×

zbMATH — the first resource for mathematics

The relevance of DEA benchmarking information and the least-distance measure. (English) Zbl 1165.90484
Summary: Efficiency analysis is performed not only to estimate the current level of efficiency, but also to provide information on how to remove inefficiency, that is, to obtain benchmarking information. Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) was developed in order to satisfy both objectives and the strength of its benchmarking analysis gives DEA a unique advantage over other methodologies of efficiency analysis. This study proposes the use of the Least-Distance Measure in order to obtain the shortest projection from the evaluated Decision Making Unit (DMU) to the strongly efficient production frontier, thus allowing an inefficient DMU to find the easiest way to improve its efficiency. In addition to producing reasonable benchmarking information, the proposed model provides efficiency values which satisfy the general requirements that every well-defined efficiency measure should meet.

MSC:
90B50 Management decision making, including multiple objectives
62C05 General considerations in statistical decision theory
PDF BibTeX XML Cite
Full Text: DOI
References:
[1] Bogetoft, P.; Hougaard, J.L., Efficiency evaluations based on potential (non-proportional) improvements, Journal of productivity analysis, 12, 233-249, (1998)
[2] González, E.; Álvarez, A., From efficiency measurement to efficiency improvement: the choice of a relevant benchmark, European journal of operational research, 133, 512-520, (2001) · Zbl 1002.90530
[3] Dervaux, B.; Kerstens, K.; Eeckaut, P.V., Radial and nonradial static efficiency decompositions: A focus on congestion measurement, Transportation research B, 32, 5, 299-312, (1998)
[4] Gouveia, M.C.; Dias, L.C.; Antunes, C.H., Additive DEA based on MCDA with imprecise information, Journal of the operational research society, 59, 54-63, (2008) · Zbl 1167.90537
[5] Sapienza, H.J.; Parhankangas, A.; Autio, E., Knowledge relatedness and post-spin-off growth, Journal of business venturing, 19, 809-829, (2004)
[6] J.J. Yi, D.J. Lilja, D.M. Hawkins, A statistically rigorous approach for improving simulation methodology, in: Ninth International Symposium on High Performance Computer Architecture, 2003
[7] Lane, P.J.; Lubatkin, M., Relative absorptive capacity and interorganizational learning, Strategic management journal, 19, 461-477, (1998)
[8] Post, T.; Spronk, J., Performance benchmarking using interactive data envelopment analysis, European journal of operational research, 115, 472-487, (1999) · Zbl 0947.91051
[9] Coelli, T., A multi-stage methodology and for the solution of oriented DEA models, Operations research letters, 23, 143-149, (1998) · Zbl 0963.91032
[10] Frei, F.X.; Harker, P.T., Projections onto efficient frontier: theoretical and computational extension to DEA, Journal of productivity analysis, 11, 275-300, (1999)
[11] Cherchye, L.; Puyenbroeck, T.V., A comment on multi-stage DEA methodology, Operations research letters, 28, 93-98, (2001) · Zbl 1016.91022
[12] Halme, M.; Joro, T.; Korhonen, P.; Salo, S.; Wallenius, J., A value efficiency approach to incorporating preference information in data envelopment analysis, Management science, 45, 1, 103-115, (1999) · Zbl 1231.90279
[13] Banker, R.D.; Charnes, A.; Cooper, W.W., Some models for estimating technical and scale inefficiency in data envelopment analysis, Management science, 30, 9, 1078-1092, (1984) · Zbl 0552.90055
[14] Cooper, W.W.; Seiford, L.M.; Tone, K., Data envelopment analysis, (2000), Kluwer Academic Publishers Boston, Dordrecht, London, pp. 85-91
[15] Cooper, W.W.; Park, K.S.; Pastor, J.T., RAM: A range adjusted measure of inefficiency for use with additive models, and relations to other models and measures in DEA, Journal of productivity analysis, 11, 5-42, (1999)
[16] Färe, R.; Lovell, C.A.K., Measuring the technical efficiency of production, Journal of economic theory, 19, 150-162, (1978) · Zbl 0398.90012
[17] Färe, R.; Grosskopf, S.; Lovell, C.A.K., The measurement of efficiency of production, (1985), Kluwer-Nijhoff Boston, pp. 196-226
[18] Portela, M.C.A.S.; Borges, P.C.; Thanassoulis, E., Finding closest targets in non-oriented DEA models: the case of convex and non-convex technology, Journal of productivity analysis, 19, 251-269, (2003)
[19] Charnes, A.; Cooper, W.W.; Thrall, R.M., A structure for classifying and characterizing efficiency and inefficiency in data envelopment analysis, Journal of productivity analysis, 2, 197-237, (1991)
[20] Olesen, O.B.; Peterson, N.C., Indicators of ill-conditioned data set and model misspecification in data envelopment analysis: an extended facet approach, Management science, 42, 2, 205-219, (1996) · Zbl 0881.90003
[21] J.T. Pastor, New additive models for handling zero and negative data, Working Paper, Alicante, Spain, Universidad de Alicante, Departamento de Estadística e Investigación Operativa, 1994
[22] Brockett, P.L.; Cooper, W.W.; Shin, H.C.; Yuying, W., Congestion and inefficiency in Chinese production before and after the 1978 economic reforms, Socio-economic planning sciences, 32, 1-20, (1998)
[23] Räty, T., Efficient facet based efficiency index: A variable returns to scale specification, Journal of productivity analysis, 17, 65-82, (2002)
[24] Charnes, A.; Rousseau, J.J.; Semple, J.H., Sensitivity and stability of efficiency classifications in data envelopment analysis, The journal of productivity analysis, 7, 5-18, (1996)
[25] Tone, K., A simple characterization of returns to scale in DEA, Journal of operation research society of Japan, 39, 4, 604-613, (1996) · Zbl 0874.90006
[26] Aparacio, J.; Ruiz, Josė L.; Sirvent, Inmaculada, Closest targets and minimum distance to the Pareto-efficient frontier in DEA, Journal of productivity analysis, 28, 209-218, (2007)
[27] Brockett, P.L.; Golden, L.L.; Sarin, S.; Gerberman, J.H., The identification of target firms and functional areas for strategic benchmarking, The engineering economist, 46, 4, 274-299, (2001)
[28] Mittelstaedt, R.E., Benchmarking: how to learn from best-in-class practices, National productivity review, 11, 3, 301-315, (1992)
[29] Collins, J.M.; Ruefli, T.W., Strategic risk: an ordinal approach, Management science, 38, 12, 1707-1731, (1992)
[30] Deprins, D.; Simar, L.; Tulkens, H., Measuring labor efficiency in post offices, (), 243-267
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.