Advertisement

A metafrontier-based yardstick competition mechanism for incentivising units in centrally managed multi-group organisations

  • Mohsen AfsharianEmail author
S.I.: Data Envelopment Analysis: Four Decades On
  • 19 Downloads

Abstract

In many empirical applications of data envelopment analysis models, a central body manages a set of similar decision making units (DMUs), which are organised into a few distinct groups. This grouping is often used in order to ensure that the DMUs have enough flexibility to effectively fulfill the demands of their local customers in line with the group assignments and according to the different environmental constraints. While the central management in such organisations faces information asymmetry concerning the operating costs of the units, it wishes to incentivise them through benchmarking to operate as efficiently as possible. This paper extends previous literature in this area to account for heterogeneity among operating units and the need for central management to cope with asymmetry of information in managing such organisations. Within this approach, inefficient units are required to improve performance in a manner which most closely reflects their own output profiles and cost structures within their groups. Operating units which are identified to be efficient are also incentivised by some reward consistent with the level of their impact on the efficiency of their groups. Data from KONE Corporation, which is internationally renowned as one of the leaders in the elevator and escalator industry, are used to illustrate the proposed method as well as to compare the results with those obtained by the existing “decentralised” and “centralised” systems of incentives in the literature.

Keywords

Data envelopment analysis (DEA) Centrally managed multi-group organisations Metafrontier Incentive regulation The elevator and escalator industry 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) in the context of the research fund AH 90/5-2. The author is grateful for constructive comments made by the anonymous referees and guest editors, which greatly improved the paper. The author would also like to thank the representatives of KONE for the provision of the data set. The empirical application in this paper is only illustrative of the proposed approach and does not necessarily reflect the official policy of KONE.

References

  1. Afsharian, M. (2017). Metafrontier efficiency analysis with convex and non-convex metatechnologies by stochastic nonparametric envelopment of data. Economics Letters, 160, 1–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Afsharian, M., & Ahn, H. (2017). Multi-period productivity measurement under centralized management with an empirical illustration to German saving banks. OR Spectrum, 39(3), 881–911.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Afsharian, M., Ahn, H., & Thanassoulis, E. (2017). A DEA-based incentives system for centrally managed multi-unit organisations. European Journal of Operational Research, 259(2), 587–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Afsharian, M., & Podinovski, V. V. (2018). A linear programming approach to efficiency evaluation in nonconvex metatechnologies. European Journal of Operational Research, 268(1), 268–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Agrell, P. J., & Bogetoft, P. (2016). Endogenous common weights as a collusive instrument in frontier-based regulation. In J. Aparicio, C. A. K. Lovell, & J. T. Pastor (Eds.), Advances in efficiency and productivity (pp. 181–194). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Agrell, P. J., Bogetoft, P., & Tind, J. (2002). Incentive plans for productive efficiency, innovation and learning. International Journal of Production Economics, 78(1), 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Agrell, P. J., Bogetoft, P., & Tind, J. (2005). DEA and dynamic yardstick competition in Scandinavian electricity distribution. Journal of Productivity Analysis, 23(2), 173–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Andersen, P., & Petersen, N. C. (1993). A procedure for ranking efficient units in data envelopment analysis. Management Science, 39(10), 1261–1264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Asmild, M., Paradi, J. C., & Pastor, J. T. (2009). Centralized resource allocation BCC models. Omega, 37(1), 40–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Battese, G. E., & Rao, D. P. (2002). Technology gap, efficiency, and a stochastic metafrontier function. International Journal of Business and Economics, 1(2), 87–93.Google Scholar
  12. Battese, G. E., Rao, D. P., & O’Donnell, C. J. (2004). A metafrontier production function for estimation of technical efficiencies and technology gaps for firms operating under different technologies. Journal of Productivity Analysis, 21(1), 91–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bogetoft, P. (1997). DEA-based yardstick competition: The optimality of best practice regulation. Annals of Operations Research, 73, 277–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bogetoft, P. (2013). Performance benchmarking: Measuring and managing performance. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  15. Bottasso, A., & Conti, M. (2009). Price cap regulation and the ratchet effect: A generalized index approach. Journal of Productivity Analysis, 32(3), 191–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Chen, Y., & Liang, L. (2011). Super-efficiency DEA in the presence of infeasibility: One model approach. European Journal of Operational Research, 213(1), 359–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Chen, K. H., & Yang, H. Y. (2011). A cross-country comparison of productivity growth using the generalised metafrontier Malmquist productivity index: With application to banking industries in Taiwan and China. Journal of Productivity Analysis, 35(3), 197–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Cook, W. D., Ruiz, J. L., Sirvent, I., & Zhu, J. (2017). Within-group common benchmarking using DEA. European Journal of Operational Research, 256(3), 901–910.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ding, T., Chen, Y., Wu, H., & Wei, Y. (2018). Centralized fixed cost and resource allocation considering technology heterogeneity: A DEA approach. Annals of Operations Research, 268, 497–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hayami, Y. (1969). Sources of agricultural productivity gap among selected countries. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 51(3), 564–575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kerstens, K., O’Donnell, C. J., & Van de Woestyne, I. (2019). Frontier metatechnologies and convexity: A restatement. European Journal of Operational Research.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2018.11.064.Google Scholar
  22. Kim, H., Lee, D., & Hwang, J. (2016). Measuring the efficiency of standardisation policy using meta-frontier analysis: A case of mobile platform standardisation. International Journal of Mobile Communications, 14(1), 79–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. KONE. (2019a). Aufzüge, Rolltreppen, Automatiktüren in Deutschland. Accessed January 03, 2019. http://www.kone.de/unternehmen/kone-deutschland/
  24. KONE. (2019b). KONE in brief. January 12, 2019. http://www.kone.com/en/company/
  25. Laffont, J. J., & Martimort, D. (2009). The theory of incentives: The principal-agent model. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lee, H. S., Chu, C. W., & Zhu, J. (2011). Super-efficiency DEA in the presence of infeasibility. European Journal of Operational Research, 212(1), 141–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lozano, S., & Villa, G. (2004). Centralized resource allocation using data envelopment analysis. Journal of Productivity Analysis, 22(1–2), 143–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Mar-Molinero, C., Prior, D., Segovia, M. M., & Portillo, F. (2014). On centralized resource utilization and its reallocation by using DEA. Annals of Operations Research, 221(1), 273–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Maziotis, A., Saal, D. S., Thanassoulis, E., & Molinos-Senante, M. (2016). Price-cap regulation in the English and Welsh water industry: A proposal for measuring productivity performance. Utilities Policy, 41, 22–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Moreira, V. H., & Bravo-Ureta, B. E. (2010). Technical efficiency and metatechnology ratios for dairy farms in three southern cone countries: A stochastic meta-frontier model. Journal of Productivity Analysis, 33(1), 33–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. O’Donnell, C. J., Rao, D. P., & Battese, G. E. (2008). Metafrontier frameworks for the study of firm-level efficiencies and technology ratios. Empirical Economics, 34(2), 231–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Portela, M. C. A. S., Thanassoulis, E., Horncastle, A., & Maugg, T. (2011). Productivity change in the water industry in England and Wales: Application of the meta-Malmquist index. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 62(12), 2173–2188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Seiford, L. M., & Zhu, J. (1999). Infeasibility of super efficiency data envelopment analysis models. INFOR, 37(2), 174–187.Google Scholar
  34. Shleifer, A. (1985). A theory of yardstick competition. The Rand Journal of Economics, 16, 319–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Thanassoulis, E. (2001). Introduction to the theory and application of data envelopment analysis. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Ueasin, N., & Wongchai, A. (2016). The operational efficiency of health tourism industries in three provinces of northeastern Thailand. International Information Institute (Tokyo). Information, 19(7B), 2839.Google Scholar
  37. Varmaz, A., Varwig, A., & Poddig, T. (2013). Centralized resource planning and yardstick competition. Omega, 41(1), 112–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Zhang, N., & Wei, X. (2015). Dynamic total factor carbon emissions performance changes in the Chinese transportation industry. Applied Energy, 146, 409–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Zhang, N., Zhou, P., & Choi, Y. (2013). Energy efficiency, CO2 emission performance and technology gaps in fossil fuel electricity generation in Korea: A meta-frontier non-radial directional distance function analysis. Energy Policy, 56, 653–662.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Business SciencesTechnische Universität BraunschweigBraunschweigGermany

Personalised recommendations