Preference voting and project ranking using DEA and cross-evaluation.

*(English)*Zbl 0911.90009Summary: W. D. Cook and M. Kress [Manage. Sci. 36, No. 11, 1302-1310 (1990; Zbl 0727.90005)], using data envelopment analysis (DEA) as their starting point, proposed a procedure to rank order the candidates in a preferential election. Nationally, each candidate is permitted to choose the most favorable weights to be applied to his/her standings (first place, second place, etc. votes) in the usual DEA manner with the additional ‘assurance region’ restriction that the weight for a \(j\) place vote should be more than that for a \(j+ 1\) place vote by some amount. We consider that this freedom to choose weights is essentially illusory when maximum discrimination between the candidates is sought, in which case the weights used to evaluate and rank the candidates are as if imposed externally at the outset. To avoid this, we present an alternative procedure which retains Cook and Kress’ central idea but where, as well as using each candidate’s rating of him/herself, we now make use of each candidate’s ratings of all the candidates. We regard the so-called cross-evaluation matrix as the summary of a self- and peer-rating process in which the candidates seek to interpret the voters’ preferences as favourably for themselves, relative to the other candidates, as possible. The problem then becomes one of establishing an overall rating for each candidate from these individual ratings. For this, for each candidate, we use a weighted average of all the candidates ratings of that candidate, where the weights themselves are in proportion to each candidate’s overall rating. The overall ratings are therefore proportional to the components of the principal (left-hand) eigenvector of the cross-evaluation matrix. These ideas are then applied to the selection of R&D projects to comprise an R&D program, thus indicating their wider applicability.

##### MSC:

91B08 | Individual preferences |

PDF
BibTeX
XML
Cite

\textit{R. H. Green} et al., Eur. J. Oper. Res. 90, No. 3, 461--472 (1996; Zbl 0911.90009)

Full Text:
DOI

##### References:

[1] | Ali, A.I.; Cook, W.D.; Seiford, L.M., Strict vs weak ordinal relations for multipliers in data envelopment analysis, Management science, 37, 6, 733-738, (1991) · Zbl 0743.90004 |

[2] | Arrow, K.J., Social choice and individual values, (1951), Yale University Press New Haven and London · Zbl 0984.91513 |

[3] | Atkinson, K.E., An introduction to numerical analysis, (1978), Wiley New York · Zbl 0402.65001 |

[4] | Borda, J.C., Memoire sur LES elections au scrutin, (1781), Histoire de l’AcadĂ©mie Royale Scientifique Paris |

[5] | Charnes, A.; Cooper, W.W.; Rhodes, E., Measuring efficiency of decision making units, European journal operational research, 2, 6, 429-444, (1978) · Zbl 0416.90080 |

[6] | Charnes, A.; Cooper, W.W.; Huang, Z.M.; Sun, D.B., Polyhedral cone-ratio DEA models with an illustrative application to large commercial banks, Journal of econometrics, 46, 73-91, (1990) · Zbl 0712.90015 |

[7] | Cook, W.D.; Kress, M., A data envelopment model for aggregating preference rankings, Management science, 36, 11, 1302-1310, (1990) · Zbl 0727.90005 |

[8] | Cook, W.D.; Kress, M., Ordinal information and preference structures, (1992), Prentice Hall New Jersey |

[9] | French, S., Decision theory, (1986), Ellis Horwood Chichester |

[10] | Golany, B., A note on including ordinal relations among multipliers in data envelopment analysis, Management science, 34, 8, 1029-1033, (1988) · Zbl 0645.90043 |

[11] | Kendall, M.G., Rank correlation methods, (1962), Griffin London · Zbl 0032.17602 |

[12] | Kettani, O.; Oral, M., Equivalent formulations of nonlinear integer problems for efficient optimization, Management science, 36, 1, 115-119, (1990) · Zbl 0694.90073 |

[13] | Oral, M.; Kettani, O.; Lang, P., A methodology for collective evaluation and selection of industrial R & dprojects, Management science, 37, 7, 871-883, (1991) · Zbl 0729.90671 |

[14] | Roberts, F.S., Discrete mathematical models, (1976), Prentice-Hall New Jersey |

[15] | Roll, Y.; Golany, B., Alternate methods of treating factor weights in DEA, Omega, 21, 1, 99-109, (1993) |

[16] | Saaty, T.L., A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures, Journal of mathematical psychology, 15, 234-281, (1977) · Zbl 0372.62084 |

[17] | Saaty, T.L., Highlights and critical points in the theory and application of the analytic hierarchy process, European journal of operational research, 74, 3, 426-447, (1994) · Zbl 0925.90233 |

[18] | Sexton, T.R.; Silkman, R.H.; Hogan, A.J., Data envelopment analysis: critique and extensions, () |

[19] | Thompson, R.G.; Singleton, F.D.; Thrall, R.M.; Smith, B.A., Comparative site evaluations for locating a high-energy physics lab in Texas, Interfaces, 16, 6, 35-49, (1986) |

[20] | Tideman, T.N., The capabilities of voting rules in the absence of coalitions, Policy and politics, 4, 23-44, (1976) |

[21] | Wei, T.H., The algebraic foundation of ranking theory, (1952), Cambridge University, Unpublished Thesis |

This reference list is based on information provided by the publisher or from digital mathematics libraries. Its items are heuristically matched to zbMATH identifiers and may contain data conversion errors. It attempts to reflect the references listed in the original paper as accurately as possible without claiming the completeness or perfect precision of the matching.