Advertisement

A winner-take-all evaluation in data envelopment analysis

  • Feng Yang
  • Lijing Jiang
  • Sheng Ang
S.I.: DEA in Data Analytics

Abstract

Numerous corporations are composed of several branches working in parallel regions, and the branches in regional markets are involved in the winner-take-all competition. This paper extends data envelopment analysis (DEA) method to the performance evaluation for those corporations. Firstly, a DEA model is proposed to calculate actual efficiencies of regional branches, where the market demands are considered as nontechnical constraints. Secondly, a winner-take-all evaluation is introduced to assess the overall performance of corporations. In the evaluation, analytic hierarchy process is used to obtain weights indicating regions’ relative importance, and values are assigned to regions according to their weights. Then branches in each region divide the assigned value based on a function reflecting the winner-take-all principle, i.e., a few winners get absolute majority of the value. The total values corporations obtain are employed to compare their overall performances. Our method not only presents the competitiveness and the development potential of corporations, but also helps managers to make more reasonable productivity allocations and effectively avoid the overcapacity. A numerical example is designed to illustrate our method.

Keywords

Winner-take-all Performance evaluation Data envelopment analysis 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The research is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Nos. 71631006, 71601173), the National Soft Science Research Program (No. 2013GXS1D006), the China Postdoctoral Science Foundation (Nos. 2015M580556, 2016T90588), Philosophy and Social Science Project of Anhui Province (No. AHSKY2014D28), and the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities.

References

  1. Ang, S., & Chen, C. M. (2016). Pitfalls of decomposition weights in the additive multi-stage DEA model. Omega, 58, 139–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aparicio, J., Ortiz, L., & Pastor, J. T. (2017). Measuring and decomposing profit inefficiency through the slacks-based measure. European Journal of Operational Research, 260(2), 650–654.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Azadeh, A., Ghaderi, S. F., & Izadbakhsh, H. (2008). Integration of DEA and AHP with computer simulation for railway system improvement and optimization. Applied Mathematics and Computation, 195(2), 775–785.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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
  5. Beasley, J. E. (1995). Determining teaching and research efficiencies. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 46(4), 441–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Castelli, L., Pesenti, R., & Ukovich, W. (2004). DEA-like models for the efficiency evaluation of hierarchically structured units. European Journal of Operational Research, 154(2), 465–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Castelli, L., Pesenti, R., & Ukovich, W. (2010). A classification of DEA models when the internal structure of the decision making units is considered. Annals of Operations Research, 173(1), 207–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Charnes, A., & Cooper, W. W. (1984). The non-Archimedean CCR ratio for efficiency analysis: A rejoinder to Boyd and Färe. European Journal of Operational Research, 15(3), 333–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Charnes, A., Cooper, W. W., & Rhodes, E. (1978). Measuring the efficiency of decision making units. European Journal of Operational Research, 2(6), 429–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Charnes, A., Cooper, W. W., & Rhodes, E. (1979). Measuring the efficiency of decision-making units. European Journal of Operational Research, 3(4), 339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chen, Y., Cook, W. D., Li, N., & Zhu, J. (2009). Additive efficiency decomposition in two-stage DEA. European Journal of Operational Research, 196(3), 1170–1176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chen, C., & Yan, H. (2011). Network DEA model for supply chain performance evaluation. European Journal of Operational Research, 213(1), 147–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cook, W. D., Tone, K., & Zhu, J. (2014). Data envelopment analysis: Prior to choosing a model. Omega, 44, 1–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cook, W. D., Zhu, J., Bi, G., & Yang, F. (2010). Network DEA: Additive efficiency decomposition. European Journal of Operational Research, 207(2), 1122–1129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dyson, R. G., Allen, R., Camanho, A. S., Podinovski, V. V., Sarrico, C. S., & Shale, E. A. (2001). Pitfalls and protocols in DEA. European Journal of Operational Research, 132(2), 245–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Färe, R., & Grosskopf, S. (2000). Network dea. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 34(1), 35–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Frank, R. H. (1999). Higher education: The ultimate winner-take-all market? CHERI Working Paper #2. Retrieved August 2016, from Cornell University, ILR School site: http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cheri/2.
  18. Golden, B. L., Wasil, E. A., & Harker, P. T. (1989). The analytic hierarchy process. New York: Springier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hacker, J. S., & Pierson, P. (2011). Winner-take-all politics: How Washington made the rich richer–and turned its back on the middle class. New York: Simon and Shuster.Google Scholar
  20. Huang, J., Wei, K. D., & Yan, H. (2007). Participation costs and the sensitivity of fund flows to past performance. The Journal of Finance, 62(3), 1273–1311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kao, C. (2009). Efficiency measurement for parallel production systems. European Journal of Operational Research, 196(3), 1107–1112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kao, C., & Hwang, S. N. (2008). Efficiency decomposition in two-stage data envelopment analysis: An application to non-life insurance companies in Taiwan. European Journal of Operational Research, 185(1), 418–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kao, C., & Hwang, S. N. (2010). Efficiency measurement for network systems: IT impact on firm performance. Decision Support Systems, 48(3), 437–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lee, E., Lee, J., & Lee, J. (2006). Reconsideration of the winner-take-all hypothesis: Complex networks and local bias. Management Science, 52(12), 1838–1848.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Liang, L., Cook, W. D., & Zhu, J. (2008). DEA models for two-stage processes: Game approach and efficiency decomposition. Naval Research Logistics, 55(7), 643–653.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lin, M. I., Lee, Y. D., & Ho, T. N. (2011). Applying integrated DEA/AHP to evaluate the economic performance of local governments in China. European Journal of Operational Research, 209(2), 129–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mirhedayatian, S. M., Azadi, M., & Saen, R. F. (2014). A novel network data envelopment analysis model for evaluating green supply chain management. International Journal of Production Economics, 147, 544–554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Saaty, T. L. (1986). Axiomatic foundation of the analytic hierarchy process. Management Science, 32(7), 841–855.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Saaty, T. L. (1990). How to make a decision: The analytic hierarchy process. European Journal of Operational Research, 48(1), 9–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Sarrico, C. S., & Dyson, R. G. (2004). Restricting virtual weights in data envelopment analysis. European Journal of Operational Research, 159(1), 17–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Tan, Y., Zhang, Y., & Khodaverdi, R. (2016). Service performance evaluation using data envelopment analysis and balance scorecard approach: An application to automotive industry. Annals of Operations Research, 248, 1–22.Google Scholar
  32. Yang, T., & Kuo, C. (2003). A hierarchical AHP/DEA methodology for the facilities layout design problem. European Journal of Operational Research, 147(1), 128–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Zanella, A., Camanho, A. S., & Dias, T. G. (2015). Undesirable outputs and weighting schemes in composite indicators based on data envelopment analysis. European Journal of Operational Research, 245(2), 517–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Zhao, L., Zha, Y., Wei, K., & Liang, L. (2016). A target-based method for energy saving and carbon emissions reduction in China based on environmental data envelopment analysis. Annals of Operations Research, 255, 1–24.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of ManagementUniversity of Science and Technology of ChinaHefeiPeople’s Republic of China

Personalised recommendations