Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Outline

Practical benchmarking in DEA using artificial DMUs

Journal of Industrial Engineering International

https://doi.org/10.1007/S40092-018-0281-7

Abstract

Data envelopment analysis (DEA) is one of the most efficient tools for efficiency measurement which can be employed as a benchmarking method with multiple inputs and outputs. However, DEA does not provide any suggestions for improving efficient units, nor does it provide any benchmark or reference point for these efficient units. Impracticability of these benchmarks under environmental conditions is another challenge of benchmarking by DEA. The current study attempts to extend basic models for benchmarking of efficient units under practical conditions. To this end, we construct the practical production possibility set (PPPS) by employing the concept of artificial decision-making units and adding these decisionmaking units to the production possibility set (PPS) such that these artificial units satisfy all environmental constraints. Then, the theorems related to PPPS and their proofs are provided. Moreover, as a secondary result of this study, efficient units can be ranked according to their practical efficiency scores.

References (24)

  1. Anderson P, Peterson NC (1993) A procedure for ranking efficient units in data envelopment analysis. Manag Sci 39:1261-1264
  2. Baek C, Lee J (2009) The relevance of DEA benchmarking information and the least-distance measure. Math Comput Model 49:265-275
  3. Bogetoft P, Hougaard JL (1998) Efficiency evaluations based on potential (non-proportional) improvements. J Prod Anal 12:233-249
  4. Charnes A, Cooper WW, Rhodes E (1978) Measuring the efficiency of decision making units. Eur J Oper Res 2(1):95-112
  5. Cook WD, Seiford LM, Zhu J (2004) Models for performance benchmarking: measuring the effect of e-business activities on banking performance. Omega 32:313-322
  6. Copper W, Seiford LM, Tone K (2007) Data envelopment analysis: a comprehensive text with models, applications, references and DEA-solver software. Springer, Berlin
  7. Crosby PB (1984) Quality without tears. McGraw-Hill, Maidenhead Elmuti D, Kathawala Y, Lloyed S (1997) The benchmarking process: assessing its value and limitations. Ind Manag 39(4):12-19
  8. Esmaeilzadeh A, Hadi-Vencheh A (2015) A new method for complete ranking of DMUs. Optimization 64(5):1177-1193
  9. Halme M, Joro T, Korhonen P, Salo S, Wallenius J (1999) A value efficiency approach to incorporating preference information in data envelopment analysis. Manag Sci 45(1):103-115
  10. Izadikhah M, Saen RF (2015) A new data envelopment analysis method for ranking decision making units: an application in industrial parks. Expert Syst 32(5):596-608
  11. Juran JM (1992) Juran on quality by design: the new steps for planning quality into goods and services. Free Press, New York
  12. Kao C (1994) Efficiency improvement in data envelopment analysis. Eur J Oper Res 73:487-494
  13. Keehley P, Medlin S, MacBride S, Longmire L (1997) Benchmarking for best practices in the public sector. Jossey Bass, California
  14. Lai MC, Huang HC, Wang WK (2011) Designing a knowledge-based system for benchmarking: a DEA approach. Knowl-Based Syst 24:662-671
  15. Pickering IM, Chambers S (1991) Competitive benchmarking: progress and future development. Comput Integr Manuf Syst 4:98-102
  16. Post T, Spronk J (1999) Performance benchmarking using interactive data envelopment analysis. Eur J Oper Res 115:472-487
  17. Ro ¨dder W, Kleine A, Dellnitz A (2017) Scaling production and improving efficiency in DEA: an interactive approach. J Ind Eng Int. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40092-017-0233-7
  18. Sapienza HJ, Parhankangas A, Autio E (2004) Knowledge relatedness and post-spin-off growth. J Bus Ventur 19:809-829
  19. Shokrollahpour E, Hosseinzadeh Lotfi F, Zandieh M (2016) An integrated data envelopment analysis-artificial neural network approach for benchmarking of bank branches. J Ind Eng Int 12:137-143
  20. Sowlati T, Paradi J (2004) establishing the practical frontier in data envelopment analysis. Omega 32:261-272
  21. Tata J (2000) Benchmarking quality management practices: US versus Costa Rica. Multinatl Bus Rev 8:37-51
  22. Thanasssoulis E, Allen R (1998) Simulating weights restrictions in data envelopment analysis by means of unobserved DMUs. Manag Sci 44:586-594
  23. Yi JJ, Lilja DJ, Hawkins DM (2003) A statistically rigorous approach for improving simulation methodology. In: Ninth international symposium on high performance computer architecture
  24. Ziari S, Raissi S (2016) Ranking efficient DMUs using minimizing distance in DEA. J Ind Eng Int 12:237-242