Data envelopment analysis with common weights: The compromise solution approach

Journal of the Operational Research Society

Volumn 56, Issue 10, 2005, Pages 1196-1203

  Kao, C ^a   Hung, H T ^a  

^a NATIONAL CHENG KUNG UNIVERSITY   (Taiwan)

Author keywords

Compromise solution; Data envelopment analysis; Efficiency; Ranking; Weight restrictions

Indexed keywords

PARETO PRINCIPLE; VECTORS;

COMPROMISE SOLUTION; DATA ENVELOPMENT ANALYSIS (DEA); WEIGHT RESTRICTIONS;

DATA REDUCTION;

EID: 30744432671     PISSN: 01605682     EISSN: 14769360     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1057/palgrave.jors.2601924     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. Charnes A, Cooper WW and Rhodes E (1978). Measuring efficiency of decision making units. Eur J Opl Res 2: 429-444.
2. Charnes A, Cooper WW, Lewin AY and Seiford LM (1994). Data Envelopment Analysis: Theory, Methodology and Applications. Kluwer Academic Publishers: Norwell.
3. Stewart TJ (1994). Data envelopment analysis and multiple criteria decision making: a response. Omega 22: 205-206.
4. Green R and Doyle J (1995). Improving discernment in DEA using profiling: a comment. Omega 24: 365-366.
5. Adler N, Friedman L and Sinuany-Stern Z (2002). Review of ranking methods in the data envelopment analysis context. Eur J Opl Res 140: 249-265.
6. Andersen P and Petersen NC (1993). A procedure for ranking efficient units in data envelopment analysis. Mngt Sci 39: 1261-1264.
7. Torgersen AM, Forsund FR and Kittelsen SAC (1996). Slack-adjusted efficiency measures and ranking of efficient units. J Prod Anal 7: 379-398.
8. Bardhan I, Bowlin WF, Cooper WW and Sueyoshi T (1996). Models for efficiency dominance in data envelopment analysis. Part 1: additive models and MED measures. J Opns Res Soc Japan 39: 322-332.
9. Charnes A, Cooper WW, Huang ZM and Sun DB (1990). Polyhedral cone-ratio DEA models with an illustrative application to large commercial banks. Eur J Opl Res 46: 73-91.
10. Thompson RG et al (1990). The role of multiplier bounds in efficiency analysis with application to Kansas firms. J Econ 46: 93-108.
11. Thanassoulis E, Boussofianne A and Dyson RG (1995). Exploring output quality targets in the provision of perinatal care in England using DEA. Eur J Opl Res 60: 588-608.
12. Wong YHB and Beasley JE (1990). Restricting weight flexibility in data envelopment analysis. J Opl Res Soc 41: 829-835.
13. Dyson RG et al (2001). Pitfalls and protocols in DEA. Eur J Opel Res 132: 245-259.
14. Dyson RG and Thanassoulis E (1988). Reducing weight flexibility in data envelopment analysis. J Opl Res Soc 39: 563-576.
15. Roll T, Cook WD and Golany B (1991). Controlling factor weights in data envelopment analysis. IIE Trans 23: 2-9.
16. Roll Y and Golany B (1993). Alternate methods of treating factor weights in DEA. Omega 21: 99-109.
17. Halme M et al (1999). A value efficiency approach to incorporating preference information in data envelopment analysis. Mngt Sci 45: 103-115.
18. Halme M and Korhonen P (2000). Restricting weights in value efficiency analysis. Eur J Opl Res 126: 175-188.
19. Sinuany-Stern Z, Mehrez A and Hadad Y (2000). An AHP/DEA methodology for ranking decision making units. Int Trans in Opl Res 7: 109-124.
20. Lahdelma R, Hokkanen J and Salminen P (1998). SMAA-Stochastic multiobjective acceptability analysis. Eur J Opl Res 106: 137-143.
21. Lahdelma R, Salminen P and Hokkanen J (1999). Combining stochastic multiobjective acceptability analysis and DEA. In: Despotis DK and Zopounidis C (eds). Integrating Technology and Human Decisions: Global Bridges into the 21st Century. New Technologies Publications, Athens, Greece.
22. Li X and Reeves GR (1999). A multiple criteria approach to data envelopment analysis. Eur J Opl Res 115: 507-517.
23. Doyle J and Green R (1994). Efficiency and cross-efficiency in DEA: derivations, meanings and uses. J Opl Res Soc 45: 567-578.
24. Doyle J (1995). Multiattribute choice for the lazy decision maker: let the alternatives decide. Organizational Behav Hum Decision Process 62: 87-100.
25. Friedman L and Sinuany-Stern Z (1997). Scaling units via the canonical correlation analysis in the DEA context. Eur J Opl Res 100: 629-637.
26. Retzlaff-Roberts DL (1996). Relating discriminant analysis and DEA to one another. Comput Opns Res 23: 311-322.
27. Sinuany-Stern Z, Mehrez A and Barboy A (1994). Academic departments efficiency in DEA. Comput Opns Res 21: 543-556.
28. Sinuany-Stern Z and Friedman L (1998). DBA and the discriminant analysis of ratios for ranking units. Eur J Opnl Res 111: 470-478.
29. Sueyoshi T (1999). DEA-discriminant analysis in the view of goal programming. Eur J Opl Res 115: 564-582.
30. Sueyoshi T (2001). Extended DEA-discriminant analysis. Eur J Opl Res 131: 324-351.
31. Charnes A and Cooper WW (1984). The non-Archimedean CCR ratio for efficiency analysis: a rejoinder to Boyd and Färe. Eur J Opl Res 15: 333-334.
32. Yu PL (1973). A class of solutions for group decision problems. Mngt Sci 19: 936-946.
33. Aigner DJ and Chu SF (1968). On estimating the industry production function. Am Econ Rev LVIII: 826-839.
34. Zeleny M (1982). Multiple Criteria Decision Making. McGraw-Hill: New York.
35. Wierzbicki A (1980). The use of reference objectives in multiobjective optimization. In: Fandel G and Gal T (eds). Multiple Objective Decision Making, Theory and Application. Springer-Verlag, New York.
36. Wierzbicki A (1986). On the completeness and constructiveness of parametric characterizations to vector optimization problems. OR Spektrum 8: 73-87.
37. Kao C and Yang YC (1992). Reorganization of forest districts via efficiency measurement. Eur J Opl Res 58: 356-362.
38. Golany B and Yu G (1995). A goal programming-discriminant function approach to the estimation of an empirical production function based on DEA results. J Prod Anal 6: 171-186.
39. Kao C (1998). Performance of several nonlinear programming software packages on microcomputers. Comput Opns Res 25: 807-816.