Chance-Constrained DEA

  • William W. Cooper
  • Zhimin HuangEmail author
  • Susan X. Li
Part of the International Series in Operations Research & Management Science book series (ISOR, volume 164)


Incorporation of random variations into DEA analysis has received significant attention in recent years. This chapter describes some of these developments and offers examples of possible uses in the area of chance-constrained programming models in DEA.


Chance-constrained DEA Stochastic Joint probability Congestion Satisficing 


  1. Aigner D, Lovell CAK, Schmidt P. Formulation and estimation of stochastic frontier production function models. J Econ. 1977;6:21–37.Google Scholar
  2. Banker RD. Maximum likelihood, consistency and DEA: statistical foundations. Manag Sci. 1993;39:1265–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Banker RD, Charnes A, Cooper WW. Some models for estimating technical and scale inefficiencies in data envelopment analysis. Manag Sci. 1984;30:1078–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bowlin WF, Brennan J, Cooper WW, Sueyoshi T. DEA models for evaluating efficiency dominance, Research Report. Austin, TX: The University of Texas, Center for Cybernetic Studies; 1984.Google Scholar
  5. Charnes A, Clarke RL, Cooper WW. An approach to testing for organizational slack via banker’s game theoretic DEA formulations. Res Govern Non Profit Account. 1989;5:211–29.Google Scholar
  6. Charnes A, Cooper WW. Chance constrained programming. Manag Sci. 1959;5:73–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Charnes A, Cooper WW, DeVoe JK, Learner DB. Demon, mark II: an extremal equation approach to new product marketing. Manag Sci. 1968;14:513–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Charnes A, Cooper WW, Golany B, Seiford L, Stutz J. Foundations of data envelopment analysis for Pareto-Koopmans efficient empirical production functions. J Econ. 1985;30:91–107.Google Scholar
  9. Charnes A, Cooper WW, Rhodes E. Measuring the efficiency of decision making units. Eur J Oper Res. 1978;2:429–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Charnes A, Cooper WW, Rhodes E. Evaluating program and managerial efficiency: an application of data envelopment analysis to program follow through in US public school education. Manag Sci. 1981;27:668–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Charnes A, Cooper WW, Symonds GH. Cost horizons and certainty equivalents: an approach to stochastic programming of heating oil. Manag Sci. 1958;4:235–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Charnes A, Cooper WW, Thrall RM. Identifying and classifying efficiencies and inefficiencies in data envelopment analysis. Oper Res Lett. 1986;5:105–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Charnes A, Cooper WW, Thrall RM. A structure for classifying efficiencies and inefficiencies in data envelopment analysis. J Product Anal. 1991;2:197–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Charnes AS, Haag PJ, Semple J. Sensitivity of efficiency classifications in the additive model of data envelopment analysis. Int J Syst Sci. 1992;23:789–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Charnes A, Neralic L. Sensitivity analysis of the additive model in data envelopment analysis. Eur J Oper Res. 1990;48:332–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Charnes A, Rousseau J, Semple J. Sensitivity and stability of efficiency classifications in data envelopment analysis. J Product Anal. 1996;7:5–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Clarke RL. Effects of repeated applications of data envelopment analysis on efficiency of air force vehicle maintenance units in the tactical air command. Ph.D. Thesis. The University of Texas at Austin, Graduate School of Business; 1989. Also available from University Microfilms, Inc., in Ann Arbor, Michigan.Google Scholar
  18. Cooper WW, Deng H, Huang ZM, Li SX. Chance constrained programming approaches to technical efficiencies and inefficiencies in stochastic data envelopment analysis. J Oper Res Soc. 2002a;53:1347–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Cooper WW, Deng H, Huang ZM, Li SX. Chance constrained programming approaches to congestion in stochastic data envelopment analysis. Eur J Oper Res. 2003;155:231–8. 2002.Google Scholar
  20. Cooper WW, Huang ZM, Lelas V, Li SX, Olesen OB. Chance constrained programming formulations for stochastic characterizations of efficiency and dominance in DEA. J Product Anal. 1998;9:53–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Cooper WW, Ijiri Y, editors. Kohler’s Dictionary for Accountants. 6th ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, Inc; 1983.Google Scholar
  22. Cooper WW, Lelas V, Sullivan DW. Chance-constrained programming and skewed distributions of matrix coefficients and applications to environmental regulatory activities. In: Cawrence KD, Kleinbore RK, editors. Science: in productivity, finance and management. Oxford: Elsevier Publishers; 2002b.Google Scholar
  23. Cooper WW, Li S, Seiford LM, Tone K, Thrall RM, Zhu J. Sensitivity and stability analysis in DEA: some recent developments. J Product Anal. 2001;15:217–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Cooper WW, Huang ZM, Li SX. Satisficing DEA models under chance constraints. Ann Oper Res. 1996;66:279–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Cooper WW, Seiford LM, Tone K. Data envelopment analysis: a comprehensive text with models, applications, reference and DEA-solver software. Boston, MA: Kluwer; 2000.Google Scholar
  26. Huang ZM, Li SX. Dominance stochastic models in data envelopment analysis. Eur J Oper Res. 1996;95:370–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Jagannathan R. Use of sample information in stochastic recourse and chance constrained programming. Manag Sci. 1985;31:96–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Land KC, Lovell CAK, Thore S. Productivity and efficiency under capitalism and state socialism: the chance-constrained programming approach. Proceedings of the 47th Congress of the International Institute of Public Finance, Pestieau P. (ed.), 1992. 109–21.Google Scholar
  29. Land KC, Lovell CAK, Thore S. Chance-constrained data envelopment analysis. Manag Decis Econ. 1993;14:541–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Land KC, Lovell CAK, Thore S. Productivity and efficiency under capitalism and state socialism: an empirical inquiry using chance-constrained data envelopment analysis. Technol Forecast Soc Chang. 1994;46:139–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Leibenstein H. Beyond economic man. Cambridge: Harvard University Press; 1976.Google Scholar
  32. Olesen OB, Petersen NC. Chance constrained efficiency evaluation. Manag Sci. 1995;41:442–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Olesen OB. Comparing and combining two approaches for chance constrained DEA. J Product Anal. 2006;26:103–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Post T. Performance evaluations in stochastic environments using mean-variance data envelopment analysis. Oper Res. 2001;49:281–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Seiford LM, Zhu J. Stability regions for maintaining efficiency in data envelopment analysis. Eur J Oper Res. 1998;108:127–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Sengupta JK. Efficiency measurement in stochastic input–output systems. Int J Syst Sci. 1982;13:273–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sengupta JK. Data envelopment analysis for efficiency measurement in the stochastic case. Comput Oper Res. 1987;14:117–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Sengupta JK. Robust efficiency measures in a stochastic efficiency. Int J Syst Sci. 1988;19:779–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Sengupta JK. Data envelopment with maximum correlation. Int J Syst Sci. 1989;20:2085–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Sengupta JK. Transformations in stochastic DEA models. J Econ. 1990;46:109–24.Google Scholar
  41. Simon HA. Models of man. New York: Wiley; 1957.Google Scholar
  42. Sinha KK. Moving frontier analysis: an application of data envelopment analysis for competitive analysis of a high technology manufacturing plant. Ann Oper Res. 1996;66:197–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Stedry AC. Budget control and cost behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall; 1960.Google Scholar
  44. Stigler GJ. The existence of X-efficiency. Am Econ Rev. 1976;66:213–6.Google Scholar
  45. Sueyoshi T. Stochastic DEA for restructure strategy: an application to a Japanese Petroleum Company. Omega. 2000;28:385–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Talluri S, Narasimhan R, Nair A. Vendor performance with supply risk: a chance-constrained DEA approach. Int J Prod Econ. 2006;100:212–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Wu D, Olson DL. A comparison of stochastic dominance and stochastic DEA for vendor evaluation. Int J Prod Res. 2008;46:2313–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • William W. Cooper
    • 1
  • Zhimin Huang
    • 2
    Email author
  • Susan X. Li
    • 2
  1. 1.Red McCombs School of BusinessUniversity of Texas at AustinAustinUSA
  2. 2.School of BusinessAdelphi UniversityGarden CityUSA

Personalised recommendations