Advertisement

Output–Input Ratio Efficiency Measures

  • Chiang Kao
Chapter
Part of the International Series in Operations Research & Management Science book series (ISOR, volume 240)

Abstract

Ever since the industrial revolution, people have been working to use the smallest effort to produce the largest output, so that resources, including human, are utilized more efficiently. Manufacturing companies develop standards to help achieve this, such as the number of items that should be produced with one unit of a certain type of input, in order to better control the production process and increase productivity. Similarly, service companies aim to increase the number of customers served by one employee in a unit of time.

Keywords

Line Segment Efficiency Score Constant Return Scale Efficiency Efficient DMUs 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Adler N, Friedman L, Sinuany-Stern Z (2002) Review of ranking methods in the data envelopment analysis context. Eur J Oper Res 140:249–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allen R, Athanassopoulos A, Dyson RG, Thanassoulis E (1997) Weights restrictions and value judgments in data envelopment analysis: evolution development and future directions. Ann Oper Res 73:13–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Andersen P, Petersen NC (1993) A procedure for ranking efficient units in data envelopment analysis. Manag Sci 39:1261–1264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Angulo-Meza L, Estellita Lins MP (2002) Review of methods for increasing discrimination in data envelopment analysis. Ann Oper Res 116:225–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Banker RD, Chang HH (2006) The super-efficiency procedure for outlier identification, not for ranking efficient units. Eur J Oper Res 175:1311–1320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Banker RD, Chang HH, Cooper WW (1996) Equivalence and implementation of alternative methods for determining returns to scale in data envelopment analysis. Eur J Oper Res 89:473–481CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Banker RD, Charnes A, Cooper WW (1984) Some models for estimating technical and scale efficiencies in data envelopment analysis. Manag Sci 30:1078–1092CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Banker RD, Charnes A, Cooper WW, Swarts J, Thomas D (1989) An introduction to data envelopment analysis with some of its models and their uses. Res Govern Nonprofit Account 5:125–163Google Scholar
  9. Banker RD, Cooper WW, Seiford LM, Thrall RM, Zhu J (2004) Returns to scale in different DEA models. Eur J Oper Res 154:345–362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Banker RD, Thrall RM (1992) Estimation of returns to scale using data envelopment analysis. Eur J Oper Res 62:74–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bitran GR, Chang L (1984) Productivity measurement at the firm level. Interfaces 14(3):29–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Charnes A, Cooper WW (1961) Management models and industrial applications of linear programming. Wiley, New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  13. Charnes A, Cooper WW (1962) Programming with linear fractionals. Nav Res Logist Q 9:181–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Charnes A, Cooper WW (1984) The non-Archimedean CCR ratio for efficiency analysis: a rejoinder to Boyd and Färe. Eur J Oper Res 15:333–334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Charnes A, Cooper WW, Rhodes E (1978) Measuring the efficiency of decision making units. Eur J Oper Res 2:429–444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Charnes A, Cooper WW, Rhodes E (1979) Short communication: measuring the efficiency of decision making units. Eur J Oper Res 3:339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Charnes A, Cooper WW, Thrall RM (1986) Classifying and characterizing efficiencies and inefficiencies in data envelopment analysis. Oper Res Lett 5:105–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Charnes A, Cooper WW, Thrall RM (1991) A structure for classifying and characterizing efficiencies and inefficiencies in data envelopment analysis. J Prod Anal 2:197–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Charnes A, Cooper WW, Wei QL, Huang ZM (1989) Cone ratio data envelopment analysis and multi-objective programming. Int J Syst Sci 20:1099–1118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Charnes A, Clark CT, Cooper WW, Golany B (1985) A developmental study of data envelopment analysis in measuring the efficiency of maintenance units in the U.S. Air Forces. Ann Oper Res 2:95–112Google Scholar
  21. Cook WD, Liang L, Zha Y, Zhu J (2009) A modified super-efficiency DEA model for infeasibility. J Oper Res Soc 60:276–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Doyle J, Green R (1994) Efficiency and cross-efficiency in DEA: derivations, meanings, and uses. J Oper Res Soc 45:567–578CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Dyson RG, Thanassoulis E (1988) Reducing weight flexibility in data envelopment analysis. J Oper Res Soc 39:563–576CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Färe R, Hunsaker W (1986) Notions of efficiency and their reference sets. Manag Sci 32:237–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Førsund FR, Hjalmarsson L (2004) Calculating scale elasticity in DEA models. J Oper Res Soc 55:1023–1038CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Førsund FR (2013) Weight restrictions in DEA: misplaced emphasis? J Prod Anal 40:271–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Fukuyama H (2000) Returns to scale and scale elasticity in data envelopment analysis. Eur J Oper Res 125:93–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hosseinzadeh LF, Jahanshahloo GR, Khodabakhshi M, Rostamy-Malkhlifeh M, Moghaddas Z, Vaez-Ghasemi M (2013) A review of ranking models in data envelopment analysis. J Appl Math 2013:1–20Google Scholar
  29. Jablonsky J (2012) Multicriteria approaches for ranking of efficient units in DEA models. CEJOR 20:435–449CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Jahanshahloo GR, Soleimani-Damaneh M (2004) Estimating returns to scale in data envelopment analysis: a new procedure. Appl Math Comput 150:89–98Google Scholar
  31. Joro T, Viitala EJ (2004) Weight-restricted DEA in action: from expert opinions to mathematical models. J Oper Res Soc 55:814–821CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kao C, Hung HT (2005) Data envelopment analysis with common weights: the compromise solution approach. J Oper Res Soc 56:1196–1203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Khalili M, Camanho AS, Portela MCAS, Alirezaee MR (2010) The measurement of relative efficiency using data envelopment analysis with assurance regions that link inputs and outputs. Eur J Oper Res 203:761–770CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Koopmans TC (1951) An analysis of production as an efficient combination of activities. In: Koopmans TC (ed) Activity analysis of production and allocation, Cowles Commission for Research in Economics monograph No. 13. John Wiley, New York, pp 33–97Google Scholar
  35. Lewin A, Morey R (1981) Measuring the relative efficiency and output potential of public sector organizations: an application of data envelopment analysis. Int J Pol Anal Inform Syst 5:267–285Google Scholar
  36. Li S, Jahanshahloo GR, Khodabakhshi M (2007) A super-efficiency model for ranking efficient units in data envelopment analysis. Appl Math Comput 184:638–648Google Scholar
  37. Podinovski VV (1999) Side effects of absolute weight bounds in DEA models. Eur J Oper Res 115:583–595CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Podinovski VV, Bouzdine-Chameeva T (2013) Weight restrictions and free production in data envelopment analysis. Oper Res 61:426–437CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Podinovski VV, Thanassoulis E (2007) Improving discrimination in data envelopment analysis: some practical suggestions. J Prod Anal 28:117–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Roll Y, Cook WD, Golany B (1991) Controlling factor weights in data envelopment analysis. IIE Trans 23:2–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Roll Y, Golany B (1993) Alternate methods of treating factor weights in DEA. Omega 21:99–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Sarrico CS, Dyson RG (2004) Restricting virtual weights in data envelopment analysis. Eur J Oper Res 159:17–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Seiford LM, Zhu J (1999) An investigation of returns to scale in data envelopment analysis. Omega 27:1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Singh O, Chand S (2007) Ranking of decision making units: a review and development of new model using data envelopment analysis approach. Opsearch 44:185–201Google Scholar
  45. Soltanifar M, Lotfi FH (2011) The voting analytic hierarchy process method for discriminating among efficient decision making units in data envelopment analysis. Comput Ind Eng 60:585–592CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Thompson RG, Singleton FD Jr, Thrall RM, Smith BA (1986) Comparative site evaluations for locating a high-energy physics lab in Texas. Interfaces 16(6):35–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Thompson RG, Langemeier LN, Lee CT, Lee E, Thrall RM (1990) The role of multiplier bounds in efficiency analysis with applications to Kansas farming. J Econ 46:93–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Tracy DL, Chen B (2005) A generalized model for weight restrictions in data envelopment analysis. J Oper Res Soc 56:390–396CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Wong YB, Beasley JE (1990) Restricting weight flexibility in data envelopment analysis. J Oper Res Soc 41:829–835CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Wu J, Sun J, Liang L (2012) Cross efficiency evaluation method based on weight-balanced data envelopment analysis. Comput Ind Eng 63:513–519CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Zarepisheh M, Soleimani-Damaneh M (2009) A dual simplex-based method for determination of the right and left returns to scale in DEA. Eur J Oper Res 194:585–591CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Chiang Kao
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Industrial and Information ManagementNational Cheng Kung UniversityTainanTaiwan

Personalised recommendations