Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Multiobjective data envelopment analysis

  • Special Issue Paper
  • Published:
Journal of the Operational Research Society

Abstract

Data envelopment analysis (DEA) is popularly used to evaluate relative efficiency among public or private firms. Most DEA models are established by individually maximizing each firm's efficiency according to its advantageous expectation by a ratio. Some scholars have pointed out the interesting relationship between the multiobjective linear programming (MOLP) problem and the DEA problem. They also introduced the common weight approach to DEA based on MOLP. This paper proposes a new linear programming problem for computing the efficiency of a decision-making unit (DMU). The proposed model differs from traditional and existing multiobjective DEA models in that its objective function is the difference between inputs and outputs instead of the outputs/inputs ratio. Then an MOLP problem, based on the introduced linear programming problem, is formulated for the computation of common weights for all DMUs. To be precise, the modified Chebychev distance and the ideal point of MOLP are used to generate common weights. The dual problem of this model is also investigated. Finally, this study presents an actual case study analysing R&D efficiency of 10 TFT-LCD companies in Taiwan to illustrate this new approach. Our model demonstrates better performance than the traditional DEA model as well as some of the most important existing multiobjective DEA models.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Figure 1

References

  • Amin GR, Toloo M and Sohrabi B (2006). An improved MCDM DEA model for technology selection . Int J Prod Res 44: 2681–2686.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Athanassopoulos A (1995). Goal programming and data envelopment analysis (GoDEA) for target-based multi-level planning: Allocating central grants to the Greek local authorities . Eur J Opl Res 87: 535–550.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Belton V and Vickers SP (1993). Demystifying DEA-A visual interactive approach based on multiple criteria analysis . J Opl Res Soc 44: 883–896.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chan SH (2003). Measuring innovative capability with patent indicators: The case of FPD industry in Taiwan, Master Thesis, Institute of Management of Technology, National Chiao Tung University, Taiwan..

  • Chang KP and Kao PH (1992). The relative efficiency of public versus private municipal bus firms: An application of data envelopment analysis . J Prod Anal 3: 63–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Charnes A, Cooper WW and Rhodes E (1978). Measuring efficiency of decision making units . Eur J Opl Res 2: 429–444.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Charnes A and Cooper WW (1977). Goal programming and multiple objective optimizations . Eur J Opl Res 1: 39–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Charnes A, Cooper WW, Lewin AY and Seiford LM (1994). Data Envelopment Analysis: Theory, Methodology and Applications . Kluwer Academic Publisher: Boston.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Charnes A, Cooper WW, Wei QL and Huang ZM (1989). Cone ratio data envelopment analysis and multi-objective programming . Int J Syst Sci 20: 1099–1118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cook WD and Seiford LM (2009). Data envelopment analysis (DEA)—Thirty years on . Eur J Opl Res 192: 1–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doyle J (1995). Multiattribute choice for the lazy decision maker: Let the alternatives decide! . Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 62: 87–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doyle J and Green R (1994). Efficiency and cross efficiency in DEA: Derivations, meanings and uses . J Opl Res Soc 45: 567–578.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dyson RG and Thanassoulis E (1988). Reducing weight flexibility in data envelopment analysis . J Opl Res Soc 39: 563–576.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Estellita Lins MP, Angulo-Meza L and Moreira da Silva AC (2004). A multi-objective approach to determine alternative targets in data envelopment analysis . J Opl Res Soc 5: 1090–1101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Golany B (1988). An interactive MOLP procedure for the extension of DEA to effectiveness analysis . J Opl Res Soc 39: 725–734.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hung CT (2004). Data envelopment analysis with common weights: The compromise solution approach. Doctorial Thesis, National Cheng Kung University, Taiwan..

  • Joro T (1998). Models for identifying target units in data envelopment analysis: comparison and extension. IIASA, Interim Report IR-98-055..

  • Joro T, Korhonen P and Wallenius J (1998). Structural comparison of data envelopment analysis and multiple objective linear programming . Mngt Sci 44: 962–970.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kao C (1994). Efficiency improvement in data envelopment analysis . Eur J Opl Res 78: 1–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kao C and Hung CT (2005). Data envelopment analysis with common weights: The compromise solution approach . J Opl Res Soc 56: 1196–1203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karlaftis MG (2004). A DEA approach for evaluating the efficiency and effectiveness of urban transit systems . Eur J Opl Res 152: 354–364.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karsak EE and Ahiska SS (2007). A common-weight MCDM framework for decision problems with multiple inputs and outputs . In: Gervasi O and Gavrilova M (eds). Lect Notes Comput Sci Vol. 4705. Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, pp. 779–790.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karsak EE and Ahiska SS (2005). Practical common weight multi-criteria decision-making approach with an improved discriminating power for technology selection . Int J Prod Res 43: 1537–1554.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khalil TM (2000). Management of Technology: The Key to Competitiveness and Wealth Creation . McGraw Hill: New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kornbluth JSH (1991). Analysing policy effectiveness using cone restricted data envelopment analysis . J Opl Res Soc 42: 1097–1104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li X-B and Reeves GR (1999). A multiple criteria approach to data envelopment analysis . Eur J Opl Res 115: 507–517.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miettinen K (1999). Nonlinear Multiobjective Optimization . Kluwer Academic Publishers: Boston, London, Dordrecht.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murphy GB, Trailer JW and Hill RC (1996). Measuring performance in entrepreneurship research . J Bus Res 36: 15–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Naik B and Chakravarty AK (1992). Strategic acquisition of new manufacturing technology: A review and research framework . Int J Prod Res 30: 1575–1601.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nakabayashi K and Tone K (2006). Egoist's dilemma: A DEA game . Omega 34: 135–148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Narver JC and Slater SF (1990). The effect of a market orientation on business profitability . J Mark 54: 20–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roll Y and Golany B (1993). Alternative methods of treating factor weights in DEA . Omega 21: 99–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roll Y, Cook WD and Golany B (1991). Controlling factor weights in data envelopment analysis . IIE Trans 23: 2–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rousseau JJ and Semple HJ (1995). Two-person ratio efficiency games . Mngt Sci 41: 435–441.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seiford LM (1996). Data envelopment analysis: The evolution of the state of the art (1978–1995) . J Prod Anal 7: 99–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Semple J (1997). Constrained games for evaluating organizational performance . Eur J Opl Res 96: 103–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steuer RE (1986). Multiple Criteria Optimization: Theory, Computation, and Application . Krieger Publishing: Malabar, Florida.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stewart TJ (1996). Relationships between data envelopment analysis and multicriteria decision analysis . J Opl Res Soc 47: 654–665.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sugiyama M and Matsui T (2001). Finding a common weight vector of DEA based on bargaining game. Proceedings of 2001 fall National Conference of the Operations Research Society of Japan, 16–17..

  • Wierzbicki AP (1999). Reference point approaches . In: Gal T, Stewart T and Hanne T (eds). Multicriteria Decision Making: Advances in MCDM Models, Algorithms, Theory, and Applications. Kluwer Academic Publishers: Boston, pp. 9.1–9.39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yu G, Wei Q, Brockett P and Zhou L (1996). Construction of all DEA efficient surfaces of the production possibility set under the generalized data envelopment analysis model . Eur J Opl Res 95: 491–510.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Industrial Engineering and Technology Management, Da-Yeh University, Chang-Hwa, Taiwan

    Y-W Chen & Y-P Chang

  2. Kianan University, Luchu, Taoyuan, Taiwan

    M Larbani

  3. IIUM University, Jalan Gombak, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

    M Larbani

Authors
  1. Y-W Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. M Larbani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Y-P Chang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Y-W Chen.

Appendix

Appendix

Comparison of our model and Kao and Hung's (2005) model Table A1.

Table a1 Comparison of our model and Kao and Hung's (2005) model
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Chen, YW., Larbani, M. & Chang, YP. Multiobjective data envelopment analysis. J Oper Res Soc 60, 1556–1566 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1057/jors.2009.92

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/jors.2009.92

Keywords

Search

Navigation