IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/proeco/v113y2008i2p1025-1030.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Alternative secondary goals in DEA cross-efficiency evaluation

Author

Listed:
  • Liang, Liang
  • Wu, Jie
  • Cook, Wade D.
  • Zhu, Joe

Abstract

As an extension to data envelopment analysis (DEA), cross-efficiency evaluation not only provides a ranking among the decision-making units (DMUs) but also eliminates unrealistic DEA weighting schemes without requiring a priori information on weight restrictions. A factor that possibly reduces the usefulness of the cross-efficiency evaluation method is that the cross-efficiency scores may not be unique due to the presence of alternate optima. As a result, it is recommended that secondary goals be introduced in cross-efficiency evaluation. This paper seeks to extend the model of Doyle and Green [1994. Efficiency and cross efficiency in DEA: Derivations, meanings and the uses. Journal of the Operational Research Society 45 (5), 567-578], by introducing a number of different secondary objective functions. The models are illustrated with examples.

Suggested Citation

  • Liang, Liang & Wu, Jie & Cook, Wade D. & Zhu, Joe, 2008. "Alternative secondary goals in DEA cross-efficiency evaluation," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 113(2), pages 1025-1030, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:proeco:v:113:y:2008:i:2:p:1025-1030
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0925-5273(07)00365-9
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Beasley, J. E., 2003. "Allocating fixed costs and resources via data envelopment analysis," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 147(1), pages 198-216, May.
    2. Muhittin Oral & Ossama Kettani & Pascal Lang, 1991. "A Methodology for Collective Evaluation and Selection of Industrial R&D Projects," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 37(7), pages 871-885, July.
    3. Timothy Anderson & Keith Hollingsworth & Lane Inman, 2002. "The Fixed Weighting Nature of A Cross-Evaluation Model," Journal of Productivity Analysis, Springer, vol. 17(3), pages 249-255, May.
    4. Zhu, Joe, 1998. "Data envelopment analysis vs. principal component analysis: An illustrative study of economic performance of Chinese cities," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 111(1), pages 50-61, November.
    5. Adler, Nicole & Friedman, Lea & Sinuany-Stern, Zilla, 2002. "Review of ranking methods in the data envelopment analysis context," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 140(2), pages 249-265, July.
    6. Charnes, A. & Cooper, W. W. & Rhodes, E., 1978. "Measuring the efficiency of decision making units," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 2(6), pages 429-444, November.
    7. M.D. Troutt, 1997. "Derivation of the Maximin Efficiency Ratio model from the maximum decisional efficiency principle," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 73(0), pages 323-338, October.
    8. D K Despotis, 2002. "Improving the discriminating power of DEA: focus on globally efficient units," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 53(3), pages 314-323, March.
    9. Green, Rodney H. & Doyle, John R. & Cook, Wade D., 1996. "Preference voting and project ranking using DEA and cross-evaluation," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 90(3), pages 461-472, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Liang Liang & Jie Wu & Wade D. Cook & Joe Zhu, 2008. "The DEA Game Cross-Efficiency Model and Its Nash Equilibrium," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 56(5), pages 1278-1288, October.
    2. Soltanifar, Mehdi & Shahghobadi, Saeid, 2013. "Selecting a benevolent secondary goal model in data envelopment analysis cross-efficiency evaluation by a voting model," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 47(1), pages 65-74.
    3. Ramón, Nuria & Ruiz, José L. & Sirvent, Inmaculada, 2010. "On the choice of weights profiles in cross-efficiency evaluations," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 207(3), pages 1564-1572, December.
    4. Oral, Muhittin, 2010. "E-DEA: Enhanced data envelopment analysis," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 207(2), pages 916-926, December.
    5. Wu, Jie & Chu, Junfei & Sun, Jiasen & Zhu, Qingyuan, 2016. "DEA cross-efficiency evaluation based on Pareto improvement," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 248(2), pages 571-579.
    6. Feng Li & Han Wu & Qingyuan Zhu & Liang Liang & Gang Kou, 2021. "Data envelopment analysis cross efficiency evaluation with reciprocal behaviors," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 302(1), pages 173-210, July.
    7. Kim, Juram & Hong, Suckwon & Kang, Yubin & Lee, Changyong, 2023. "Domain-specific valuation of university technologies using bibliometrics, Jonckheere–Terpstra tests, and data envelopment analysis," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 122(C).
    8. Kairui Zuo & Jiancheng Guan, 2017. "Measuring the R&D efficiency of regions by a parallel DEA game model," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 112(1), pages 175-194, July.
    9. Chien-Ming Chen & Joe Zhu, 2011. "Efficient Resource Allocation via Efficiency Bootstraps: An Application to R&D Project Budgeting," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 59(3), pages 729-741, June.
    10. Wang, Ying-Ming & Chin, Kwai-Sang, 2010. "Some alternative models for DEA cross-efficiency evaluation," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 128(1), pages 332-338, November.
    11. Adler, Nicole & Yazhemsky, Ekaterina, 2010. "Improving discrimination in data envelopment analysis: PCA-DEA or variable reduction," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 202(1), pages 273-284, April.
    12. Chen, C.M., 2008. "Multi-Factor Policy Evaluation and Selection in the One-Sample Situation," ERIM Report Series Research in Management ERS-2008-084-LIS, Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM), ERIM is the joint research institute of the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University and the Erasmus School of Economics (ESE) at Erasmus University Rotterdam.
    13. Fang, Tao & Fang, Debin & Yu, Bolin, 2022. "Carbon emission efficiency of thermal power generation in China: Empirical evidence from the micro-perspective of power plants," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 165(C).
    14. Wang, Ying-Ming & Chin, Kwai-Sang, 2011. "The use of OWA operator weights for cross-efficiency aggregation," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 39(5), pages 493-503, October.
    15. Tsou, Chi-Ming & Huang, Deng-Yuan, 2010. "On some methods for performance ranking and correspondence analysis in the DEA context," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 203(3), pages 771-783, June.
    16. Lei Fang & C-Q Zhang, 2008. "Resource allocation based on the DEA model," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 59(8), pages 1136-1141, August.
    17. Liu, Hui-hui & Song, Yao-yao & Yang, Guo-liang, 2019. "Cross-efficiency evaluation in data envelopment analysis based on prospect theory," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 273(1), pages 364-375.
    18. Cook, Wade D. & Seiford, Larry M., 2009. "Data envelopment analysis (DEA) - Thirty years on," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 192(1), pages 1-17, January.
    19. Ramón, Nuria & Ruiz, José L. & Sirvent, Inmaculada, 2011. "Reducing differences between profiles of weights: A "peer-restricted" cross-efficiency evaluation," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 39(6), pages 634-641, December.
    20. I. Contreras & S. Lozano & M. A. Hinojosa, 2021. "A bargaining approach to determine common weights in DEA," Operational Research, Springer, vol. 21(3), pages 2181-2201, September.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:proeco:v:113:y:2008:i:2:p:1025-1030. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ijpe .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.