تخصیص هزینه های ثابت با استفاده از کارایی متقاطع و نظریه بازی
محورهای موضوعی : آمارمصطفی داوطلب علیائی 1 , فاطمه قندی 2 , فریده داوطلب علیائی 3
1 - گروه ریاضی کاربردی، دانشکده علوم ریاضی، دانشگاه کاشان، کاشان، ایران
2 - گروه ریاضی کاربردی، دانشکده علوم پایه، دانشگاه تربیت دبیر شهید رجایی، تهران، ایران
3 - گروه ریاضی کاربردی، دانشکده علوم ریاضی، دانشگاه کاشان، کاشان، ایران
کلید واژه: Data Envelopment Analysis, Game theory, Cross-efficiency evaluation, Fixed costs allocation,
چکیده مقاله :
در بسیاری از کاربردها هزینه‌هایی ثابت برای ایجاد زیر ساخت‌های مشترک برای واحدهای یک سازمان وجود دارند که می‌بایستی میان واحدهای تصمیم گیرنده تقسیم شود. نحوه تخصیص هزینه‌ها میان واحدها که در رقابت با یکدیگر هستند از اهمیت زیادی برخوردار است. تحلیل پوششی داده‌ها ابزاری مناسب برای ارزیابی عملکرد واحدها با چندین ورودی و چندین خروجی است که بطور موفقی در مساله تخصیص هزینه‌های ثابت بکار گرفته شده است. دو روش عمده‌ای که برای تخصیص هزینه‌های ثابت مورد استفاده قرار می‌گیرند بر اساس بهبود و یا تغییر ناپذیری کارایی نسبی واحدها پس از تخصیص هستند. اما در تخصیص هزینه‌ها در میان واحدها بایستی هم جنبه رقابتی و هم جنبه همکاری میان واحدها در نظر گرفته شود. به همین منظور استفاده از تکنیکی که بر اساس ارزیابی همتا، کارایی واحدها را مورد بررسی قرار دهد بیشتر معقولانه به نظر می‌رسد. برای این منظور ما از روش ارزیابی کارایی متقاطع در تحلیل پوششی داده‌ها برای انجام تخصیص هزینه‌های ثابت استفاده می‌کنیم. در این مقاله با استفاده از روش ارزیابی کارایی متقاطع و مفاهیمی از نظریه‌ی بازی، یک روش تخصیص هزینه ثابت جدید، به گونه‌ای ارائه می‌دهیم که بردار امتیازهای کارایی متقاطع واحدها پس از تخصیص پاراتو باشد. در نهایت به کمک یک مثال کاربردی به بیان بهتر روش پیشنهادی و مقایسه آن با برخی از روش-های موجود می‌پردازیم.
In many applications, there are some fixed costs for constructing the common platform of an organization which must be shared by all decision making units (DMUs). It is important how one should allocate such costs among all competing DMUs. Data envelopment analysis (DEA), which is a useful tool to evaluate the relative efficiency of DMUs, has been successfully used in allocating fixed costs among DMUs. Two main approaches have been proposed to allocate fixed costs that are based on maintaining or improving the relative efficiency of DMUs. In fixed costs allocation, one however needs to take into account both competitive and cooperative aspects among all DMUs. Therefore, it seems more reasonable to apply a peer-evaluation method in evaluating the efficiency of DMUs. To this end, we use cross-efficiency evaluation in DEA to allocate fixed costs between DMUs. Using cross-efficiency method and some concepts of game theory, we propose a new fixed costs allocation approach to share costs between DMUs such that the vector of cross-efficiency scores of DMUs after allocation is Pareto. We use a real application to more illustrate the proposed method and compare it with some of the existing methods.
[1] Charnes A, Cooper WW, Rhodes E. Measuring the efficiency of decision making units. European journal of operational research. 1978 Nov 1;2(6):429-44.
[2] Banker, Rajiv D., Abraham Charnes, and William Wager Cooper. "Some models for estimating technical and scale inefficiencies in data envelopment analysis." Management science 30.9 (1984): 1078-1092.
[3] Sexton, T. R., Silkman, R. H., & Hogan, A. J. (1986). Data envelopment analysis: critique and extensions. In R. H. Silkman (Ed.), Measuring efficiency: An
assessment of data envelopment analysis. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass
[4] Doyle, John R and Green, Rodney H. Cross-evaluation in dea: Improving
discrimination among dmus. INFOR: Information Systems and Operational
Research, 33(3):205–222, 1995.
[5] Anderson, Timothy R, Hollingsworth, Keith, and Inman, Lane. The fixed
weighting nature of a cross-evaluation model. Journal of Productivity Analysis,
17(3):249–255, 2002.
[6] Boussofiane, Aziz, Dyson, Robert G, and Thanassoulis, Emmanuel. Applied
data envelopment analysis. European Journal of Operational Research,
52(1):1–15, 1991.
[7] Doyle, John, and Rodney Green. "Efficiency and cross-efficiency in DEA: Derivations, meanings and uses." Journal of the operational research society 45.5 (1994): 567-578.
[8] Liang, Liang, Wu, Jie, Cook, Wade D, and Zhu, Joe. Alternative secondary
goals in dea cross-efficiency evaluation. International Journal of Production
Economics, 113(2):1025–1030, 2008.
[9] Wang, Ying-Ming and Chin, Kwai-Sang. Some alternative models for dea
cross-efficiency evaluation. International Journal of Production Economics,
128(1):332–338, 2010.
[10] Ramón, Nuria, José L. Ruiz, and Inmaculada Sirvent. "Reducing differences between profiles of weights: A “peer-restricted” cross-efficiency evaluation." Omega 39.6 (2011): 634-641.
[11] Jahanshahloo, G. R., Hosseinzadeh Lofti, F., Yafari, Y., Maddahi, R. (2011). Selecting symmetric weights as a secondary goal in DEA cross-efficiency evaluation. Applied Mathematical Modelling, 35, 544–549.
[12] Davtalab-Olyaie, Mostafa. "A secondary goal in DEA cross-efficiency evaluation: A “one home run is much better than two doubles” criterion." Journal of the Operational Research Society 70.5 (2019): 807-816.
[13] Wu, J., Liang, L., & Yang, F. (2009). Determination of weights for the ultimate cross efficiency
using Shapley value in cooperative game. Expert Systems with Applications, 36 (1), 872-876.
[14] Liang, L., Wu, J., Cook, W.D., & Zhu, J. (2008a). The DEA Game Cross-Efficiency Model and
Its Nash Equilibrium. Operations Research, 56 (5), 1278-1288.
[15] Wu, J.,Chu, J., Sun, J., Zha, Y.(2015). DEA Cross-efficiency Evaluation Based on Pareto Improvement. European Journal of Operational Research.
[16] Cook, Wade D., and Moshe Kress. "Characterizing an equitable allocation of shared costs: A DEA approach." European Journal of Operational Research 119.3 (1999): 652-661.
[17] Cook, Wade D., and Joe Zhu. "Allocation of shared costs among decision making units: A DEA approach." Computers & Operations Research 32.8 (2005): 2171-2178.
[18] Lin, Ruiyue. "Allocating fixed costs or resources and setting targets via data envelopment analysis." Applied Mathematics and Computation 217.13 (2011): 6349-6358.
[19] Jahanshahloo, Gholam Reza, et al. "An alternative approach for equitable allocation of shared costs by using DEA." Applied Mathematics and computation 153.1 (2004): 267-274.
[20] Amirteimoori, Alireza, and Sohrab Kordrostami. "Allocating fixed costs and target setting: A DEA-based approach." Applied Mathematics and Computation 171.1 (2005): 136-151.
[21] Mostafaee, A. "An equitable method for allocating fixed costs by using data envelopment analysis." Journal of the Operational Research Society 64.3 (2013): 326-335.
[22] Beasley, J. E. "Allocating fixed costs and resources via data envelopment analysis." European Journal of Operational Research 147.1 (2003): 198-216.
[23] Jahanshahloo, Gholam Reza, Jafar Sadeghi, and Mohammad Khodabakhshi. "Proposing a method for fixed cost allocation using DEA based on the efficiency invariance and common set of weights principles." Mathematical Methods of Operations Research 85.2 (2017): 223-240.
[24]Lotfi, Farhad Hosseinzadeh, et al. "Allocating fixed resources and setting targets using a common-weights DEA approach." Computers & Industrial Engineering 64.2 (2013): 631-640.
[25] Leyton-Brown, Kevin and Shoham, Yoav. Essentials of game theory: A
concise multidisciplinary introduction. Synthesis Lectures on Artificial Intelligence
and Machine Learning, 2(1):1–88, 2008.
[26] Shapley, Lloyd S. A value for n-person games. Contributions to the Theory of Games, 2(28):307–317, 1953.
[27] Nakabayashi, Ken, and Kaoru Tone. "Egoist's dilemma: a DEA game." Omega 34.2 (2006): 135-148.
[28] Li, F., Zhu, Q., & Liang, L. (2018c). Allocating a fixed cost based on a DEA-game cross efficiency approach. Expert Systems with Applications, 96, 196–207