Imprecise DEA Efficiency Assessments : Characterizations and Methods

  • Published : 2008.11.30

Abstract

Data envelopment analysis (DEA) has proven to be a useful tool for assessing efficiency or productivity of organizations which is of vital practical importance in managerial decision making. While DEA assumes exact input and output data, the development of imprecise DEA (IDEA) broadens the scope of applications to efficiency evaluations involving imprecise information which implies various forms of ordinal and bounded data possibly or often occurring in practice. The primary purpose of this article is to characterize the variable efficiency in IDEA. Since DEA describes a pair of primal and dual models, also called envelopment and multiplier models, we can basically consider two IDEA models: One incorporates imprecise data into envelopment model and the other includes the same imprecise data in multiplier model. The issues of rising importance are thus the relationships between the two models and how to solve them. The groundwork we will make includes a duality study which makes it possible to characterize the efficiency solutions from the two models. This also relates to why we take into account the variable efficiency and its bounds in IDEA that some of the published IDEA studies have made. We also present computational aspects of the efficiency bounds and how to interpret the efficiency solutions.

Keywords

References

  1. Arnold, V., I. Bardhan, W. W. Cooper, and A. Gallegos, Primal and dual optimality in computer codes using two‐stage solution procedures in DEA, In: Aranson, J., Zionts, S. (Eds.), Operations Research: Methods, Models and Applications Quorum Books, Westport, CT, (1998), 57‐96
  2. Banker, R. D., Maximum likelihood, consistency and data envelopment analysis: A statistical foundation, Management Science 39 (1993), 1265‐1273
  3. Charnes, A., W. W. Cooper, Z. M. Huang, and D. B. Sun, Polyhedral cone‐ratio DEA models with an illustrative application to large commercial banks, Journal of Econometrics 46 (1990), 73‐91
  4. Charnes, A., W. W. Cooper, and E. Rhodes, Measuring the efficiency of decision making units, European Journal of Operational Research 2 (1978), 429‐444
  5. Chen, Y., L. M. Seiford, and J. Zhu, Imprecise data envelopment analysis, Unpublished paper, Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester, MA, 2000
  6. Cook, W. D., M. Kress, and L. M. Seiford, On the use of ordinal data in data envelopment analysis, Journal of the Operational Research Society 44 (1993), 133-140 https://doi.org/10.1057/jors.1993.25
  7. Cook, W. D., M. Kress, and L. M. Seiford, Data envelopment analysis in the presence of both quantitative and qualitative factors, Journal of the Operational Research Society 47 (1996), 945‐953
  8. Cook, W. D. and J. Zhu, Rank order data in DEA: A general framework, European Journal of Operational Research 174 (2005), 1021‐1038
  9. Cooper, W. W., K. S. Park, and G. Yu, IDEA and AR‐IDEA: Models for dealing with imprecise data in DEA, Management Science 45 (1999), 597‐607
  10. Cooper, W. W., K. S. Park, and G. Yu, An illustrative application of IDEA (imprecise data envelopment analysis) to a Korean mobile telecommunication company, Operations Research 49 (2001), 807‐820
  11. Cooper, W. W., K. S. Park, and G. Yu, IDEA (imprecise data envelopment analysis) with CMDs (column maximum decision making units), Journal of the Operational Research Society 52 (2001), 176‐181
  12. Despotis, D. K. and Y. G. Smirlis, Data envelopment analysis with imprecise data, European Journal of Operational Research 140 (2002), 24‐36
  13. Kao, C., Interval efficiency measures in data envelopment analysis with imprecise data, European Journal of Operational Research 174 (2006), 1087‐1099
  14. Kao, C. and S. T. Liu, Fuzzy efficiency measures in data envelopment analysis, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 113 (2000), 427‐437
  15. Kao, C. and S. T. Liu, Data envelopment analysis with missing data: An application to university libraries in Taiwan, Journal of the Operational Research Society 51 (2000), 897‐905
  16. Kim, S. H., C. K. Park, and K. S. Park, An application of data envelopment analysis in telephone offices evaluation with partial data, Computers and Operations Research 26 (1999), 59‐72
  17. Olesen, O. B. and N. C. Petersen, Chance constrained efficiency evaluation, Management Science 41 (1995), 442‐457
  18. Olesen, O. B., N. C. Petersen, Probabilistic bounds on the virtual multipliers in data envelopment analysis: Polyhedral cone constraints, Journal of Productivity Analysis 12 (1999), 103‐134
  19. Park, K. S., Simplification of the transformations and redundancy of assurance regions in IDEA (imprecise DEA), Journal of the Operational Research Society 55 (2004), 1363‐1366
  20. Park, K. S., Efficiency bounds and efficiency classifications in DEA with imprecise data, Journal of the Operational Research Society 58 (2007), 533‐540
  21. Simar, L., P. W. Wilson, Statistical inference in nonparametric frontier models: The state of the art, Journal of Productivity Analysis 13 (2000), 49‐78
  22. Soyster, A. L., Convex programming with set‐inclusive constraints and applications to inexact linear programming, Operations Research 21 (1973), 1154‐1157 https://doi.org/10.1287/opre.21.5.1157
  23. Soyster, A. L., Inexact linear programming with generalized resource sets, European Journal of Operational Research 3 (1979), 316‐321
  24. Thompson, R. G., P. S. Dharmapala, and R. M. Thrall, Linked‐cone DEA profit ratios and technical efficiency with application to Illinois coal mines, International Journal of Production Economics 39 (1995), 99‐115
  25. Thompson, R. G., L. N. Langemeier, C. T. Lee, E. Lee, and R. M. Thrall, The role of multiplier bounds in efficiency analysis with applications to Kansas farming, Journal of Econometrics 46 (1990), 93‐108
  26. Zhu, J., Imprecise data envelopment analysis (IDEA): A review and improvement with an application, European Journal of Operational Research 144 (2003), 513‐529
  27. Zhu, J., Imprecise DEA via standard linear DEA models with a revisit to a Korean mobile telecommunication company, Operations Research 52 (2004), 323‐ 329 https://doi.org/10.1287/opre.1030.0072