An Optimized System Dynamics Approach for a Hotel Chain Management

  • Valerio Lacagnina
  • Davide Provenzano


The proposed model consists of an integrated system dynamics-data envelopment analysis approach to value, in a dynamic framework, the effects over time of the policies implemented according to the relative efficiency analysis. Rooms’ price and competing facilities (the hedonics) are the decision variables to move in order to push the hotels towards a higher relative efficiency at the end of the observation periods.

In fact, in competitive markets as tourism, hotels compete for money offering differentiated quality. Moreover, according to the microeconomic theory, a producer of differentiated goods is not a price taker but a price maker. Therefore, we assume that the decision maker of the hotel chain can freely set the rooms’ price and the hedonics that will increase the relative economic efficiency of all the hotels of the chain.

The proposed model treats the rooms’ pricing and the hedonic setting problem in an environment characterized by uncertainty of the customers’...


Data Envelopment Analysis Efficiency Score Efficient Frontier System Dynamic Model Room Type 
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.


  1. Ali AI, Seiford LM (1993) The mathematical programming approach to efficiency analysis. The measurement of productive efficiency: Techniques and applications. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 120–159Google Scholar
  2. Anderson RI, Peterson N (1993) A procedure for ranking efficient units in data envelopment analysis. Manage Sci 39:1261–1264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anderson RI, Lewis D, Parker M (1999) Another look at the efficiency of corporate travel management departments. J Travel Res 37:267–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Anderson RI, Fish M, Xia Y, Michello F (1999) Measuring efficiency in the hotel industry: A stochastic frontier approach. J Hospitality Manage 18(1):45–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baker M, Riley M (1994) New perspectives on productivity in hotels: Some advances and new directions. Int J Hospitality Manage 13:297–311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Banker RD, Morey RC (1986) Efficiency analysis for exogenously fixed inputs and outputs. Oper Res 34:513–521CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Banker RD, Charnes RF, Cooper WW (1984) Some models for estimating technical and scale inefficiencies in data envelopment analysis. Manage Sci 30:1078–1092CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Barros CP (2004) A stochastic cost frontier in the Portuguese hotel industry. Tourism Econ 10:177–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Barros CP (2005) Measuring efficiency in the hotel sector. Ann Tourism Res 32(2):456–477CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Barros CP, Mascarenhas MJ (2005) Technical and allocative efficiency in a Chain of small hotels. Hospitality Manage 24:415–436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Brotherton B, Mooney S (1992) Yield management progress and prospects. Int J Hospitality Manage 11(1):23–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Charnes A, Cooper WW, Rhodes E (1978) Measuring the efficiency of decision making units. Eur J Oper Res 2:429–444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Charnes A, Cooper WW, Huang W (1990) Polyhedral cone-ratio DEA with an illustrative application to large commercial banks. J Econom 46:73–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Charnes A, Cooper WW, Seiford L, Stutz J (1982) A multiplicative model of efficiency analysis. Socioecon Plann Sci 16:223–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Charnes A, Cooper WW, Lewin A, Seiford LM (1994). Data envelopment analysis: Theory, methodology and applications. Kluwer, BostonGoogle Scholar
  16. Charnes A, Cooper WW, Gollany B, Seiford L, Stutz J (1985) Foundations of data envelopment analysis for pareto-koopmans efficient empirical productions functions. J Econom 30(1/2):91–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Donaghy K, McMahon U, McDowell D (1995) Yield management: An overview. Int J Hospitality Manage 14(2):1339–1350Google Scholar
  18. Dyson RG, Thanassoulis E (1988) Reducing weight flexibility in data envelopment analysis. J Oper Res Soc 39:563–576Google Scholar
  19. Farrell MJ (1957) The measurement of productive efficiency. J R Stat Soc Ser A 120(III):253–281Google Scholar
  20. Farrell MJ, Fieldhouse M (1962) Estimating efficient production functions under increasing returns to scale. J R Stat Soc Ser A 125:252–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Forrester JW (1961) Industrial dynamics. Productivity Press, Cambridge MAGoogle Scholar
  22. Gat D (1998) Toward a theory of the intraurban market for hotel services. J Real Estate Financ Econ 17(2):199–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Georgantas NC (2003) Tourism dynamics: Cyprus’s hotel value chain and profitability. Syst Dynam Rev 19(3):175–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hwang S, Chang T (2003) Using data envelopment analysis to measure hotel managerial efficiency change in Taiwan. Tourism Manage 24:357–369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lovell CAK (1994) Linear programming approaches to the measurement and analysis of productive efficiency. Technical report. Dept of Economics, Georgia-College of Business Administration, GeorgiaGoogle Scholar
  26. Morey RC, Dittman DA (1995) Evaluating a hotel GM’s performance: A case study in benchmarking. Cornell Hotel Restaur Adm Q 36(5):30–35Google Scholar
  27. Powersim Studio 2005 (2006) Academic kit, powersim software – The business simulation company.
  28. Png IPL (1988) Pricing capacity without precommitment by likelihood of availability. Technical Report 87-4. School of Management Business Economics, University of California, Los AngelesGoogle Scholar
  29. Raab R, Lichty R (2002) Identifying sub-areas that comprise a greater metropolitain area: the criterion of county relative efficiency. J Reg Sci 42:579–594CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Scheel H (2000) EMS: Efficiency measurement system. User’s manual. Version 1.3.
  31. Scott R, Sattler E, Highfill J (1995) A hotel capacity utilization model. J Econ XXI(2):101–105Google Scholar
  32. Seiford LM (1988) A bibliography of data envelopment analysis. Technical report. Dept of Industrial Engineering and Operations Research, University of Amherst, ArnherstGoogle Scholar
  33. Seiford LM (1996) Data envelopment analysis: The evolution of the state of the art (1978–1995). J Productivity Analysis 7:99–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Seiford LM, Thrall RM (1990) Recent developments in DEA: The mathematical programming approach to frontier analysis. J Econom 46:7–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Simonovic SP, Fahmy H(1999) A new modeling approach for water resources policy analysis. Water Resour Res 35(1):295–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Smith PC, van Ackere A (2002) A note on the integration of system dynamics and economic models. J Econ Dyn Control 26:1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Thanassoulis E, Dyson RG (1988) Setting target input output levels for relative efficiency under different priorities over individual input output improvements. Technical Report 25, University of Warwick, WarwickGoogle Scholar
  38. Thanassoulis E, Dyson RG, Foster MJ (1987) Relative efficiency assessments using data envelopment analysis: An application to data on rates departments. J Oper Res Soc 38:397–412Google Scholar
  39. Thompson L, Langemeier R, Lee C, Thrall R (1990) The role of multiplier bounds in efficiency analysis with application to Kansas farming. J Econom 46:93–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Thompson R, Singleton F, Thrall R, Smith B (1986) Comparative site evaluation for locating a high-energy physics lab in Texas. Interfaces 16(6):35–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Wijeysinghe B (1993) Breakeven occupancy for hotel operation. Manage Account 712:23–33Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Physica-Verlag Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of EconomicsUniversitd di PalermoPalermoItaly

Personalised recommendations