IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ids/injams/v4y2012i1p18-35.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A DEA model with identical weight assignment based on multiple perspectives

Author

Listed:
  • Xiaopeng Yang
  • Hiroshi Morita

Abstract

For a complicated banking system with various financial attributes, there are usually different classifications of inputs and outputs from the perspectives of different stakeholders. In order to obtain the highest efficiency score, different perspectives tend to select different weight assignment schemes, even in evaluating the same bank. In order to balance multiple perspectives (Pareto optimality) based on their market statuses and evaluate DMU more objectively, we propose a new DEA model incorporating Nash bargaining game (NBG) theory, which focuses on seeking an identical weight assignment scheme to cater to multiple perspectives.

Suggested Citation

  • Xiaopeng Yang & Hiroshi Morita, 2012. "A DEA model with identical weight assignment based on multiple perspectives," International Journal of Applied Management Science, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 4(1), pages 18-35.
    • Handle: RePEc:ids:injams:v:4:y:2012:i:1:p:18-35
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.inderscience.com/link.php?id=44869
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    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. Bergendahl, Goran & Lindblom, Ted, 2008. "Evaluating the performance of Swedish savings banks according to service efficiency," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 185(3), pages 1663-1673, March.
    2. Paradi, Joseph C. & Schaffnit, Claire, 2004. "Commercial branch performance evaluation and results communication in a Canadian bank--a DEA application," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 156(3), pages 719-735, August.
    3. Nash, John, 1950. "The Bargaining Problem," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 18(2), pages 155-162, April.
    4. Banker, Rajiv D., 1984. "Estimating most productive scale size using data envelopment analysis," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 17(1), pages 35-44, July.
    5. 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.
    6. Garcia-Cestona, Miguel & Surroca, Jordi, 2008. "Multiple goals and ownership structure: Effects on the performance of Spanish savings banks," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 187(2), pages 582-599, June.
    7. Avkiran, Necmi K. & Morita, Hiroshi, 2010. "Benchmarking firm performance from a multiple-stakeholder perspective with an application to Chinese banking," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 38(6), pages 501-508, December.
    8. Dyson, R. G. & Allen, R. & Camanho, A. S. & Podinovski, V. V. & Sarrico, C. S. & Shale, E. A., 2001. "Pitfalls and protocols in DEA," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 132(2), pages 245-259, July.
    9. Reza Kiani Mavi & Ahmad Makui & Safar Fazli & Alireza Alinezhad, 2010. "A forecasting method in data envelopment analysis with group decision making," International Journal of Applied Management Science, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 2(2), pages 152-168.
    10. Herbert Lewis & Thomas Sexton, 2004. "Data Envelopment Analysis with Reverse Inputs and Outputs," Journal of Productivity Analysis, Springer, vol. 21(2), pages 113-132, March.
    11. Fadzlan Sufian, 2010. "Evolution in the efficiency of the Indonesian banking sector: a DEA approach," International Journal of Applied Management Science, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 2(4), pages 388-414.
    12. Rashmi Malhotra & D.K. Malhotra & C. Andrew Lafond, 2009. "Analysing financial services industry using data envelopment analysis," International Journal of Applied Management Science, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 1(3), pages 217-246.
    13. Scheel, Holger, 2001. "Undesirable outputs in efficiency valuations," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 132(2), pages 400-410, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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:ids:injams:v:4:y:2012:i:1:p:18-35. 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: (Carmel O'Grady). General contact details of provider: http://www.inderscience.com/browse/index.php?journalID=286 .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.