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.
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.
Campos L and Muñoz A (1989). A subjective approach for ranking fuzzy numbers. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 29 (2): 145–153.
Charnes A and Cooper WW (1962). Programming with linear fractional functionals. Naval Research Logistics Quarterly 9 (3–4): 181–186.
Charnes A, Cooper WW and Rhodes E (1978). Measuring the efficiency of decision making units. European Journal of Operational Research 2 (6): 429–444.
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.
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.
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.
Dubois D and Prade H (1980). Systems of linear fuzzy constraints. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 3 (1): 37–48.
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.
Entani T, Sugihara K and Tanaka H (2006). Interval evaluations in DEA and AHP. Studies in Fuzziness and Soft Computing 201: 291–304.
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.
Freeling ANS (1980). Fuzzy sets and decision analysis. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics 10 (7): 341–354.
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.
Ishibuchi H and Tanaka H (1990). Multiobjective programming in optimization of the interval objective function. European Journal of Operational Research 48 (2): 219–225.
Lahdelma R and Salminen P (2001). SMAA-2: Stochastic multicriteria acceptability analysis for group decision making. Operations Research 49 (3): 444–454.
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.
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.
Mavrotas G and Trifillis P (2006). Multicriteria decision analysis with minimum information: Combining DEA with MAVT. Computers and Operations Research 33 (8): 2083–2098.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Wang X and Kerre EE (2001). Reasonable properties for the ordering of fuzzy quantities (I). Fuzzy Sets and Systems 118 (3): 375–385.
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.
Wang YM and Chin KS (2010b). Some alternative models for DEA cross-efficiency evaluation. International Journal of Production Economics 128 (1): 332–338.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
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
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
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/jors.2013.90