. 1314; 2015, p. 122) by means of complementary non-negative vectors \( {\mathbf{e}}^{{\mathbf{x}}} = (e_{U}^{{\mathbf{x}}} ,{\mathbf{e}}_{{}}^{{{\mathbf{x}},obs \prime}} )^ \prime \in \Re_{ \ge 0}^{m + 1} \) and \( {\mathbf{e}}^{{\mathbf{y}}} = (e_{U}^{{\mathbf{y}}} ,{\mathbf{e}}_{{}}^{{{\mathbf{y}},obs \prime}} )^ \prime \in \Re_{ \ge 0}^{s + 1} \) as
or
Splitting the vectors into unobservable and observable parts and allowing then for \( x_{1U} = \cdots = x_{nU} = \tilde{x}_{U} = 1 \) and \( y_{1U} = \cdots = y_{nU} = \tilde{y}_{U} = 1 \), it is obtained that
The unobservable parts of these equalities then yield the expressions \( \pi_{1} - \pi_{2} = (1 - w_{oU}^{{\mathbf{x}}} )^{ - 1} \left(1 - \sum_{i} \lambda_{{{\kern 1pt} i}} - e_{U}^{{\mathbf{x}}} \right) \) and \( \phi_{1} - \phi_{2} = (1 - w_{oU}^{{\mathbf{y}}} )^{ - 1} \left(1 - \sum_{i} \lambda_{{{\kern 1pt} i}} + e_{U}^{{\mathbf{y}}} \right) \), in consequence of which the observable part of the equalities simplifies into
The non-negativity of \( {\mathbf{e}}^{{\mathbf{x}}} \) and \( {\mathbf{e}}^{{\mathbf{y}}} \) implies that
which ends the derivation and testifies the validity of (3) since the remaining constraint \( {\varvec{\uplambda}} \in {\varvec{\Gamma}}_{{\varvec{\uplambda}}} \) was preserved intact.
Appendix B
2.1 Proof of the property that explicit consideration of slacks on the unobservable variable increases SBM efficiency scores
Property 5
Consider a weighted SBM model in the form described by (4) with conditions (4a) and (4g). Consider an analogical weighted SBM model given by the optimization problem
subject to the same set of conditions (4a) and (4g). The optimal values of these two programs satisfy \( \rho^{*}_{o} \le \rho^{U^*}_{o} \).
Proof
First note that the minimization of the slacks-based ratio in both (4) and (16) depends on the weighted average input contractions and output expansions that appear in the numerator and denominator, respectively. Regardless of a particular solution for \( {\varvec{\uplambda}} \), \( {\mathbf{s}}_{o}^{{\mathbf{x}}} \), \( {\mathbf{s}}_{o}^{{\mathbf{y}}} \), \( {\varvec{\uppi}} \), \( {\varvec{\upphi}} \), \( {\mathbf{e}}^{{\mathbf{x}}} \), \( {\mathbf{e}}^{{\mathbf{y}}} \), θ and η, the SBM is a function of average input contraction \( \bar{s}_{ \, o}^{{\mathbf{x}}} = \sum_{i} w_{oi}^{{\mathbf{x}}} s_{ \, oi}^{{\mathbf{x}}} /x_{oi} \) and average output expansion \( \bar{s}_{ \, o}^{{\mathbf{y}}} = \sum_{r} w_{or}^{{\mathbf{y}}} s_{ \, or}^{{\mathbf{y}}} /y_{or} \). A useful inequality turns out to be the relationship
that holds obviously for any \( w_{oU}^{{\mathbf{x}}} ,w_{oU}^{{\mathbf{y}}} \in [0,1) \) and for any \( \bar{s}_{ \, o}^{{\mathbf{x}}} \in [0,1) \) and \( {\bar{s}_{ \, o}^{{\mathbf{y}}} \in [1,\infty )} \). Because objective functions (4) and (16) are minimized subject to the same set of constraints (4a) and (4g), their optimal values must satisfy a similar relationship
in which U or O in superscripts indicate whether optimized average input contractions or output expansions arise from solving program (4) or (16) alongside constraints (4a) and (4g). If this were not true, and the equality would be reverse so that \( \rho_{o}^{U^*}\;<\;\rho_{o}^* \), the inequality in (17) would then imply
This, however, means that \( \rho_{o}^{U^*}\) would not be optimal, which is a contradiction.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Bod’a, M., Dlouhý, M. & Zimková, E. Unobservable or omitted production variables in data envelopment analysis through unit-specific production trade-offs. Cent Eur J Oper Res 26, 813–846 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10100-018-0561-8
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10100-018-0561-8