IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this article

DEA and ranking with the network-based approach: a case of R&D performance

Listed author(s):
  • Liu, John S.
  • Lu, Wen-Min
Registered author(s):

    This study enhances the network-based approach, which is a novel method to increase discrimination in data envelopment analysis. The enhancements include removing the bias caused by a scale difference among organizations and highlighting the approach's ability to identify the strengths and weaknesses of each organization. The former makes the approach applicable to both the constant returns of scale (CRS) and the variable returns of scale (VRS) models. The network-based approach applies the centrality concept developed in social network analysis to discriminate efficient decision making organizations as determined by standard data envelopment analysis (DEA). More specifically, the results of data envelopment analysis are transformed into a directed and weighted network in which each node represents a decision making organization and the link between a pair of node represents the referencing relationship between the pair. The centrality value for each efficient organization provides the base for discrimination and ranking. This network-based approach suggests aggregating DEA results of different input/output combinations such that the merits of each organization under various situations can be considered. The final ranking of this approach favors organizations that have their strengths evenly spread and tends to screen out specialized efficient organizations. As a real world example, the approach is applied to evaluate and rank the R&D (research and development) performance of Taiwan's government-supported research institutes. The cross-organizations and within-organization strengths for each efficient research institute are identified after applying the approach. A two-stage R&D evaluation model separates the R&D process into the technology development and technology diffusion stage. The resulting performance map differentiates the research institutes into four categories--Achievers, Marketers, Innovators, and Underdogs.

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305-0483(09)00100-5
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

    Article provided by Elsevier in its journal Omega.

    Volume (Year): 38 (2010)
    Issue (Month): 6 (December)
    Pages: 453-464

    as
    in new window

    Handle: RePEc:eee:jomega:v:38:y:2010:i:6:p:453-464
    Contact details of provider: Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/375/description#description

    Order Information: Postal: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/supportfaq.cws_home/regional
    Web: https://shop.elsevier.com/order?id=375&ref=375_01_ooc_1&version=01

    References listed on IDEAS
    Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

    as
    in new window


    1. Wang, Eric C. & Huang, Weichiao, 2007. "Relative efficiency of R&D activities: A cross-country study accounting for environmental factors in the DEA approach," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 260-273, March.
    2. Johnes, Geraint & Johnes, Jill, 1993. "Measuring the Research Performance of UK Economics Departments: An Application of Data Envelopment Analysis," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 45(2), pages 332-347, April.
    3. Avkiran, Necmi K., 2009. "Opening the black box of efficiency analysis: An illustration with UAE banks," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 37(4), pages 930-941, August.
    4. Zhu, Joe, 2000. "Multi-factor performance measure model with an application to Fortune 500 companies," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 123(1), pages 105-124, May.
    5. Per Andersen & Niels Christian Petersen, 1993. "A Procedure for Ranking Efficient Units in Data Envelopment Analysis," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 39(10), pages 1261-1264, October.
    6. Demirbag, Mehmet & Tatoglu, Ekrem & Glaister, Keith W. & Zaim, Selim, 2010. "Measuring strategic decision making efficiency in different country contexts: A comparison of British and Turkish firms," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 38(1-2), pages 95-104, February.
    7. Ramanathan, Ramakrishnan & Yunfeng, Jiang, 2009. "Incorporating cost and environmental factors in quality function deployment using data envelopment analysis," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 37(3), pages 711-723, June.
    8. Lidia Angulo-Meza & Marcos Lins, 2002. "Review of Methods for Increasing Discrimination in Data Envelopment Analysis," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 116(1), pages 225-242, October.
    9. Eilat, Harel & Golany, Boaz & Shtub, Avraham, 2008. "R&D project evaluation: An integrated DEA and balanced scorecard approach," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 36(5), pages 895-912, October.
    10. Groot, Tom & Garcia-Valderrama, Teresa, 2006. "Research quality and efficiency: An analysis of assessments and management issues in Dutch economics and business research programs," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(9), pages 1362-1376, November.
    11. Edirisinghe, N.C.P. & Zhang, X., 2007. "Generalized DEA model of fundamental analysis and its application to portfolio optimization," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 31(11), pages 3311-3335, November.
    12. 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.
    13. Tone, Kaoru & Tsutsui, Miki, 2009. "Network DEA: A slacks-based measure approach," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 197(1), pages 243-252, August.
    14. R. D. Banker & A. Charnes & W. W. Cooper, 1984. "Some Models for Estimating Technical and Scale Inefficiencies in Data Envelopment Analysis," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 30(9), pages 1078-1092, September.
    15. Du, Juan & Liang, Liang & Chen, Yao & Bi, Gong-bing, 2010. "DEA-based production planning," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 38(1-2), pages 105-112, February.
    16. Fare, Rolf & Grosskopf, Shawna, 2000. "Network DEA," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 34(1), pages 35-49, March.
    17. Necmi K. Avkiran, 2006. "Modelling knowledge production performance of research centres with a focus on triple bottom line benchmarking," International Journal of Business Performance Management, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 8(4), pages 307-327.
    18. 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.
    19. Thursby, Jerry G. & Kemp, Sukanya, 2002. "Growth and productive efficiency of university intellectual property licensing," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 109-124, January.
    20. Tone, Kaoru & Tsutsui, Miki, 2010. "Dynamic DEA: A slacks-based measure approach," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 38(3-4), pages 145-156, June.
    21. Tofallis, C., 1996. "Improving discernment in DEA using profiling," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 24(3), pages 361-364, June.
    22. Cordero, Rene, 1990. "The measurement of innovation performance in the firm: An overview," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 19(2), pages 185-192, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:jomega:v:38:y:2010:i:6:p:453-464. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu)

    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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.