IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/annopr/v197y2012i1p191-20010.1007-s10479-010-0817-8.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A multiple criteria ranking method based on game cross-evaluation approach

Author

Listed:
  • Jie Wu
  • Liang Liang

Abstract

The application of Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) as an alternative multiple criteria decision making (MCDM) tool has been gaining more attentions in the literatures. Doyle (Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 62(1):87–100, 1995 ) presents a method of multi-attribute choice based on an application of DEA. In the first part of his method, the straightforward DEA is considered as an idealized process of self-evaluation in which each alternative weighs the attributes in order to maximize its own score (or desirability) relative to the other alternatives. Then, in the second step, each alternative applies its own DEA-derived best weights to each of the other alternatives (i.e., cross-evaluation), then the average of the cross-evaluations that get placed on an alternative is taken as an index of its overall score. In some cases of multiple criteria decision making, direct or indirect competitions exist among the alternatives, while the factor of competition is usually ignored in most of MCDM settings. This paper proposes an approach to evaluate and rank alternatives in MCDM via an extension of DEA method, namely DEA game cross-efficiency model in Liang, Wu, Cook and Zhu (Oper. Res. 56(5):1278–1288, 2008b ), in which each alternative is viewed as a player who seeks to maximize its own score (or desirability), under the condition that the cross-evaluation scores of each of other alternatives does not deteriorate. The game cross-evaluation score is obtained when the alternative’s own maximized scores are averaged. The obtained game cross-evaluation scores are unique and constitute a Nash equilibrium point. Therefore, the results and rankings based upon game cross-evaluation score analysis are more reliable and will benefit the decision makers. Copyright Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Suggested Citation

  • Jie Wu & Liang Liang, 2012. "A multiple criteria ranking method based on game cross-evaluation approach," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 197(1), pages 191-200, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:annopr:v:197:y:2012:i:1:p:191-200:10.1007/s10479-010-0817-8
    DOI: 10.1007/s10479-010-0817-8
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s10479-010-0817-8
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10479-010-0817-8?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
    ---><---

    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. Michel Grabisch & Christophe Labreuche, 2010. "A decade of application of the Choquet and Sugeno integrals in multi-criteria decision aid," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 175(1), pages 247-286, March.
    2. Ted Ralphs & Matthew Saltzman & Margaret Wiecek, 2006. "An improved algorithm for solving biobjective integer programs," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 147(1), pages 43-70, October.
    3. Behzadian, Majid & Kazemzadeh, R.B. & Albadvi, A. & Aghdasi, M., 2010. "PROMETHEE: A comprehensive literature review on methodologies and applications," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 200(1), pages 198-215, January.
    4. Jyrki Wallenius & James S. Dyer & Peter C. Fishburn & Ralph E. Steuer & Stanley Zionts & Kalyanmoy Deb, 2008. "Multiple Criteria Decision Making, Multiattribute Utility Theory: Recent Accomplishments and What Lies Ahead," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 54(7), pages 1336-1349, July.
    5. Doyle, John R., 1995. "Multiattribute Choice for the Lazy Decision Maker: Let the Alternatives Decide!," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 62(1), pages 87-100, April.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. Wu, Desheng Dash, 2009. "Performance evaluation: An integrated method using data envelopment analysis and fuzzy preference relations," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 194(1), pages 227-235, April.
    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.
    10. 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.
    11. Brans, J. P. & Vincke, Ph. & Mareschal, B., 1986. "How to select and how to rank projects: The method," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 24(2), pages 228-238, February.
    12. Yong Shi, 2010. "The Research Trend Of Information Technology And Decision Making In 2009," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 9(01), pages 1-8.
    13. Matthias Ehrgott, 2006. "A discussion of scalarization techniques for multiple objective integer programming," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 147(1), pages 343-360, October.
    14. H. Roland Weistroffer & Subhash Narula, 1997. "The state of multiple criteria decision support software," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 72(0), pages 299-313, January.
    15. Denis Bouyssou & Marc Pirlot, 2008. "On some ordinal models for decision making under uncertainty," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 163(1), pages 19-48, October.
    16. Cook, Wade D. & Kress, Moshe, 1991. "A multiple criteria decision model with ordinal preference data," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 54(2), pages 191-198, September.
    17. Yu-Ping Ou Yang & How-Ming Shieh & Jun-Der Leu & Gwo-Hshiung Tzeng, 2009. "A Vikor-Based Multiple Criteria Decision Method For Improving Information Security Risk," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 8(02), pages 267-287.
    18. Doyle, J & Green, R, 1993. "Data envelopment analysis and multiple criteria decision making," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 21(6), pages 713-715, November.
    19. Bertrand Mareschal & Jean Pierre Brans & Philippe Vincke, 1986. "How to select and how to rank projects: the Prométhée method," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/9307, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    20. Yi Peng & Gang Kou & Yong Shi & Zhengxin Chen, 2008. "A Descriptive Framework For The Field Of Data Mining And Knowledge Discovery," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 7(04), pages 639-682.
    21. Wu, Jie & Liang, Liang & Chen, Yao, 2009. "DEA game cross-efficiency approach to Olympic rankings," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 37(4), pages 909-918, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Mette Asmild & Jens Hougaard & Dorte Kronborg, 2013. "Do efficiency scores depend on input mix? A statistical test and empirical illustration," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 211(1), pages 37-48, December.
    2. Hashem Omrani & Khatereh Shafaat & Arash Alizadeh, 2019. "Integrated data envelopment analysis and cooperative game for evaluating energy efficiency of transportation sector: a case of Iran," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 274(1), pages 471-499, March.
    3. 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.
    4. Hashem Omrani & Mohaddeseh Amini & Mahdieh Babaei & Khatereh Shafaat, 2020. "Use Shapley value for increasing power distinguish of data envelopment analysis model: An application for estimating environmental efficiency of industrial producers in Iran," Energy & Environment, , vol. 31(4), pages 656-675, June.
    5. Mohammed Al-Siyabi & Gholam R. Amin & Shekar Bose & Hussein Al-Masroori, 2019. "Peer-judgment risk minimization using DEA cross-evaluation with an application in fishery," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 274(1), pages 39-55, March.
    6. Tao Xu & Jianxin You & Hui Li & Luning Shao, 2020. "Energy Efficiency Evaluation Based on Data Envelopment Analysis: A Literature Review," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(14), pages 1-20, July.
    7. 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.
    8. Fan Zhang & Nengsheng Luo & Yanfei Li, 2023. "What Type of Energy Structure Improves Eco-Efficiency? A Study Based on Statistical Data of 285 Prefecture-Level Entities in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(11), pages 1-26, June.

    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. Sarkis, Joseph, 2000. "A comparative analysis of DEA as a discrete alternative multiple criteria decision tool," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 123(3), pages 543-557, June.
    2. 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.
    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. H. Örkcü & Mehmet Ünsal & Hasan Bal, 2015. "A modification of a mixed integer linear programming (MILP) model to avoid the computational complexity," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 235(1), pages 599-623, December.
    5. Roman Vavrek, 2019. "Evaluation of the Impact of Selected Weighting Methods on the Results of the TOPSIS Technique," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 18(06), pages 1821-1843, November.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. Oukil, Amar, 2020. "Exploiting value system multiplicity and preference voting for robust ranking," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    11. 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.
    12. 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.
    13. 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.
    14. Yang, Guo-liang & Yang, Jian-bo & Liu, Wen-bin & Li, Xiao-xuan, 2013. "Cross-efficiency aggregation in DEA models using the evidential-reasoning approach," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 231(2), pages 393-404.
    15. Cui, Yuan & Pan, Hao & Huang, Yi-Di & Yang, Guo-liang, 2024. "How can sociological theories provide legitimacy to eco-efficiency evaluations? Embark on a journey toward understanding," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 93(C).
    16. 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.
    17. Davtalab-Olyaie, Mostafa & Asgharian, Masoud, 2021. "On Pareto-optimality in the cross-efficiency evaluation," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 288(1), pages 247-257.
    18. Yi Peng, 2015. "Regional earthquake vulnerability assessment using a combination of MCDM methods," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 234(1), pages 95-110, November.
    19. Manuel Casal-Guisande & Alberto Comesaña-Campos & Alejandro Pereira & José-Benito Bouza-Rodríguez & Jorge Cerqueiro-Pequeño, 2022. "A Decision-Making Methodology Based on Expert Systems Applied to Machining Tools Condition Monitoring," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 10(3), pages 1-30, February.
    20. Aikaterini Papapostolou & Charikleia Karakosta & Kalliopi-Anastasia Kourti & Haris Doukas & John Psarras, 2019. "Supporting Europe’s Energy Policy Towards a Decarbonised Energy System: A Comparative Assessment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(15), pages 1-26, July.

    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:spr:annopr:v:197:y:2012:i:1:p:191-200:10.1007/s10479-010-0817-8. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.