The evaluation of the performance of a decision-making unit (DMU) can be measured by its own optimistic and pessimistic multipliers, leading to an interval self-efficiency score. While this concept has been thoroughly studied with regard to single-stage systems, there is still a gap when it is extended to two-stage tandem structures, which better correspond to a real-world scenario. In this paper, we argue that in this context, a meaningful ranking of the DMUs is obtained; this outcome simultaneously considers the optimistic and pessimistic viewpoints within the self-appraisal context, and the most favourable and unfavourable weight sets of each of the other DMUs in a peer-appraisal setting. We initially extend the optimistic-pessimistic Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) models to the specifications of such a two-stage structure. The two opposing self-efficiency measures are merged to a combined self-efficiency measure via the geometric average. Under this framework, the DMUs are further evaluated in a peer setting via the interval cross-efficiency (CE). This methodological tool is applied to evaluate the target DMU in relation to the most favourable and unfavourable weight profiles of each of the other DMUs, while maintaining the combined self-efficiency measure. We, thus, determine an interval individual CE score for each DMU and flow. By treating the interval CE matrix as a multi-criteria decision making problem and by utilising several well-established approaches from the literature, we delineate its remaining elements; we show how these lead us to a meaningful ultimate ranking of the DMUs. A numerical example about the efficiency evaluation of ten bank branches in China illustrates the applicability of our modelling approaches.
Accepté le :
Première publication :
Publié le :
DOI : 10.1051/ro/2022056
Keywords: Data envelopment analysis, network, interval self-efficiency, interval cross-efficiency, ranking
@article{RO_2022__56_3_1293_0,
author = {Kremantzis, Marios Dominikos and Beullens, Patrick and Klein, Jonathan},
title = {A ranking framework based on interval self and cross-efficiencies in a two-stage {DEA} system},
journal = {RAIRO. Operations Research},
pages = {1293--1319},
year = {2022},
publisher = {EDP-Sciences},
volume = {56},
number = {3},
doi = {10.1051/ro/2022056},
mrnumber = {4431924},
language = {en},
url = {https://www.numdam.org/articles/10.1051/ro/2022056/}
}
TY - JOUR AU - Kremantzis, Marios Dominikos AU - Beullens, Patrick AU - Klein, Jonathan TI - A ranking framework based on interval self and cross-efficiencies in a two-stage DEA system JO - RAIRO. Operations Research PY - 2022 SP - 1293 EP - 1319 VL - 56 IS - 3 PB - EDP-Sciences UR - https://www.numdam.org/articles/10.1051/ro/2022056/ DO - 10.1051/ro/2022056 LA - en ID - RO_2022__56_3_1293_0 ER -
%0 Journal Article %A Kremantzis, Marios Dominikos %A Beullens, Patrick %A Klein, Jonathan %T A ranking framework based on interval self and cross-efficiencies in a two-stage DEA system %J RAIRO. Operations Research %D 2022 %P 1293-1319 %V 56 %N 3 %I EDP-Sciences %U https://www.numdam.org/articles/10.1051/ro/2022056/ %R 10.1051/ro/2022056 %G en %F RO_2022__56_3_1293_0
Kremantzis, Marios Dominikos; Beullens, Patrick; Klein, Jonathan. A ranking framework based on interval self and cross-efficiencies in a two-stage DEA system. RAIRO. Operations Research, Tome 56 (2022) no. 3, pp. 1293-1319. doi: 10.1051/ro/2022056
[1] , and , The fixed weighting nature of a cross-evaluation model. J. Prod. Anal. 17 (2002) 249–255. | DOI
[2] and , Review of methods for increasing discrimination in data envelopment analysis. Ann. Oper. Res. 116 (2002) 225–242. | MR | Zbl | DOI
[3] , The interval efficiency based on the optimistic and pessimistic points of view. Appl. Math. Modell. 35 (2011) 2384–2393. | MR | Zbl | DOI
[4] and , Improved data envelopment analysis models for evaluating interval efficiencies of decision-making units. Comput. Ind. Eng. 61 (2011) 897–901. | DOI
[5] , and , Assessing sustainability of supply chains by double frontier network DEA: a big data approach. Comput. Oper. Res. 98 (2018) 284–290. | MR | Zbl | DOI
[6] , Prioritising the types of manufacturing flexibility in an uncertain environment. Int. J. Prod. Res. 50 (2012) 2133–2149. | DOI
[7] , and , Measuring the efficiency of decision-making units. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2 (1978) 429–444. | MR | Zbl | DOI
[8] , and , Data envelopment analysis: prior to choosing a model. Omega 44 (2014) 1–4. | DOI
[9] , Applied Nonparametric Statistics. Houghton Mifflin, Boston (1978). | Zbl
[10] and , Efficiency and cross-efficiency in DEA: derivations, meanings and uses. J. Oper. Res. Soc. 45 (1994) 567–578. | Zbl | DOI
[11] , Cost efficiency measures with trapezoidal fuzzy numbers in data envelopment analysis based on ranking functions: application in insurance organization and hospital. Int. J. Fuzzy Syst. App. (IJFSA) 2 (2012) 51–68.
[12] and , Equivalence relationship between the general combined-oriented CCR model and the weighted minimax MOLP formulation. J. King Saud Univ.-Sci. 24 (2012) 47–54. | DOI
[13] and , Interval estimations of global weights in AHP by upper approximation. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 158 (2007) 1913–1921. | MR | Zbl | DOI
[14] , and , Dual models of interval DEA and its extension to interval data. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 136 (2002) 32–45. | MR | Zbl | DOI
[15] , , , and , Network hierarchical DEA with an application to international shipping industry in Taiwan. J. Oper. Res. Soc. 71 (2020) 991–1002. | DOI
[16] , and , An ideal-seeking fuzzy data envelopment analysis framework. Appl. Soft Comput. 10 (2010) 1062–1070. | DOI
[17] , and , Fuzzy efficiency measures in data envelopment analysis using lexicographic multiobjective approach. Comput. Ind. Eng. 105 (2017) 362–376. | DOI
[18] , and , Two-stage fuzzy cross-efficiency aggregation model using a fuzzy information retrieval method. Int. J. Fuzzy Syst. 21 (2019) 2650–2666. | DOI
[19] , , , and , A framework for weighting of criteria in ranking stage of material selection process. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 58 (2012) 411–420. | DOI
[20] , Introduction to grey system theory. J. Grey Syst. 1 (1989) 1–24. | Zbl
[21] and , Efficiency decomposition in two-stage data envelopment analysis: an application to non-life insurance companies in Taiwan. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 185 (2008) 418–429. | Zbl | DOI
[22] and , Cross efficiency measurement and decomposition in two basic network systems. Omega 83 (2019) 70–79. | DOI
[23] and , The cross-efficiency in the optimistic–pessimistic framework. Oper. Res. 17 (2017) 619–632.
[24] , and , A fairer assessment of DMUs in a generalised two-stage DEA structure. Expert Syst. App. 187 (2022) 115921. | DOI
[25] , and , The use of grey relational analysis in solving multiple attribute decision-making problems. Comput. Ind. Eng. 55 (2008) 80–93. | DOI
[26] , , and , A balanced data envelopment analysis cross-efficiency evaluation approach. Expert Syst. App. 106 (2018) 154–168. | DOI
[27] , , , and , Data envelopment analysis cross efficiency evaluation with reciprocal behaviors. Ann. Oper. Res. 302 (2021) 173–210. | MR | Zbl | DOI
[28] , , and , Alternative secondary goals in DEA cross-efficiency evaluation. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 113 (2008) 1025–1030. | DOI
[29] and , Ranking DMUs by using the upper and lower bounds of the normalized efficiency in data envelopment analysis. Comput. Ind. Eng. 125 (2018) 135–143. | DOI
[30] , , , and , Target setting in the general combined-oriented CCR model using an interactive MOLP method. J. Comput. Appl. Math. 234 (2010) 1–9. | MR | Zbl | DOI
[31] , , , and , Relationship between MOLP and DEA based on output-orientated CCR dual model. Expert Syst. App. 37 (2010) 4331–4336. | DOI
[32] , , , and , Game cross efficiency for systems with two-stage structures. J. Appl. Math. 2014 (2014) 8. | MR | Zbl
[33] and , Logical efficiency decomposition for general two-stage systems in view of cross efficiency. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 294 (2022) 622–632. | MR | Zbl | DOI
[34] , , and , A neutral cross efficiency approach for basic two stage production systems. Expert Syst. App. 125 (2019) 333–344. | DOI
[35] , , and , An optimistic-pessimistic DEA model based on game cross efficiency approach. RAIRO: Oper. Res. 54 (2020) 1215–1230. | MR | Zbl | DOI
[36] , , , and , Fuzzy chance-constrained data envelopment analysis: a structured literature review, current trends, and future directions. Fuzzy Optim. Decision Making 21 (2022) 197–261. | MR | Zbl | DOI
[37] , Efficiency ranking of decision making units in data envelopment analysis by using TOPSIS-DEA method. J. Oper. Res. Soc. 68 (2017) 906–918. | DOI
[38] , Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method: some properties and a linear model. Omega 64 (2016) 126–130. | DOI
[39] and , The analytic network process. In: Decision Making with the Analytic Network Process. Springer, Boston, MA (2013) 1–40.
[40] , and , A new approach for solving intuitionistic fuzzy data envelopment analysis problems. Fuzzy Optim. Model. J. 2 (2021) 46–56.
[41] and , Improving performance evaluation based on balanced scorecard with grey relational analysis and data envelopment analysis approaches: case study in water and wastewater companies. Eval. Program Planning 79 (2020) 101762. | DOI
[42] , and , Data envelopment analysis: critique and extensions. New Directions Program Eval. 1986 (1986) 73–105. | DOI
[43] , and , Interval priorities in AHP by interval regression analysis. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 158 (2004) 745–754. | MR | Zbl | DOI
[44] , , , and , A hybrid DEA-MOLP model for public school assessment and closure decision in the City of Philadelphia. Soc. Econ. Planning Sci. 61 (2018) 70–89. | DOI
[45] and , Two alternative approaches for selecting performance measures in data envelopment analysis. Measurement 65 (2015) 29–40. | DOI
[46] and , A neutral DEA model for cross-efficiency evaluation and its extension. Expert Syst. App. 37 (2010) 3666–3675. | DOI
[47] and , A goal programming method for obtaining interval weights from an interval comparison matrix. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 177 (2007) 458–471. | Zbl | DOI
[48] and , DEA efficiency assessment using ideal and anti-ideal decision-making units. Appl. Math. Comput. 173 (2006) 902–915. | MR | Zbl
[49] and , Measuring the performances of decision-making units using interval efficiencies. J. Comput. Appl. Math. 198 (2007) 253–267. | MR | Zbl | DOI
[50] , and , Measuring the performances of decision-making units using geometric average efficiency. J. Oper. Res. Soc. 58 (2007) 929–937. | Zbl | DOI
[51] , A note on DEA efficiency assessment using ideal point: an improvement of Wang and Luo’s model. Appl. Math. Comput. 183 (2006) 819–830. | MR | Zbl
[52] , , , and , Extended secondary goal models for weights selection in DEA cross-efficiency evaluation. Comput. Ind. Eng. 93 (2016) 143–151. | DOI
[53] , , and , Ranking DMUs by using interval DEA cross efficiency matrix with acceptability analysis. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 223 (2012) 483–488. | MR | Zbl | DOI
[54] and , Hierarchical network systems: an application to high-technology industry in China. Omega 82 (2019) 118–131. | DOI
[55] , , , and , A bargaining game model for efficiency decomposition in the centralized model of two-stage systems. Comput. Ind. Eng. 64 (2013) 103–108. | DOI
[56] , Data Envelopment Analysis: A Handbook of Models and Methods. Vol. 221. Springer, (2015). | Zbl | MR | DOI
[57] , , and , Cross-efficiency evaluation in data envelopment analysis based on the perspective of fairness utility. Comput. Ind. Eng. 151 (2021) 106926. | DOI
[58] , Fuzzy Set Theory – And Its Applications. Springer Science & Business Media (2011). | MR | Zbl
Cité par Sources :
