Ranking intervals and dominance relations for ratio-based efficiency analysis

Management Science

Volumn 57, Issue 1, 2011, Pages 200-214

  Salo, Ahti ^a   Punkka, Antti ^a  

^a AALTO UNIVERSITY   (Finland)

Author keywords

Data envelopment analysis; Efficiency analysis; Preference modeling

Indexed keywords

DECISION-MAKING UNITS; DOMINANCE RELATION; EFFICIENCY ANALYSIS; EFFICIENCY RANKINGS; EFFICIENCY RATIO; INPUT AND OUTPUTS; PREFERENCE MODELING; RELATIVE EFFICIENCY;

DATA ENVELOPMENT ANALYSIS; DATA HANDLING; DECISION THEORY;

DECISION MAKING;

EID: 79551719138     PISSN: 00251909     EISSN: 15265501     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1287/mnsc.1100.1265     Document Type: Article

References (48)

1. Ahn, T., A. Charnes, W. W. Cooper. 1988. Some statistical and DEA evaluations of relative efficiencies of public and private institutions of public and private institutions of higher learning. Socio-Econom. Planning Sci. 22(6) 259-269.
2. Allen, R., A. Athanassopoulos, R. G. Dyson, E. Thanassoulis. 1997. Weight restrictions and value judgements in data envelopment analysis: Evolution, development and future directions. Ann. Oper. Res. 73 13-34.
3. Andersen, P., N. C. Petersen. 1993. A procedure for ranking efficient units in DEA. Management Sci. 39(10) 1261-1264.
4. Avkiran, N. K., B. R. Parker. 2010. Pushing the DEA research envelope. Socio-Econom. Planning Sci. 44(1) 1-7.
5. Baker, R. C., S. Talluri. 1997. A closer look at the use of data envelopment analysis for technology selection. Comput. Indust. Engrg. 32(1) 101-108. (Pubitemid 127422472)
6. Belton, V., T. Gear. 1983. On a shortcoming of Saaty's method of analytic hierarchies. Omega 11(3) 228-230.
7. Bouyssou, D. 1999. Using DEA as a tool for MCDM: Some remarks. J. Oper. Res. Soc. 50(9) 974-978.
8. Charnes, A., W. W. Cooper, E. Rhodes. 1978. Measuring the efficiency of decision making units. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2(6) 429-444. (Pubitemid 9402758)
9. Charnes, A., W. W. Cooper, Z. M. Huang, D. B. Sun. 1990. Polyhedral cone-ratio DEA models with an illustrative application to large commercial banks. J. Econometrics 46(1-2) 73-91.
10. Cook, W. D., J. Zhu. 2008. CAR-DEA: Context-dependent assurance regions in DEA. Oper. Res. 56(1) 69-78. (Pubitemid 351463110)
11. Cooper, W. W., M. Seiford, K. Tone. 2007. Data Envelopment Analysis: A Comprehensive Text with Models, Applications, References and DEA-Solver Software, 2nd ed. Springer, New York.
12. Doyle, J., R. Green. 1994. Efficiency and cross-efficiency in DEA: Derivations, meanings and uses. J. Oper. Res. Soc. 45(5) 567-578.
13. Dyer, J. S. 1990. Remarks on the analytic hierarchy process. Management Sci. 36(3) 249-258.
14. Dyson, R. G., R. Allen, A. S. Camanho, V. V. Podinovski, C. S. Sarrico, E. A. Shale. 2001. Pitfalls and protocols in DEA. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 132(2) 245-259. (Pubitemid 32385018)
15. Eilat, H., B. Golany, A. Shtub. 2008. R&D project evaluation: An integrated DEA and balanced scorecard approach. Omega 36(5) 895-912.
16. Emrouznejada, A., B. R. Barnett, G. Tavares. 2008. Evaluation of research in efficiency and productivity: A survey and analysis of the first 30 years of scholarly literature in DEA. Socio-Econom. Planning Sci. 42(3) 151-157.
17. Farzipoor, S. R. 2009. Technology selection in the presence of imprecise data, weight restrictions, and nondiscretionary factors. Internat. J. Adv. Manufacturing Tech. 41(7-8) 827-838.
18. Galagedera, D. U. A., P. Silvapulle. 2003. Experimental evidence on robustness of DEA. J. Oper. Res. Soc. 54(6) 654-660.
19. Garcia, F., C. Marcuello, D. Serrano, O. Urbina. 2002. Evaluation of efficiency in primary health care centres: An application of data envelopment analysis. Financial Accountability Management 51(1) 67-83.
20. Gouveia, M. C., L. C. Dias, C. H. Antunes. 2008. Additive DEA based on MCDA with imprecise information. J. Oper. Res. Soc. 59(1) 54-63. (Pubitemid 350261773)
21. Halme, M., P. Korhonen. 2000. Restricting weights in value efficiency analysis. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 126(1) 175-188.
22. Halme, M., T. Joro, P. Korhonen, S. Salo, J. Wallenius. 1999. A value efficiency approach to incorporating preference information in data envelopment analysis. Management Sci. 45(1) 103-115.
23. Hollingsworth, B., P. J. Dawson, N. Maniadakis. 1999. Efficiency measurement of health care: A review of non-parametric methods and applications. Health Care Management Sci. 2(3) 161-172.
24. Johnes, J. 2006. Data envelopment analysis and its application to the measurement of efficiency in higher education. Econom. Ed. Rev. 25(3) 273-288. (Pubitemid 43871930)
25. Joro, T., P. Korhonen, J. Wallenius. 1998. Structural comparison of data envelopment analysis and multiple objective linear programming. Management Sci. 44(7) 962-970. (Pubitemid 128591688)
26. Korhonen, P., M. Soismaa, A. Siljamäki. 2002. On the use of value efficiency analysis and some further developments. J. Productivity Anal. 17(1-2) 49-64. (Pubitemid 37131031)
27. Korhonen, P., R. Tainio, J. Wallenius. 2001. Value efficiency analysis of academic research. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 130(1) 121-132. (Pubitemid 33648438)
28. Köksalan, M., T. Büyükba̧saran, Ö. Özpeynirci, J. Wallenius. 2010. A flexible approach to ranking with an application to MBA programs. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 201(2) 470-476.
29. Liu, N. C., Y. Cheng. 2005. The academic ranking of world universities. Higher Ed. Eur. 30(2) 127-316.
30. Ozcan, Y. A. 2008. Health Care Benchmarking and Evaluation: An Assessment Using Data Envelopment Analysis. Springer, New York.
31. Podinovski, V. V. 2001. DEA models for the explicit maximization of relative efficiency. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 131(3) 572-586. (Pubitemid 32272379)
32. Podinovski, V. V. 2005. The explicit role of weight bounds in models of data envelopment analysis. J. Oper. Res. Soc. 56(12) 1408-1481.
33. Salo, A. 1995. Interactive decision aiding for group decision support. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 84(1) 134-149.
34. Salo, A., R. P. Hämäläinen. 1992. Preference assessment by imprecise ratio statements. Oper. Res. 40(6) 1053-1061.
35. Salo, A., R. P. Hämäläinen. 1997. On the measurement of preferences in the analytic hierarchy process. J. Multi-Criteria Decision Anal. 6(6) 309-319. (Pubitemid 127146248)
36. Salo, A., R. P. Hämäläinen. 2001. Preference ratios in multiattribute evaluation (PRIME)-Elicitation and decision procedures under incomplete information. IEEE Trans. Systems, Man, Cybernetics 31(6) 533-545. (Pubitemid 34191874)
37. Sarrico, S. C., R. G. Dyson. 2000. Using DEA for planning in UK universities-An institutional perspective. J. Oper. Res. Soc. 51(7) 789-800.
38. Seiford, L. M., J. Zhu. 1998a. Sensitivity analysis of DEA models for simultaneous changes in all of the data. J. Oper. Res. Soc. 49(10) 1060-1071. (Pubitemid 128592220)
39. Seiford, L. M., J. Zhu. 1998b. Stability regions for maintaining efficiency in data envelopment analysis. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 108(1) 127-139. (Pubitemid 128372592)
40. Sexton, T. R., R. H. Silkman, A. Hogan. 1986. Data envelopment analysis: Critique and extensions. R. H. Silkman, ed. Measuring the Efficiency: An Assessment of Data Envelopment Analysis. American Evaluation Association, Jossey Bass Inc., San Francisco, 73-104.
41. Shafer, S. M., J. W. Bradford. 1995. Efficiency measurements of alternate machine component grouping solutions via data envelopment analysis. IEEE Trans. Engrg. Management 42(2) 159-165.
42. Stewart, T. J. 1996. Relationships between data envelopment analysis and multicriteria decision analysis. J. Oper. Res. Soc. 47(5) 654-665. (Pubitemid 126590743)
43. Talluri, S., K. P. Yoon. 2000. A cone-ratio DEA approach for AMT justification. Internat. J. Production Econom. 66(2) 119-129.
44. Tauer, L. W., H. O. Fried, W. E. Fry. 2007. Measuring efficiencies of academic departments within a college. Ed. Econom. 15(4) 473-489.
45. Thanassoulis, E., M. C. Portela, R. Allen. 2004. Incorporating value judgements in DEA. W. W. Cooper, L. M. Seiford, J. Zhu, eds. Handbook on Data Envelopment Analysis. Kluwer, Boston, 99-137.
46. Thompson, R. G., F. Singleton, R. Thrall, B. Smith. 1986. Comparative site evaluations for locating a high-energy physics lab in Texas. Interfaces 16(6) 35-49.
47. Thompson, R. G., L. N. Langemeier, C. T. Lee, E. Lee, R. M. Thrall. 1990. The role of multiplier bounds in efficiency analysis with application to Kansas farming. J. Econometrics 46(1-2) 93-108.
48. Zhu, J. 1996. Robustness of the efficient DMUs in data envelopment analysis. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 90(3) 451-460. (Pubitemid 126369040)