Skip to main content
Log in

Gradual technical and scale efficiency improvement in DEA

  • Published:
Annals of Operations Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In data envelopment analysis (DEA) an inefficient unit can be projected onto an efficient target that is far away, i.e. reaching the target may demand large reductions in inputs and increases in outputs. When the inputs and outputs modifications planned are large, it may be troublesome to carry them out all at once. In order to help an inefficient unit reach a distant target, a strategy of gradual improvements with successive, intermediate targets has been proposed. This paper extends such approach to the variable returns to scale (VRS) case. In the VRS scenario we distinguish between units that are technical efficient and those that are not. On the one hand, for those units that are not technical efficient the proposed approach determines successive intermediate targets leading to the technical efficiency frontier, i.e. the priority for those units is to attain technical efficiency. On the other hand, for those units that are technical efficient but not scale efficient the proposed approach computes a sequence of targets ending in the global efficiency frontier, i.e. when technical efficiency is guaranteed the goal is then to attain global efficiency. In both cases, the successive targets are obtained by iteratively solving specific DEA models that take into account given bounds on the rates of change in inputs and outputs that the unit can implement in each step.

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.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aparicio, J., Ruíz, J. L., & Sirvent, I. (2007). Closest targets and minimum distance to the Pareto-efficient frontier in DEA. Journal of Productivity Analysis, 28, 209–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Banker, R. D. (1984). Estimating most productive scale size using data envelopment analysis. European Journal of Operational Research, 17, 35–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Banker, R. D., & Morey, R. C. (1986). Efficiency analysis for exogenously fixed inputs and outputs. Operations Research, 34(4), 513–520.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Banker, R. D., Charnes, A., & Cooper, W. W. (1984). Some models for estimating technical and scale inefficiencies in data envelopment analysis. Management Science, 30, 1078–1092.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bogetoft, P., & Nielsen, K. (2005). Internet based benchmarking. Group Decision and Negotiation, 14, 195–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Camanho, A. S., & Dyson, R. G. (1999). Efficiency, size, benchmarks and targets for bank branches: an application of data envelopment analysis. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 50, 903–915.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Charnes, A., Cooper, W. W., & Rhodes, E. (1978). Measuring efficiency of decision making units. European Journal of Operational Research, 2, 429–444.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Charnes, A., Cooper, W. W., Golany, B., Seiford, L., & Stutz, J. (1985). Foundations of data envelopment analysis and Pareto-Koopmans empirical production functions. Journal of Econometrics, 30, 91–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, W. W., Park, K. S., & Pastor, J. T. (1999). 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frei, F. X., & Harker, P. T. (1999). Projections onto efficient frontiers: Theoretical and computational extensions to DEA. Journal of Productivity Analysis, 11, 275–300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Golany, B. (1988). An interactive MOLP procedure for the extension of DEA to effectiveness analysis. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 39(8), 725–734.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Golany, B., & Thore, S. (1997). Restricted best practice selection in DEA: An overview with a case study evaluating the socio-economic performance of nations. Annals of Operations Research, 73, 117–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • González, E., & Álvarez, A. (2001). From efficiency measurement to efficiency improvement: The choice of a relevant benchmark. European Journal of Operational Research, 133, 512–520.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lozano, S., & Villa, G. (2005). Determining a sequence of targets in DEA. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 56(12), 1439–1447.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Post, T., & Spronk, J. (1999). Performance benchmarking using interactive data envelopment analysis. European Journal of Operational Research, 115, 472–487.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sherman, H. D., Gold, F. (1985). Bank branch operating efficiency: Evaluation with data envelopment analysis. Journal of Banking and Finance, 9, 297–315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Silva Portela, M. C. A., Castro Borges, P., & Thanassoulis, E. (2003). Findind closest targets in non-oriented DEA models: the case of convex and non-convex technologies. Journal of Productivity Analysis, 19, 251–269.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thanassoulis, E., & Dyson, R. G. (1992). Estimating preferred target input–output levels using data envelopment analysis. European Journal of Operational Research, 56, 80–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhu, J. (1996). Data envelopment analysis with preference structure. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 47, 136–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sebastián Lozano.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lozano, S., Villa, G. Gradual technical and scale efficiency improvement in DEA. Ann Oper Res 173, 123–136 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-009-0583-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-009-0583-7

Keywords

Navigation