10.1007/s40096-023-00512-5

Improving decision-making units in performance analysis methods: a data envelopment analysis approach

  • Alireza Amirteimoori*1,
  • Tofigh Allahviranloo1,
  • Sohrab Kordrostami2,
  • Seyed Fatemeh Bagheri3,
  1. Faculty of Engineering and Natural Sciences, Istinye University, Istanbul, TR
  2. Department of Applied Mathematics, Lahijan Branch, Islamic Azad University, Lahijan, IR
  3. Department of Applied Mathematics, Rasht Branch, Islamic Azad University, Rasht, IR

Published in Issue 2023-04-03

How to Cite

Amirteimoori, A., Allahviranloo, T., Kordrostami, S., & Bagheri, S. F. (2023). Improving decision-making units in performance analysis methods: a data envelopment analysis approach. Mathematical Sciences, 18(3 (September 2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40096-023-00512-5
Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC

Abstract

Abstract Classifying decision-making units into efficient and inefficient classes is a common procedure in nonparametric data envelopment analysis approach. The inefficient units can be projected onto the production frontier by decreasing their inputs or increasing their outputs. However, if the closer projection point is clarified, the units will achieve their best situation. Previous methods have only focused on one objective, and other features have been ignored. This paper presents an alternative definition for the best projection by considering three main aspects: cost, revenue and closest projection points. The proposed procedure provides the closest possible distance, the lowest cost and the highest revenue, simultaneously. The goal programming has been used in this model. The results of implementing this approach on China's textile industry have shown the model applicability.

Keywords

  • Data envelopment analysis,
  • Best efficient,
  • Technical efficiency,
  • Allocative efficiency,
  • Closest distance

References

  1. Amirteimoori and Kordrostami (2010) A Euclidean distance-based measure of efficiency in data envelopment analysis 59(7) (pp. 985-996) https://doi.org/10.1080/02331930902878333
  2. An et al. (2015) Closest targets in environmental efficiency evaluation based enhanced Russell measure (pp. 59-66) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2014.09.008
  3. Aparicio et al. (2016) Graph productivity change measure using the least distance to the pareto-efficient frontier in data envelopment analysis (pp. 1-14) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2016.10.005
  4. Aparicio and Pastor (2014) Closest targets and strong monotonicity on the strongly efficient frontier in DEA (pp. 51-57) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2013.10.001
  5. Aparicio and Pastor (2014) On how to properly calculate the Euclidean distance-based measure in DEA 63(3) (pp. 421-432) https://doi.org/10.1080/02331934.2012.655692
  6. Aparicio et al. (2007) Closest targets and minimum distance to the Pareto-efficient frontier in DEA 28(3) (pp. 209-218) https://doi.org/10.1007/s11123-007-0039-5
  7. Bagheri et al. (2022) Performance analysis in production systems with uncertain data: a stochastic data envelopment analysis approach (pp. 1-14) https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/9198737
  8. Banker et al. (1984) Some models for estimating technical and scale inefficiencies in data envelopment analysis 30(9) (pp. 1078-1092) https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.30.9.1078
  9. Camanho and Dyson (2005) Cost efficiency measurement with price uncertainty: a DEA application to bank branch assessments 161(2) (pp. 432-446) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2003.07.018
  10. Charnes et al. (1985) Foundations of data envelopment analysis for Pareto–Koopmans efficient empirical production functions 30(1) (pp. 91-107) https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-4076(85)90133-2
  11. Charnes et al. (1978) Measuring the efficiency of decision making units (pp. 429-444) https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-2217(78)90138-8
  12. Debreu (1951) The coefficient of resource utilization (pp. 273-293) https://doi.org/10.2307/1906814
  13. Farrell (1957) The measurement of productive efficiency (pp. 253-281) https://doi.org/10.2307/2343100
  14. Färe and Lovell (1978) Measuring the technical efficiency of production (pp. 150-162) https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-0531(78)90060-1
  15. Ghiyasi (2017) Inverse DEA based on cost and revenue efficiency (pp. 258-263) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2017.10.024
  16. Hatami-Marbini et al. (2015) A common-weights DEA model for centralized resource reduction and target setting (pp. 195-203) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2014.10.024
  17. Hung-Tso (2010) An efficiency-driven approach for setting revenue target 49(3) (pp. 311-317) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2010.03.006
  18. Jahanshahloo et al. (2013) Directional closest-target based measures of efficiency: Hölder norms approach (pp. 31-39)
  19. Lotfi et al. (2020) Cost efficiency measurement with price uncertainty: a data envelopment analysis (pp. 387-396) https://doi.org/10.1007/s40096-020-00349-2
  20. Mozaffari et al. (2014) Cost and revenue efficiency in DEA-R models (pp. 188-194) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2014.10.001
  21. Pendharkar (2015) Cost minimizing target setting heuristics for making inefficient decision-making units efficient (pp. 1-12) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2014.12.023
  22. Sheng et al. (2019) Target setting with minimum improving costs in data envelopment analysis: a mixed integer linear programming approach 36(4)
  23. Tone (2001) A slacks-based measure of efficiency in data envelopment analysis 130(3) (pp. 498-509) https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(99)00407-5
  24. Wu et al. (2018) Resource reallocation and target setting for improving environmental performance of DMUs: an application to regional highway transportation systems in China (pp. 204-216) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2016.09.002
  25. Xiong et al. (2017) Eco-efficiency measurement and improvement of Chines industry using a new closest target method 9(5) (pp. 666-681) https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCCSM-08-2016-0112
  26. Zhu et al. (2018) A simple MILP to determine closest targets in non-oriented DEA model satisfying strong monotonicity (pp. 1-8) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2017.07.003