رتبهبندی واحدهای تصمیمگیرنده با استفاده از کارایی متقاطع در حضور خروجیهای نامطلوب و عدم قطعیت دادهها
الموضوعات :
نازیلا آقایی
1
(1) گروه مدیریت، مرکز تحقیق در عملیات و اقتصاد، دانشگاه کاتولیک لوون، لوون لنو، بلژیک
2) گروه ریاضی، واحد اردبیل، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، اردبیل، ایران)
الکلمات المفتاحية: Data Envelopment Analysis, Cross efficiency, Ranking, Uncertainty, Undesirable outputs,
ملخص المقالة :
کارایی متقاطع یک ابزار سودمند برای رتبه­بندی واحدهای تصمیم­گیرنده (DMU) در تحلیل پوششی دادها (DEA) می­باشد. اما از انجا که ممکن است در ارزیابی DMUها وزن­های بهینه منحصر بفرد نباشد لذا انتخاب یکی از آنها کار ساده­ای نخواهد بود و ممکن است نتایج حاصل از جواب­های بهینه دگرین، متفاوت باشد. برای این منظور، در این مقاله، روشی برای رتبه بندی DMUها که مشکل غیر یکتایی را ندارد، ارایه می­شود. از آنجا که خروجی­ها به دوصورت مطلوب و نامطلوب به کار می­روند. پس ارایه مدل­هایی برای رتبه­بندی واحدهای تصمیم­گیرنده در حضور خروجی­های مطلوب ونامطلوب حایز اهمیت است. ازطرفی مدل­های DEA کلاسیک باداده­های قطعی سروکار دارد. ولی دردنیای واقعی، لزوماً همه داده­ها قطعی نمی­باشند. در نتیجه، به دنبال رویکردی هستیم که کارایی DMU را در شرایط عدم قطعیت محاسبه کند. لذا واحدهای تصمیم­گیرنده باخروجی­های مطلوب ونا مطلوب بازه­ای رتبه­بندی می­شوند. برای رویارویی با این مسئله، یک کران پایین و یک کران بالا برای کارایی براساس رویکرد بازه­ای پیشنهاد می­شود. نتایج حاصل در یک مثال عددی ساده مورد تحلیل قرار می­گیرد.
[1] Aghayi, N, Tavana, M., Raayatpanah, .A., (2016), Robust efficiency measurement with common set of weights under varying degrees of conservatism and data uncertainty, European Journal Industrial Engineering, 10, 385-405.
[2] Aghayi, N. (2016) Revenue Efficiency Measurement with Undesirable Data in Fuzzy DEA. Proceedings of the7th International Conference on Intelligent Systems, Modelling and Simulation, publisher IEEE, Thailand.
[3] Aghayi, N. (2017). Cost efficiency measurement with fuzzy data in DEA. Journal of Intelligent and Fuzzy Systems, 32, 409–420 .
[4] Aghayi, N., Maleki, B., (2016). Efficiency Measurement of DMUs with Undesirable outputs under uncertainty based on the directional distance function: Application on Bank Industry. Energy, 112, 376-387.
[5] Andersen, P., Petersen, N.C., (1993). A procedure for ranking efficient units in data envelopment analysis. Management Science, 39 (10), 1261-1264.
[6] Caves, D. W., Christensen, L. R., Diewert, E., (1982). Multilateral comparisons of output, input and productivity using superlative index numbers. The Economic Journal, 92 (365), 73-86.
[7] Chambers, R. G., Chung, Y., Fare, R., (1996). Benefit and distance function. Journal of Economic Theory, 70 (2), 407-419.
[8] Charnes, A., Cooper, W. W., Rhodes, E., (1978). Measuring the efficiency of decision making units. European Journal of Operational Research, 2 (6), 429-444.
[9] Chen, Y., Du, J., Huo, J., (2013). Super-efficiency based on a modified directional distance function. Omega, 41 (3), 621-625.
[10] Chung, Y. H., Fare, R., Grosskopf, S., (1997). Productivity and undesirable outputs a directional distance function approach. Journal of Environmental Management, 51 (3), 229-240.
[11] Cook, W., Roll, Y., Kazakov, A., (1990). DEA model for measuring the relative efficiencies of highway maintenance patrols. INFOR 28 (2), 811-818.
[12] Dimitrov, Stanko and Sutton, Warren, (2013), Generalized symmetric weight assignment technique: Incorporating managerial preferences in data envelopment analysis using a penalty function, Omega, 41(1), 48 – 54.
[13] Dong, G., (2013). A complete ranking of DMUs with undesirable outputs restrictions in DEA models. Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 58 (5-6), 1102-1109.
[14] Doyle, J.R., Green, R.H., (1994). Efficiency and cross-efficiency in DEA: derivations, meanings and uses. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 45 (5), 567-578.
[15] Emrouznejad, A., Rostamy-Malkhalifeh, M., Hatami-Marbini, A., Tavana, M., Aghayi, N., (2011). An overall profit Malmquist productivity
index with fuzzy and interval data. Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 54 (11-12), 2827-2838.
[16] Hosseinzadeh Lotfi, F., Hatami-Marbini, A., Agrell, Per J., Aghayi, N., Gholami, K., (2013). Allocating fixed resources and setting targets using a common-weights DEA approach. Computers & Industrial Engineering 64, (2), 631-640.
[17] Hosseinzadeh Lotfi, F., Rostamy-Malkhalifeh, M., Aghayi, N., Ghelej Beigi, Z., Gholami, K., (2013). An improved method for ranking alternatives in multiple criteria decision analysis. Applied Mathematical Modelling, 37, (1-2), 25-33.
[18] Jahanshahloo, G. R., Hosseinzadeh Lotfi, F., Jafari, Y., Maddahi, R., (2011). Selecting symmetric weights as a secondary goal in DEA cross-efficiency evaluation, Applied Mathematical Modelling 35 (1), 544-549
[19] Kao, C., Hung, H.T., (2005). Data envelopment analysis with common weights: the compromise solution approach. Journal of the Operational Research Society 56 (10), 1196-1203.
[20] Liu, W., Zhongbao, Z., Ma, Ch., Liu, D., Shen, W., (2015). Two-stage DEA models with undesirable input intermediate-outputs. Omega, 56, 74-87.
[21] Liu, X., Chu, J., Yin, P., Sun, J., (2016), DEA cross-efficiency evaluation considering undesirable output and ranking priority: a case study of eco-efficiency analysis of coal-fired power plants, Journal of Cleaner Production, 142 (2), 1-9.
[22] Pittman, R. W., (1983). Multilateral productivity comparisons with undesirable outputs. Economic Journal, 93 (372), 883-891.
[23] Rostamy-Malkhalifeh, M., Aghayi, N. (2011). Two Ranking of Units on the Overall Profit Efficiency with Interval Data. Mathematics Scientific Journal, 8(2), 73–93.
[24] Rostamy-Malkhalifeh, M., Aghayi, N., (2011) Measuring overall profit efficiency with fuzzy data. Journal of Mathematical Extension, 5 (2), 73-90.
[25] Ruiz, J.L., Sirvent, I., (2012). On the DEA total weight flexibility and the aggregation in cross-efficiency evaluations. European Journal of Operational Research 223 (3), 732-738.
[26] Saffar Ardabili, J., Aghayi, N., Monzali., (2007). New efficiency using undesirable factors of data envelopment analysis. Modeling & Optimization, 9 (2), 249-255.
[27] Salehpour,S., Aghayi, N., (2015). The Most Revenue Efficiency with Price Uncertainty. International Journal of Data Envelopment Analysis, 3, 575-592.
[28] Seiford, L. M., Zhu, J., (2002). Modeling undesirable factors inefficiency valuation. European Journal of Operational Research, 142 (1), 16-20.
[29] Sexton, T.R., Silkman, R.H., Hogan, A.J., (1986). Data envelopment analysis: critique and extensions. In: Silkman, R.H. (Ed.), Measuring Efficiency: an Assessment of Data Envelopment Analysis. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, 73-105.
[30] Sueyoshi, T., (1999). DEA non-parametric ranking test and index measurement: slackadjusted DEA and an application to Japanese agriculture cooperatives. Omega Int. J. Management Science 27 (3), 315-326.
[31] Sun, J., Wu, J., Guo, D., (2013). Performance ranking of units considering ideal and anti-ideal DMU with common weights. Applied Mathematical Modelling, 37 (9), 6301-6310.
[32] Toloo, M., Aghayi, N., Rostamy- Malkhalifeh, M., (2008). Measuring overall profit efficiency with interval data. Applied Mathematics and Computation, 201 (1-2), 640-649.
[33] 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.
[34] Wang, Y.M., Chin, K.S., Wang, S., (2012). DEA models for minimizing weight disparity in cross-efficiency evaluation. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 63 (8), 1079-1088.
[35] Wang, Y.M., Greatbanks, R., Yang, B. (2005), Interval Efficiency Assessment Using Data Envelopment Analysis; Fuzzy Sets and Systems 153, 347–370
[36] Wanke, P., Barros, C. P., Emrouznejad, A., (2016). Assessing productive efficiency of banks using integrated Fuzzy-DEA and bootstrapping a case of Mozambican banks. European Journal of Operational Research, 249(1), 378-389.
[37] Wu, J., Chu, J., Sun, J., Zhu, Q., (2016). DEA cross-efficiency evaluation based on Pareto improvement. European Journal of Operational Research 248 (2), 571-579.
[38] Zhu, J., (1999). Infeasibility of super-efficiency data envelopment analysis models. INFOR 37 (2), 174-187