IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/jnljam/v2013y2013i1n906743.html

Developing Common Set of Weights with Considering Nondiscretionary Inputs and Using Ideal Point Method

Author

Listed:
  • Reza Kiani Mavi
  • Sajad Kazemi
  • Jay M. Jahangiri

Abstract

Data envelopment analysis (DEA) is used to evaluate the performance of decision making units (DMUs) with multiple inputs and outputs in a homogeneous group. In this way, the acquired relative efficiency score for each decision making unit lies between zero and one where a number of them may have an equal efficiency score of one. DEA successfully divides them into two categories of efficient DMUs and inefficient DMUs. A ranking for inefficient DMUs is given but DEA does not provide further information about the efficient DMUs. One of the popular methods for evaluating and ranking DMUs is the common set of weights (CSW) method. We generate a CSW model with considering nondiscretionary inputs that are beyond the control of DMUs and using ideal point method. The main idea of this approach is to minimize the distance between the evaluated decision making unit and the ideal decision making unit (ideal point). Using an empirical example we put our proposed model to test by applying it to the data of some 20 bank branches and rank their efficient units.

Suggested Citation

  • Reza Kiani Mavi & Sajad Kazemi & Jay M. Jahangiri, 2013. "Developing Common Set of Weights with Considering Nondiscretionary Inputs and Using Ideal Point Method," Journal of Applied Mathematics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 2013(1).
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:jnljam:v:2013:y:2013:i:1:n:906743
    DOI: 10.1155/2013/906743
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/906743
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1155/2013/906743?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ruggiero, John, 1998. "Non-discretionary inputs in data envelopment analysis," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 111(3), pages 461-469, December.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. Friedman, Lea & Sinuany-Stern, Zilla, 1997. "Scaling units via the canonical correlation analysis in the DEA context," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 100(3), pages 629-637, August.
    5. William Cooper & Kyung Park & Jesus Pastor, 1999. "RAM: A Range Adjusted Measure of Inefficiency for Use with Additive Models, and Relations to Other Models and Measures in DEA," Journal of Productivity Analysis, Springer, vol. 11(1), pages 5-42, February.
    6. Roll, Y & Golany, B., 1993. "Alternate methods of treating factor weights in DEA," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 21(1), pages 99-109, January.
    7. 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.
    8. Rajiv D. Banker & Richard C. Morey, 1986. "Efficiency Analysis for Exogenously Fixed Inputs and Outputs," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 34(4), pages 513-521, August.
    9. Marvin D. Troutt, 1995. "A Maximum Decisional Efficiency Estimation Principle," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 41(1), pages 76-82, January.
    10. Cook, Wade D. & Kress, Moshe & Seiford, Lawrence M., 1992. "Prioritization models for frontier decision making units in DEA," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 59(2), pages 319-323, June.
    11. Cook, Wade D. & Kress, Moshe, 1991. "A multiple criteria decision model with ordinal preference data," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 54(2), pages 191-198, September.
    12. Wade D. Cook & Moshe Kress, 1990. "A Data Envelopment Model for Aggregating Preference Rankings," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(11), pages 1302-1310, November.
    13. Abraham Charnes & William W. Cooper & Arie Y. Lewin & Lawrence M. Seiford, 1994. "Data Envelopment Analysis: Theory, Methodology, and Applications," Springer Books, Springer, number 978-94-011-0637-5, March.
    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. 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.
    16. D K Despotis, 2002. "Improving the discriminating power of DEA: focus on globally efficient units," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 53(3), pages 314-323, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. 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. 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.
    3. Afsharian, Mohsen & Ahn, Heinz & Harms, Sören Guntram, 2021. "A review of DEA approaches applying a common set of weights: The perspective of centralized management," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 294(1), pages 3-15.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. Ruiz, José L. & Sirvent, Inmaculada, 2016. "Common benchmarking and ranking of units with DEA," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 1-9.
    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. 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.
    9. Kang, Hee Jay & Kim, Changhee & Choi, Kanghwa, 2024. "Combining bootstrap data envelopment analysis with social networks for rank discrimination and suitable potential benchmarks," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 312(1), pages 283-297.
    10. Sebastián Lozano & Narges Soltani & Akram Dehnokhalaji, 2020. "A compromise programming approach for target setting in DEA," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 288(1), pages 363-390, May.
    11. Jesús Peiró-Palomino & Andrés J. Picazo-Tadeo, 2018. "Assessing well-being in European regions. Does government quality matter?," Working Papers 2018/06, Economics Department, Universitat Jaume I, Castellón (Spain).
    12. Premachandra, I. M., 2001. "A note on DEA vs principal component analysis: An improvement to Joe Zhu's approach," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 132(3), pages 553-560, August.
    13. William W. Cooper & Kyung Sam Park & Gang Yu, 2001. "An Illustrative Application of Idea (Imprecise Data Envelopment Analysis) to a Korean Mobile Telecommunication Company," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 49(6), pages 807-820, December.
    14. 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.
    15. Marianela Carrillo & Jesús M. Jorge, 2017. "DEA-Like Efficiency Ranking of Regional Health Systems in Spain," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 133(3), pages 1133-1149, September.
    16. Kanematsu, Simon Y. & Carvalho, Ney P. & Martinhon, Carlos A. & Almeida, Mariana R., 2020. "Ranking using η-efficiency and relative size measures based on DEA," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 90(C).
    17. Mergoni, Anna & Emrouznejad, Ali & De Witte, Kristof, 2025. "Fifty years of Data Envelopment Analysis," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 326(3), pages 389-412.
    18. Yang, Chyan & Liu, Hsian-Ming, 2012. "Managerial efficiency in Taiwan bank branches: A network DEA," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 450-461.
    19. Oliveira, Renata & Zanella, Andreia & Camanho, Ana S., 2019. "The assessment of corporate social responsibility: The construction of an industry ranking and identification of potential for improvement," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 278(2), pages 498-513.
    20. Mushtaq Taleb & Ruzelan Khalid & Ali Emrouznejad & Razamin Ramli, 2023. "Environmental efficiency under weak disposability: an improved super efficiency data envelopment analysis model with application for assessment of port operations considering NetZero," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 25(7), pages 6627-6656, July.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:wly:jnljam:v:2013:y:2013:i:1:n:906743. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/4185 .

    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.