آمار
| تعداد نشریات | 201 |
| تعداد شماره‌ها | 5,065 |
| تعداد مقالات | 55,621 |
| تعداد مشاهده مقاله | 91,628,124 |
| تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله | 74,182,730 |
ارتقای قدرت تفکیک‌پذیری در مدل تحلیل پوششی داده‌ها با استفاده از متغیرهای انحراف | ||
| مدیریت صنعتی | ||
| مقاله 9، دوره 9، شماره 4، 1396، صفحه 765-780 اصل مقاله (475.63 K) | ||
| نوع مقاله: مقاله علمی پژوهشی | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22059/imj.2018.241913.1007313 | ||
| نویسندگان | ||
محمدرضا قاسمی  1؛ آرش نبی زاده2
| ||
| 1گروه مهندسی صنایع، دانشکده مهندسی، دانشگاه فناوری های نوین سبزوار، سبزوار، ایران | ||
| 2گروه علوم پایه، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی واحد تهران غرب، تهران، ایران | ||
| چکیده | ||
| در چندین دهۀ گذشته تحلیل پوششی داده‌ها (DEA) به‌عنوان تکنیکی برای ارزیابی عملکرد و اندازه‌گیری کارایی واحدهای تصمیم‌گیری (DMU)، بر اساس داده‌های ورودی ـ خروجی آنها معرفی شد. با وجود این، نقصان و ضعف در قدرت تفکیک‌پذیری و عدم توزیع مناسب وزن‌ها به‌عنوان اشکالات عمده در DEA باقی مانده‌اند. در ادبیات موضوع، مدل‌هایی برای حل این مشکلات ارائه شده است که این مدل‌ها مشکلات دیگری از قبیل ناشدنی بودن دارند. در این مقاله با به‌کار بردن یکی از معیارها از مدل DEA چندمعیاره (MCDEA)که در اواخر دهۀ 1990 میلادی توسعه یافت، اضافه کردن کرانی پایین برای وزن‌ها و همچنین ارائۀ ابتکار و تکنیکی برای تفکیک و رتبه‌بندی همۀ واحدهای تصمیم‌گیری کارا، به‌دنبال برطرف کردن مشکلات اشاره‌شده هستیم. برای تست و سنجش قابلیت متد پیشنهادی در مقابل مدل‌های DEA موجود، به حل و تحلیل نتایج دو مثال عددی می‌پردازیم. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها | ||
| تحلیل پوششی داده‌ها؛ توزیع وزن‌ها؛ رتبه‌بندی؛ قدرت تفکیک‌پذیری | ||
| عنوان مقاله [English] | ||
| Improving Discrimination Power in Data Envelopment Analysis Using Deviation Variables | ||
| نویسندگان [English] | ||
| Mohammadreza Ghasemi1؛ Arash Nabizadeh2 | ||
| 1Department of Industrial Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Sabzevar University of New Technology, Sabzevar, Iran | ||
| 2Department of Statistics, Faculty of Sciences, Islamic Azad University West Tehran Branch, Tehran, Iran | ||
| چکیده [English] | ||
| Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) has been proposed as a performance evaluative technique to measure the relative efficiency of decision-making units (DMUs) based on their respective multiple inputs and outputs. Lack of great discrimination power and poor weight dispersion has remained as the major issues in DEA. Hence, several methods were addressed in the literature as strategies to resolve the stated problems. However, there are some drawbacks to these methods too, which may lead to infeasible solutions. In order to address these drawbacks sufficiently, we extended the deviation variable form of classical DEA model by adding the lower bound to the input-output weights i.e. multi-criteria data envelopment analysis (MUDEA) developed in the late 1990s and proposed a procedure for ranking efficient units based on the deviation variables values framework. We further illustrated the performance of our proposed method against the alternative methods based on two numerical examples. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها [English] | ||
| Data Envelopment Analysis, Discrimination power, Ranking, Weights dispersion | ||
| مراجع | ||
|
References
Andersen, P., & Petersen, N. C. (1993). A procedure for ranking efficient units in data envelopment analysis. Management Science, 39, 1261–1264.
Anderson, T. R., Hollingsworth, K., & Inman, L. (2002). The fixed weighting nature of a cross-evaluation model. Journal of productivity analysis, 17, 249–255.
Bal, H., Örkcü, H. H., & Çelebioğlu, S. (2010). Improving the discrimination power and weights dispersion in the data envelopment analysis. Computers & Operations Research, 37(1), 99-107.
Banker, R. D., Charnes, A., & Cooper, W. W. (1984). Some models for estimating technical and scale inefficiencies in data envelopment analysis. Management Science, 30, 1078–1092.
Cao, Y., & Kong, F. (2010). A combined evaluation model based on the cone ratio DEA model. In Proceedings of 2010 International conference on Computer and Communication Technologies in Agriculture Engineering, China.
Charnes, A., Cooper, W. W., & Rhodes, E. (1978). Measuring the efficiency of decision making units. European Journal of Operational Research, 2, 429–444.
Charnes, A., Cooper, W. W., Huang, Z. M., & Sun, D. B. (1990). Polyhedral cone-ratio models with an illustrative application to large commercial banks. Journal of Econometrics, 46, 73–91.
Chen, Y. (2005). Measuring super-efficiency in DEA in the presence of infeasibility. European Journal of Operational Research, 161, 447–468.
Chen, Y., Du, J., & Huo, J. (2013). Super-efficiency based on a modified directional distance function. Omega, 41, 621–625.
Doyle, J. R., & Green, R. H. (1995). Cross-evaluation in DEA: Improving discrimination among DMUs. INFOR, 33, 205–222.
Dyson, R. G., & Thanassoulis, E. (1988). Reducing weight flexibility in data envelopment analysis. Journal of the operational research society, 39(6), 563-576.
Ghasemi, M. R., Ignatius, J., & Davoodi, S. M. (2014). Ranking of fuzzy efficiency measures via satisfaction degree. In Performance Measurement with Fuzzy Data Envelopment Analysis (pp. 157-165). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
Ghasemi, M. R., Ignatius, J., & Emrouznejad, A. (2014). A bi-objective weighted model for improving the discrimination power in MCDEA. European Journal of Operational Research, 233(3), 640-650.
Ghasemi, M. R., Ignatius, J., Lozano, S., Emrouznejad, A., & Hatami-Marbini, A. (2015). A fuzzy expected value approach under generalized data envelopment analysis. Knowledge-Based Systems, 89, 148-159.
Green, R. H., Doyle, J. R., & Cook, W. D. (1996). Preference voting and project ranking using DEA and cross-evaluation. European Journal of Operational Research, 90, 461–472.
Ignatius, J., Ghasemi, M. R., Zhang, F., Emrouznejad, A., & Hatami-Marbini, A. (2016). Carbon efficiency evaluation: An analytical framework using fuzzy DEA. European Journal of Operational Research, 253(2), 428-440.
Khalili, M., Camanho, A. S., Portela, M. C. A. S., & Alirezaee, M. R. (2010). The measurement of relative efficiency using data envelopment analysis with assurance regions that link inputs and outputs. European Journal of Operational Research, 203, 761–770.
Lee, H.-S., Chu, C.-W., & Zhu, J. (2011). Super-efficiency DEA in the presence of infeasibility. European Journal of Operational Research, 212, 141–147.
Li, X.-B., & Reeves, G. R. (1999). A multiple criteria approach to data envelopment analysis. European Journal of Operational Research, 115, 507–517.
Mecit, E. D., & Alp, I. (2013). A new proposed model of restricted data envelopment analysis by correlation coefficients. Applied Mathematical Modelling, 37, 3407–3425.
Sarrico, C. S., & Dyson, R. G. (2004). Restricting virtual weights in data envelopment analysis. European Journal of Operational Research, 159, 17–34.
Sexton, T. R. (1986). The methodology of data envelopment analysis. New Directions for Evaluation, 1986(32), 7-29.
Thanassoulis, E., & Allen, R. (1998). Simulating weights restrictions in data envelopment analysis by means of unobserved DMUs. Management Science, 44, 586–594.
Thompson, R. G., Langemeier, L. N., Lee, C. T., & Thrall, R. M. (1990). The role of multiplier bounds in efficiency analysis with application to Kansas farming. Journal of Econometrics, 46, 93–108.
Thompson, R. G., Singleton, F. D., Jr., Thrall, R. M., & Smith, B. A. (1986). Comparative site evaluations for locating a high-energy physics lab in texas. Interfaces, 16, 35–49.
Wang, Y.-M., & Chin, K.-S. (2010). A neutral DEA model for cross-efficiency evaluation and its extension. Expert Systems with Applications, 37, 3666–3675.
Wang, Y.-M., & Chin, K.-S. (2011). The use of OWA operator weights for cross efficiency aggregation. Omega, 39, 493–503.
| ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 390 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 309 |
||
