Abstract
In data envelopment analysis (DEA), operating units are compared on their outputs relative to their inputs. The identification of an appropriate input–output set is of decisive significance if assessment of the relative performance of the units is not to be biased. This paper reports on a novel approach used for identifying a suitable input–output set for assessing central administrative services at universities. A computer-supported group support system was used with an advisory board to enable the analysts to extract information pertaining to the boundaries of the unit of assessment and the corresponding input–output variables. The approach provides for a more comprehensive and less inhibited discussion of input–output variables to inform the DEA model.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
References
Thanassoulis E (2001). Introduction to the Theory and Application of Data Envelopment Analysis. A Foundation Text with Integrated Software. Kluwer Academic Publishers: USA.
DeSanctis G and Gallupe RB (1987). A foundation for the study of Group Decision Support Systems. Mngt Sci 33: 589–609.
OFWAT (1993). Research Paper No. 2—Modelling Water Costs 1992–3. Prepared by M. Stewart, 7 Hill Street, Birmingham B5 4UA, England.
OFWAT (1994). Research Paper No. 3—Modelling Sewerage Costs 1992–3. Prepared by M. Stewart, 7 Hill Street, Birmingham B5 4UA, England.
OFWAT (1994). Research Paper No. 4—Modelling Sewage Treatment Costs 1992–3. Prepared by M. Stewart, 7 Hill Street, Birmingham B5 4UA, England.
Gray J, Jesson D and Jones B (1986). The Search for a fairer way of comparing schools' examination results. Res Papers Educ 1: 91–122.
Gray J, Jesson D and Sime N (1990). Estimating differences in the examination performance of secondary schools in six LEAs: a multi-level approach to school effectiveness. Oxford Rev Educ 16: 137–158.
Sammons P, Nuttall D and Cuttance P (1993). Differential school effectiveness: results from a reanalysis of the Inner London Education Authority's Junior School Project Data. Br Educ Res J 19: 381–405.
Sammons P, Thomass Motimore P, Owen C and Pennell H (1996). Assessing School Effectiveness: Developing Measures to Put School Performance in Context. OFSTED Publications Center: London.
O'Donoghue C, Thomas S, Goldstein H and Knight H (1997). 1996 DfEE study of value added for 16–18 years olds in England. DfEE Research Series RS52, DfEE Publications: London.
Jennings D and Wattan S (1994). Group and organisational decision making. In: Jennings D and Wattan S (eds). Decision Making: An Integrated Approach. Trans-Atlantic Publications, London, pp 54–95.
Stasser G, Stewart DD and Wittenbaum GM (1995). Expert roles and information exchange during discussion: the importance of knowing who knows what. J Exp Soc Psychol 31: 244–265.
Eden C and Ackermann F (1998). Making Strategy: The Journey of Strategic Management. Sage: London.
Williams T, Eden C, Ackermann F and Tait A (1995). The effects of design changes and delays on project costs. J Opl Res Soc 47: 809–818.
Ackermann F, Eden C and Williams T (1997). Modelling for litigation: Mixing qualitative and quantitative approaches. INTERFACES 27 (2): 48–65.
Edwards JS, Collier PM and Shaw D (2003). Making a journey in knowledge management strategy. J Inf Knowl Mngt 2: 135–152.
Gallupe RB, Bastianutti LM and Cooper WH (1991). Unblocking brainstorms. J Appl Psychol 76: 137–142.
Diehl M and Stroebe W (1987). Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: toward the solution of a riddle. J Pers Soc Psychol 53: 497–509.
Grise ML and Gallupe RB (1999). Information overload in face-to-face electronic meetings: an integrative complexity approach. J Mngt Inf Syst 16: 157–185.
Pinsonneault A, Barki H, Gallupe RB and Hoppen N (1999). Electronic brainstorming: the illusion of productivity. Inf Syst Res 10: 110–133.
Sosik JJ, Avolio BJ and Kahai SS (1998). Inspiring group creativity — comparing anonymous and identified electronic brainstorming. Small Gr Res 29: 3–31.
Shaw D (2003). Evaluating electronic workshops through analysing the ‘brainstormed’ ideas. J Opl Res Soc 54: 692–705.
Eden C (1995). On evaluating the performance of ‘wide-band’ GDSS. Eur J Opl Res 81: 302–311.
Dennis AR, Haley BJ and Vandenberg RJ (1996). A meta-analysis of effectiveness, efficiency, and participant satisfaction in group support systems. In: Proceedings of the 17th the International Conference on Information Systems. pp 278–289.
Huxham C and Dando M (1981). Is bounded vision an adequate explanation of strategic decision-making failures? OMEGA 9: 371–379.
Shaw D, Westcombe M, Hodgkin J and Montibeller G (2004). Problem structuring methods for large group interventions. J Opl Res Soc, 55: 453–463.
HESA (1999). Finance Record Coding Manual. Analytical Services Group, HESA: Cheltenham, UK.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Casu, B., Shaw, D. & Thanassoulis, E. Using a group support system to aid input–output identification in DEA. J Oper Res Soc 56, 1363–1372 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jors.2601965
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jors.2601965