IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/pal/jorsoc/v67y2016i12d10.1057_jors.2016.35.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Determining common weights in data envelopment analysis based on the satisfaction degree

Author

Listed:
  • Jie Wu

    (University of Science and Technology of China)

  • Junfei Chu

    (University of Science and Technology of China)

  • Qingyuan Zhu

    (University of Science and Technology of China)

  • Yongjun Li

    (University of Science and Technology of China)

  • Liang Liang

    (University of Science and Technology of China
    Hefei University of Technology)

Abstract

The traditional data envelopment analysis model allows the decision-making units (DMUs) to evaluate their maximum efficiency values using their most favourable weights. This kind of evaluation with total weight flexibility may prevent the DMUs from being fully ranked and make the evaluation results unacceptable to the DMUs. To solve these problems, first, we introduce the concept of satisfaction degree of a DMU in relation to a common set of weights. Then a common-weight evaluation approach, which contains a max–min model and two algorithms, is proposed based on the satisfaction degrees of the DMUs. The max–min model accompanied by our Algorithm 1 can generate for the DMUs a set of common weights that maximizes the least satisfaction degrees among the DMUs. Furthermore, our Algorithm 2 can ensure that the generated common set of weights is unique and that the final satisfaction degrees of the DMUs constitute a Pareto-optimal solution. All of these factors make the evaluation results more satisfied and acceptable by all the DMUs. Finally, results from the proposed approach are contrasted with those of some previous methods for two published examples: efficiency evaluation of 17 forest districts in Taiwan and R&D project selection.

Suggested Citation

  • Jie Wu & Junfei Chu & Qingyuan Zhu & Yongjun Li & Liang Liang, 2016. "Determining common weights in data envelopment analysis based on the satisfaction degree," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 67(12), pages 1446-1458, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:pal:jorsoc:v:67:y:2016:i:12:d:10.1057_jors.2016.35
    DOI: 10.1057/jors.2016.35
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1057/jors.2016.35
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1057/jors.2016.35?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. 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. An, Qingxian & Yan, Hong & Wu, Jie & Liang, Liang, 2016. "Internal resource waste and centralization degree in two-stage systems: An efficiency analysis," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 89-99.
    3. 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.
    4. G R Jahanshahloo & M Zohrehbandian & A Alinezhad & S Abbasian Naghneh & H Abbasian & R Kiani Mavi, 2011. "Finding common weights based on the DM's preference information," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 62(10), pages 1796-1800, October.
    5. G R Jahanshahloo & M Zohrehbandian & A Alinezhad & S Abbasian Naghneh & H Abbasian & R Kiani Mavi, 2011. "Finding common weights based on the DM's preference information," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 62(10), pages 1796-1800, October.
    6. Yanling Dong & Ya Chen & Yongjun Li, 2014. "Efficiency ranking with common set of weights based on data envelopment analysis and satisfaction degree," International Journal of Information and Decision Sciences, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 6(4), pages 354-368.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    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. Roll, Y & Golany, B., 1993. "Alternate methods of treating factor weights in DEA," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 21(1), pages 99-109, January.
    12. Sinuany-Stern, Zilla & Friedman, Lea, 1998. "DEA and the discriminant analysis of ratios for ranking units," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 111(3), pages 470-478, December.
    13. HATAMI-MARBINI, Adel & TAVANA, Madjid & SAATI, Saber & AGRELL, Per J., 2013. "Allocating fixed resources and setting targets using a common-weights DEA approach," LIDAM Reprints CORE 2474, Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE).
    14. 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.
    15. SAATI, Saber & HATAMI-MARBINI, Adel & AGRELL, Per J. & TAVANA, Madjid, 2012. "A common set of weight approach using an ideal decision making unit in data envelopment analysis," LIDAM Reprints CORE 2406, Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE).
    16. C Kao & H-T Hung, 2005. "Data envelopment analysis with common weights: the compromise solution approach," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 56(10), pages 1196-1203, October.
    17. Kao, Chiang & Chi Yang, Yong, 1992. "Reorganization of forest districts via efficiency measurement," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 58(3), pages 356-362, May.
    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. 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.
    2. Lei Chen & Fei-Mei Wu & Feng Feng & Fujun Lai & Ying-Ming Wang, 2018. "A Common Set of Weights for Ranking Decision-Making Units with Undesirable Outputs: A Double Frontiers Data Envelopment Analysis Approach," Asia-Pacific Journal of Operational Research (APJOR), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 35(06), pages 1-25, December.
    3. Yangxue Ning & Yan Zhang & Guoqiang Wang, 2023. "An Improved DEA Prospect Cross-Efficiency Evaluation Method and Its Application in Fund Performance Analysis," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-15, January.
    4. Mehdi Toloo & Madjid Tavana & Francisco J. Santos-Arteaga, 2019. "An integrated data envelopment analysis and mixed integer non-linear programming model for linearizing the common set of weights," Central European Journal of Operations Research, Springer;Slovak Society for Operations Research;Hungarian Operational Research Society;Czech Society for Operations Research;Österr. Gesellschaft für Operations Research (ÖGOR);Slovenian Society Informatika - Section for Operational Research;Croatian Operational Research Society, vol. 27(4), pages 887-904, December.
    5. 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.
    6. Shabani, Amir & Visani, Franco & Barbieri, Paolo & Dullaert, Wout & Vigo, Daniele, 2019. "Reliable estimation of suppliers’ total cost of ownership: An imprecise data envelopment analysis model with common weights," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 57-70.

    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. Chen, Haoxun, 2018. "Average lexicographic efficiency for data envelopment analysis," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 82-91.
    4. 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.
    5. Yang, Feng & Ang, Sheng & Xia, Qiong & Yang, Chenchen, 2012. "Ranking DMUs by using interval DEA cross efficiency matrix with acceptability analysis," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 223(2), pages 483-488.
    6. 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.
    7. Qing Wang & Zhaojun Liu & Yang Zhang, 2017. "A Novel Weighting Method for Finding Common Weights in DEA," Asia-Pacific Journal of Operational Research (APJOR), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 34(05), pages 1-21, October.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. 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.
    13. 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.
    14. Kim, Nam Hyok & He, Feng & Kwon, O Chol, 2023. "Combining common-weights DEA window with the Malmquist index: A case of China’s iron and steel industry," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 87(PB).
    15. Oukil, Amar, 2020. "Exploiting value system multiplicity and preference voting for robust ranking," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    16. Oral, Muhittin, 2010. "E-DEA: Enhanced data envelopment analysis," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 207(2), pages 916-926, December.
    17. Lampe, Hannes W. & Hilgers, Dennis, 2015. "Trajectories of efficiency measurement: A bibliometric analysis of DEA and SFA," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 240(1), pages 1-21.
    18. Oral, Muhittin & Oukil, Amar & Malouin, Jean-Louis & Kettani, Ossama, 2014. "The appreciative democratic voice of DEA: A case of faculty academic performance evaluation," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 20-28.
    19. Van Puyenbroeck, Tom & Rogge, Nicky, 2017. "Geometric mean quantity index numbers with Benefit-of-the-Doubt weights," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 256(3), pages 1004-1014.
    20. Kao, Chiang, 2010. "Malmquist productivity index based on common-weights DEA: The case of Taiwan forests after reorganization," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 38(6), pages 484-491, December.

    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:pal:jorsoc:v:67:y:2016:i:12:d:10.1057_jors.2016.35. 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.palgrave-journals.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.