Skip to main content
Log in

Dominance relations and ranking of units by using interval number ordering with cross-efficiency intervals

  • General Paper
  • Published:
Journal of the Operational Research Society

Abstract

This paper proposes an approach to the cross-efficiency evaluation that considers all the optimal data envelopment analysis (DEA) weights of all the decision-making units (DMUs), thus avoiding the need to make a choice among them according to some alternative secondary goal. To be specific, we develop a couple of models that allow for all the possible weights of all the DMUs simultaneously and yield individual lower and upper bounds for the cross-efficiency scores of the different units. As a result, we have a cross-efficiency interval for the evaluation of each unit. Existing order relations for interval numbers are used to identify dominance relations among DMUs and derive a ranking of units based on the cross-efficiency intervals provided. The approach proposed may also be useful for assessing the stability of the cross-efficiency scores with respect to DEA weights that can be used for their calculation.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Adler N, Friedman L and Sinuany-Stern Z (2002). Review of ranking methods in the data envelopment analysis context. European Journal of Operational Research 140 (2): 249–265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campos L and Muñoz A (1989). A subjective approach for ranking fuzzy numbers. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 29 (2): 145–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Charnes A and Cooper WW (1962). Programming with linear fractional functionals. Naval Research Logistics Quarterly 9 (3–4): 181–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Charnes A, Cooper WW and Rhodes E (1978). Measuring the efficiency of decision making units. European Journal of Operational Research 2 (6): 429–444.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen TY (2002). An assessment of technical efficiency and cross-efficiency in Taiwan's electricity distribution sector. European Journal of Operational Research 137 (2): 421–433.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dotoli M and Falagario M (2012). A hierarchical model for optimal supplier selection in multiple sourcing contexts. International Journal of Production Research 50 (11): 2953–2967.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doyle JR and Green RH (1994). Efficiency and cross-efficiency in DEA: Derivations, meanings and uses. Journal of the Operational Research Society 45 (5): 567–578.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dubois D and Prade H (1980). Systems of linear fuzzy constraints. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 3 (1): 37–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Entani T, Maeda Y and Tanaka H (2002). Dual models of interval DEA and its extension to interval data. European Journal of Operational Research 136 (1): 32–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Entani T, Sugihara K and Tanaka H (2006). Interval evaluations in DEA and AHP. Studies in Fuzziness and Soft Computing 201: 291–304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Falagario M, Sciancalepore F, Costantino N and Pietroforte R (2012). Using a DEA-cross efficiency approach in public procurement tenders. European Journal of Operational Research 218 (2): 523–529.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freeling ANS (1980). Fuzzy sets and decision analysis. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics 10 (7): 341–354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Friedman L and Sinuany-Stern Z (1998). Combining ranking scales and selecting variables in the DEA context: The case of industrial branches. Computers and Operations Research 25 (9): 781–791.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ishibuchi H and Tanaka H (1990). Multiobjective programming in optimization of the interval objective function. European Journal of Operational Research 48 (2): 219–225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lahdelma R and Salminen P (2001). SMAA-2: Stochastic multicriteria acceptability analysis for group decision making. Operations Research 49 (3): 444–454.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liang L, Wu J, Cook WD and Zhu J (2008). Alternative secondary goals in DEA cross-efficiency evaluation. International Journal of Production Economics 113 (2): 1025–1030.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lu WM and Lo SF (2007). A closer look at the economic-environmental disparities for regional development in China. European Journal of Operational Research 183 (2): 882–894.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mavrotas G and Trifillis P (2006). Multicriteria decision analysis with minimum information: Combining DEA with MAVT. Computers and Operations Research 33 (8): 2083–2098.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ramón N, Ruiz JL and Sirvent I (2010). On the choice of weights profiles in cross-efficiency evaluations. European Journal of Operational Research 207 (3): 1564–1572.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ramón N, Ruiz JL and Sirvent I (2011). Reducing differences between profiles of weights: A ‘peer-restricted’ cross-efficiency evaluation. Omega 39 (6): 634–641.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sexton TR, Silkman RH and Hogan AJ (1986). Data envelopment analysis: Critique and extensions. In RH Silkman (ed). Measuring Efficiency: An Assessment of Data Envelopment Analysis. Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, CA 73–105.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shang J and Sueyoshi T (1995). A unified framework for the selection of a flexible manufacturing system. European Journal of Operational Research 85 (2): 297–315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang X and Kerre EE (2001). Reasonable properties for the ordering of fuzzy quantities (I). Fuzzy Sets and Systems 118 (3): 375–385.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang YM and Chin KS (2010a). A neutral DEA model for cross-efficiency evaluation and its extension. Expert Systems with Applications 37 (5): 3666–3675.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang YM and Chin KS (2010b). Some alternative models for DEA cross-efficiency evaluation. International Journal of Production Economics 128 (1): 332–338.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang YM, Chin KS and Wang S (2012). DEA models for minimizing weight disparity in cross-efficiency evaluation. Journal of the Operational Research Society 63 (8): 1079–1088.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu J, Liang L and Yang F (2009). Achievement and benchmarking of countries at the Summer Olympics using cross-efficiency evaluation method. European Journal of Operational Research 197 (2): 722–730.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yang F, Ang S, Qiong X and Yang C (2012). Ranking DMUs by using interval DEA cross efficiency matrix with acceptability analysis. European Journal of Operational Research 223 (2): 483–488.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhu J (1998). Data envelopment analysis vs. principal component analysis: An illustrative study of economic performance of Chinese cities. European Journal of Operational Research 111 (1): 50–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to José L Ruiz.

Appendix

Appendix

Proof of proposition

Let be a point in the interval then for some λ∈[0, 1]. Let (v d R, u d R), d=1, …, n, be an optimal solution of (5), and (v d L, u d L), d=1,…,n, an optimal solution of (8). We assume, without loss of generality, both that and Thus, we have that and Consider the following vectors where and Then, for every j=1, …, n, we have

and it is also satisfied

Therefore, are optimal solutions of the CCR model for DMU d , d=1, …, n, respectively. In addition,

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ramón, N., Ruiz, J. & Sirvent, I. Dominance relations and ranking of units by using interval number ordering with cross-efficiency intervals. J Oper Res Soc 65, 1336–1343 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1057/jors.2013.90

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/jors.2013.90

Keywords

Navigation