Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Number of performance measures versus number of decision making units in DEA

  • S.I.: Data Mining and Decision Analytics
  • Published:
Annals of Operations Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Sufficient numbers of decision-making units (DMUs) in comparison to the number performance measures that are classified as inputs and outputs has been a concern when applying data envelopment analysis (DEA) in real world settings. As the number of DMUs decreases (or the numbers of inputs and outputs increases) the discrimination power and accuracy of DEA with respect to the performance of DMUs decreases. The current study proposes a technique which increases the discrimination power of DEA and allows for increasing the numbers of inputs and outputs even if the number of DMUs is relatively small. An adjusted DEA methodology is proposed which is stronger and more accurate than the routine DEA methodology, and permits one to identify the reference units for each best-practice unit (more than the DMU itself) and to distinguish the performance and rank of DMUs relative to one another, thereby enhancing the discrimination power of DEA. The scores from the adjusted methodology are logically meaningful. The pros of the new approach are demonstrated by several examples and simulation experiments in controlled environments. The results show that the proposed technique significantly improves the discrimination power over that of the conventional DEA model when the number of DMUs decreases or the number of inputs and outputs increases. In addition, the proposed technique is used to evaluate the quality-of-life related to twelve input–output combinations for two sets of DMUs, namely fifteen USA cities and five international cities, where none of the rules of thumb are satisfied.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Adler, N., Friedman, L., & Sinuany-Stern, Z. (2002). Review of ranking methods in the data envelopment analysis context. European Journal of Operational Research, 140(2), 249–265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Adler, N., & Yazhemsky, E. (2010). Improving discrimination in data envelopment analysis: PCA–DEA or variable reduction. European Journal of Operational Research, 202(1), 273–284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andersen, P., & Petersen, N. C. (1993). A procedure for ranking efficient units in data envelopment analysis. Management Science, 39(10), 1261–1264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Banker, R. D. (1993). Maximum likelihood, consistency and data envelopment analysis: A statistical foundation. Management Science, 39, 1265–1273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Banker, R. D., & Chang, H. (2006). The super-efficiency procedure for outlier identification, not for ranking efficient units. European Journal of Operational Research, 175(2), 1311–1320.

    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(9), 1078–1092.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Banker, R. D., Charnes, A., Cooper, W. W., Swarts, W., & Thomas, D. (1989). An introduction to data envelopment analysis with some of its models and their uses. Research in Governmental and Nonprofit Accounting, 5(1), 125–163.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bland J. M. (2005). The half-normal distribution method for measurement error: Two case studies. Department of Health Sciences, University of York, Technical Report, 1–14.

  • Charnes, A., Cooper, W. W., Golany, B., Seiford, L., & Stutz, J. (1985). Foundations of data envelopment analysis for Pareto-Koopmans efficient empirical production functions. Journal of Econometrics, 30(1–2), 91–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Charnes, A., Cooper, W. W., Huang, Z. M., & Sun, D. B. (1990). Polyhedral cone-ratio DEA models with an illustrative application to large commercial banks. Journal of Econometrics, 46(1–2), 73–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Charnes, A., Cooper, W. W., & Rhodes, E. (1978). Measuring the inefficiency of decision making units. European Journal of Operational Research, 2(6), 429–444.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cook, W. D., Kress, M., & Seiford, L. M. (1992). Prioritization models for frontier decision making units in DEA. European Journal of Operational Research, 59(2), 319–323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cook, W. D., Tone, K., & Zhu, J. (2014). Data envelopment analysis: Prior to choosing a model. Omega, 44, 1–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cook, W. D., & Zhu, J. (2008). Classifying inputs and outputs in data envelopment analysis. European Journal of Operational Research, 180(2), 692–699.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cook, W. D., & Zhu, J. (2015). DEA cross efficiency in data envelopment analysis (pp. 23–43). US: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, W. W., Seiford, L. M., & Tone, K. (2007). Data envelopment analysis: A comprehensive text with models, applications, references and DEA-solver software (2nd ed.). New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dyson, R., Allen, R., Camanho, A., Podinovski, V., Sarrico, C., & Shale, E. (2001). Pitfalls and protocols in DEA. European Journal of Operational Research, 132(2), 245–259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, L., & Sinuany-Stern, Z. (1998). Combining ranking scales and selecting factors in the DEA context: The case of industrial branches. Computers & Operations Research, 25(9), 781–791.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Golany, B. A., & Roll, Y. (1989). An application procedure for data envelopment analysis. Omega, 17(3), 237–250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jondrow, J., Lovell, C. K., Materov, I. S., & Schmidt, P. (1982). On the estimation of technical inefficiency in the stochastic frontier production function model. Journal of Econometrics, 19(2–3), 233–238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khezrimotlagh, D., Zhu, J., Cook, W. D., & Toloo, M. (2018). Data envelopment analysis and big data. European Journal of Operational Research (in press).

  • Kneip, A., Park, B. U., & Simar, L. (1998). A note on the convergence of nonparametric DEA estimators for production efficiency scores. Econometric Theory, 14(6), 783–793.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Korostelev, A. P., Simar, L., & Tsybakov, A. B. (1994). On estimation of monotone and convex boundaries (No. 1139). Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE), XXXIX(1), 3–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Korostelëv, A. P., Simar, L., & Tsybakov, A. B. (1995). Efficient estimation of monotone boundaries. The Annals of Statistics, 23, 476–489.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Osman, I. H., Berbary, L. N., Sidani, Y., Al-Ayoubi, B., & Emrouznejad, A. (2011). Data envelopment analysis model for the appraisal and relative performance evaluation of nurses at an intensive care unit. Journal of Medical Systems, 35(5), 1039–1062.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pedraja-Chaparro, F., Salinas-Jimenez, J., & Smith, P. (1999). On the quality of the data envelopment analysis model. The Journal of Operational Research Society, 50(6), 636–644.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Põldaru, R., & Roots, J. (2014). A PCA–DEA approach to measure the quality of life in Estonian counties. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 48(1), 65–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Russell, R. R. (1990). Continuity of measures of technical efficiency. Journal of Economic Theory, 51(2), 255–267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, P., & Lovell, C. K. (1979). Estimating technical and allocative inefficiency relative to stochastic production and cost frontiers. Journal of Econometrics, 9(3), 343–366.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sexton, T. R., Silkman, R. H., & Hogan, A. J. (1986). Data envelopment analysis: Critique and extensions. New Directions for Evaluation, 1986(32), 73–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, R. G., Langemeier, L. N., Lee, C. T., Lee, E., & Thrall, R. M. (1990). The role of multiplier bounds in efficiency analysis with application to Kansas farming. Journal of Econometrics, 46(1–2), 93–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Toloo, M., Barat, M., & Masoumzadeh, A. (2015). Selective measures in data envelopment analysis. Annals of Operations Research, 226(1), 623–642.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tone, K. (2001). A slacks-based measure of efficiency in data envelopment analysis. European Journal of Operational Research, 130(3), 498–509.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhu, J. (2001). Multidimensional quality-of-life measure with an application to Fortune’s best cities. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 35(4), 263–284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We appreciate the valuable comments from the three anonymous reviewers as they aided to improve the clarity of our paper. This research is supported by Pennsylvania State University Harrisburg (No. 0206020 AC6ET), by the National Natural Science Funds of China (No. 71828101), and by the NSERC-the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research council of Canada (No. A8966).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Mathematics, Pennsylvania State University Harrisburg, Middletown, PA, USA

    Dariush Khezrimotlagh

  2. Schulich School of Business, York University, Toronto, Canada

    Wade D. Cook

  3. College of Auditing and Evaluation, Nanjing Audit University, Nanjing, Jiangsu Province, 211815, China

    Joe Zhu

  4. Foisie Business School, Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester, MA, USA

    Joe Zhu

Authors
  1. Dariush Khezrimotlagh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Wade D. Cook
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Joe Zhu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Joe Zhu.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Khezrimotlagh, D., Cook, W.D. & Zhu, J. Number of performance measures versus number of decision making units in DEA. Ann Oper Res 303, 529–562 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-019-03411-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-019-03411-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation