IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/oropre/v56y2008i5p1278-1288.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The DEA Game Cross-Efficiency Model and Its Nash Equilibrium

Author

Listed:
  • Liang Liang

    (School of Business, University of Science and Technology of China, He Fei, An Hui Province, People's Republic of China 230026)

  • Jie Wu

    (School of Business, University of Science and Technology of China, He Fei, An Hui Province, People's Republic of China 230026)

  • Wade D. Cook

    (Schulich School of Business, York University, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M3J 1P3)

  • Joe Zhu

    (Department of Management, Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester, Massachusetts 01609)

Abstract

In this paper, we examine the cross-efficiency concept in data envelopment analysis (DEA). Cross efficiency links one decision-making unit's (DMU) performance with others and has the appeal that scores arise from peer evaluation. However, a number of the current cross-efficiency approaches are flawed because they use scores that are arbitrary in that they depend on a particular set of optimal DEA weights generated by the computer code in use at the time. One set of optimal DEA weights (possibly out of many alternate optima) may improve the cross efficiency of some DMUs, but at the expense of others. While models have been developed that incorporate secondary goals aimed at being more selective in the choice of optimal multipliers, the alternate optima issue remains. In cases where there is competition among DMUs, this situation may be seen as undesirable and unfair. To address this issue, this paper generalizes the original DEA cross-efficiency concept to game cross efficiency. Specifically, each DMU is viewed as a player that seeks to maximize its own efficiency, under the condition that the cross efficiency of each of the other DMUs does not deteriorate. The average game cross-efficiency score is obtained when the DMU's own maximized efficiency scores are averaged. To implement the DEA game cross-efficiency model, an algorithm for deriving the best (game cross-efficiency) scores is presented. We show that the optimal game cross-efficiency scores constitute a Nash equilibrium point.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:inm:oropre:v:56:y:2008:i:5:p:1278-1288
    DOI: 10.1287/opre.1070.0487
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/opre.1070.0487
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/opre.1070.0487?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. Robert Becker & Subir Chakrabarti, 2005. "Satisficing behavior, Brouwer’s Fixed Point Theorem and Nash Equilibrium," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 26(1), pages 63-83, 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. 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.
    5. Wade D. Cook & Moshe Kress, 1990. "A Data Envelopment Model for Aggregating Preference Rankings," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(11), pages 1302-1310, November.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    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 & 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. Oral, Muhittin, 2010. "E-DEA: Enhanced data envelopment analysis," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 207(2), pages 916-926, December.
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. 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.
    13. 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.
    14. Sweksha Srivastava & Abha Aggarwal & Pooja Bansal, 2024. "Efficiency Evaluation of Assets and Optimal Portfolio Generation by Cross Efficiency and Cumulative Prospect Theory," Computational Economics, Springer;Society for Computational Economics, vol. 63(1), pages 129-158, January.
    15. Shiang-Tai Liu, 2018. "A DEA ranking method based on cross-efficiency intervals and signal-to-noise ratio," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 261(1), pages 207-232, February.
    16. Jie Wu & Junfei Chu & Qingyuan Zhu & Pengzhen Yin & Liang Liang, 2016. "DEA cross-efficiency evaluation based on satisfaction degree: an application to technology selection," International Journal of Production Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 54(20), pages 5990-6007, October.
    17. José L. Ruiz & Inmaculada Sirvent, 2017. "Fuzzy cross-efficiency evaluation: a possibility approach," Fuzzy Optimization and Decision Making, Springer, vol. 16(1), pages 111-126, March.
    18. Wenli Liu & Ying-Ming Wang & Shulong Lv, 2017. "An aggressive game cross-efficiency evaluation in data envelopment analysis," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 259(1), pages 241-258, December.
    19. Pishchulov, Grigory & Trautrims, Alexander & Chesney, Thomas & Gold, Stefan & Schwab, Leila, 2019. "The Voting Analytic Hierarchy Process revisited: A revised method with application to sustainable supplier selection," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 211(C), pages 166-179.
    20. Liu, Hui-hui & Song, Yao-yao & Liu, Xiao-xiao & Yang, Guo-liang, 2020. "Aggregating the DEA prospect cross-efficiency with an application to state key laboratories in China," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 71(C).

    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:inm:oropre:v:56:y:2008:i:5:p:1278-1288. 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: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    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.