Two Alternative Approaches for Selecting Performance Measures in DEA

© All Rights Reserved

13 views

Two Alternative Approaches for Selecting Performance Measures in DEA

© All Rights Reserved

- A-Super-Efficiency-Model-for-Evaluating-Efficiency-in-the-Presence-of-Time-Lag-Effect.pdf
- Math Thinking
- 146-8588969305470805808
- Ashish Final Project (1)
- Maths
- Manual Freefem
- ijeepaper
- 605-632
- Response to Why Math Works
- 150046062-1-Survey-docx
- Q
- Design-of-Steel-Structures-EC3.pdf.pdf
- Public Sector Efficiency LA Wp202013 (1)
- i005_article_2012_02.pdf
- Averch Johnson Electricity
- Measures of Efficiency in the Takaful Industry of Bangladesh-A Non-Parametric Approach
- lesson plan 2 reflection
- Ep 10899909
- Privatization
- Linear modeling in Transportation problem: Need of reliable Public transportation system in Madhya Pradesh with special reference to Gwalior division”

You are on page 1of 12

Measurement

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/measurement

in data envelopment analysis

Mehdi Toloo , Tom Tichy

Faculty of Economics, Technical University of Ostrava, Ostrava, Czech Republic

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Data envelopment analysis seeks a frontier to envelop all data with data acting in a critical

Received 10 August 2014 role in the process and in such a way measures the relative efciency of each decision mak-

Received in revised form 24 November 2014 ing unit in comparison with other units. There is a statistical and empirical rule that if the

Accepted 23 December 2014

number of performance measures is high in comparison with the number of units, then a

Available online 8 January 2015

large percentage of the units will be determined as efcient, which is obviously a question-

able result. It also implies that the selection of performance measures is very crucial for

Keywords:

successful applications. In this paper, we extend both multiplier and envelopment forms

Decision making

Data envelopment analysis

of data envelopment analysis models and propose two alternative approaches for selecting

Multiplier and envelopment forms performance measures under variable returns to scale. The multiplier form of selecting

The rule of thumb model leads to the maximum efciency scores and the maximum discrimination between

Selective measures efcient units is achieved by applying the envelopment form. Also individual unit and

Banking industry aggregate models are formulated separately to develop the idea of selective measures.

Finally, in order to illustrate the potential of the proposed approaches a case study using

a data from a banking industry in the Czech Republic is utilized.

2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction that this ratio is less than or equal to one for all DMUs.

The large number of studies has been accomplished in

Data envelopment analysis (DEA), as a well-known non- DEA which show that this is an outstanding and straight-

parametric mathematical approach, evaluates the relative forward methodology for modeling operational process in

efciency score of a set of homogeneous decision making performance evaluations. Nowadays, DEA is becoming a

units (DMUs), which utilize the multiple inputs to produce very important analysis tool and research method in man-

multiple outputs. In managerial applications, DMUs may agement science, operational research, system engineer-

include banks, department stores and supermarkets, and ing, decision analysis, etc.

extend to car makers, hospitals, schools, public libraries Cooper et al. [14] considered a rough rule of thumb,

and even portfolios. In engineering, DMUs may take such which expresses the relation between the number of DMUs

forms as airplanes or their components such as jet engines. and the number of performance measures to have a reli-

Basic DEA models measure the efciency of a DMU by able results. In other words, when the number of perfor-

maximizing the ratio of the weighted sum of its outputs mance measures is high in comparison with the number

to the weighted sum of its inputs, based on the condition of DMUs, then most DMUs are classied as efcient, which

is not logical. Therefore in this paper we propose an

Corresponding author at: Sokolska trida 33, 701 21 Ostrava 1, Ostrava,

approach to deal with this issue. In particular, we extend

Czech Republic. Tel.: +420 597 322 009. standard models so that important measures (i.e., inputs

E-mail addresses: mehdi.toloo@vsb.cz, m_toloo@yahoo.com and outputs) can be identied, their total number

(M. Toloo). decreased and complex result optimized.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.measurement.2014.12.043

0263-2241/ 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

30 M. Toloo, T. Tichy / Measurement 65 (2015) 2940

The rest of the paper is organized as follows: Section 2 3. The BCC model

summarizes the rule of thumb in DEA. In Section 3, the

multiplier and envelopment forms of BCC model is pre- Charnes et al. [8] proposed an innovative mathematical

sented. Section 4 introduces a new approach to choose approach for evaluating the relative efciencies among

selective measures. Section 5 illustrates the capabilities DMUs with multi-input and multi-output as a linear pro-

of our proposed approach by using a real data set of bank- gramming model. This approach, which is referred to as

ing industry in the Czech Republic. Conclusions and further CCR (Charnes, Cooper and Rhodes), assumed constant

remarks are provided in the last section. returns to scale (CRS) technology. Banker et al. [3] sug-

gested a new model, which is known as BCC (Banker, Char-

nes and Cooper), to deal with VRS situation.

2. The rule of thumb in DEA

Consider a set of n decision making units (DMUs), each

consuming various amounts of m inputs to produce s out-

Suppose there are n DMUs that consume m inputs to

puts. Let xj = (x1j, . . . , xmj)T and yj = (y1j, . . . , ysj)T represent the

produce s outputs. If a performance measure (input/out-

input and output vectors for DMUj (j = 1, . . . , n), respec-

put) is added or deleted from consideration, it will inu-

tively. There are two BCC forms which are mutually dual:

ence the relative efciencies. Empirically, when the

multiplier and envelopment.

number of performance measures is high in comparison

with the number of DMUs, then most DMUs are evaluated

efcient so that such results cannot be regarded as reliable. Multiplier form of BCC Envelopment form of BCC

m

A rough rule of thumb expresses the relation between the Ps P x P s

maxz1 ur yro uo maxz2 h e si syr

number of DMUs and the number of performance mea- r1 i1 r1

sures (see Cooper et al. [14] for more details): s:t: s:t:

P

m P

n

v i xio 1 kj xij sxi hxio 8i

n P maxf3m s; m sg i1 j1 2

P

s P

m P

n

Table C.1 in Appendix C practically represents the num- ur yrj u0 v i xij 6 0 8j 1 kj yrj syr yro 8r

r1 i1 j1

ber of DMUs and the number of performance measures P

n

j1

13,1553]). ur P e 8r kj P 0 8 j;sxi P 0 8i;syr P 0 8r

There are some cases that the number of performance

measures and DMUs does not satisfy the rule of thumb.

To rectify this issue, in many scenarios we select some per- where DMUo = (xo, yo) is being evaluated (o e {1, 2, . . . , n}).

formance measures in a manner which complies with the In the multiplier form of BCC model (1), u = (u1, . . . , us)

rule of thumb and imposes progressive effect on the ef- and v = (v1, . . . , vm) are the set of output and input weights

ciency scores. These selected inputs and outputs are (or multipliers, dual variables or shadow prices), respec-

known as selective measures implies tively, and u0 is a variable with free in sign, i.e. u0 -

Establishing criteria among a set of suggested standards e (1, +1). Charnes et al. [9] added e, which is called

is an important issue for the decision maker. For example, the non-Archimedean epsilon, to the CCR model to have

consider the problem of evaluating 50 branches of a bank; positive weights. It is important to set a suitable value

in such a setting, the manager may practically run into for the non-Archimedean epsilon e. Amin and Toloo [2]

more than 25 inputs and 30 outputs. Apparently, the total designed a polynomial-time algorithm to obtain an appro-

number of measures, i.e. 55, and DMUs do not satisfy the priate value for epsilon. This model maximizes the rela-

rule of thumb and subsequently to have an acceptable ef- tive efciency score of DMUo subject to the condition

ciency scores some performance measures must be omit- that the similar score for all DMUs must be less than or

ted. To make the problem easier, suppose that the equal to one. Suppose that model (1) is solved and the

manager pre-selected three inputs, e.g. employees, optimal solution (u, v, u0) is at hand, DMUo is efcient

expenses and space, and three outputs, e.g. loans, prots when z1 1 and otherwise is inefcient. As a result,

and deposits. With this assumptions, if the manager wants DEA models can categorize all DMUs into two different

to select 2 out of 22 remaining inputs and 1 out of 27 groups: efcient and inefcient. Toloo et al. [47] sug-

remaining outputs and also consider all possible combina- gested an efcient approach to nd an initial basic feasi-

tions of performance measures, then an optimization prob- ble solution for the multiplier form of BCC model and

lem must be solved at most practically showed it decreases required computations

22 27 by at least one half.

196350 50 times, which shows that

2 1 On the other hand, the envelopment form of BCC model

P Pn

this approach is illogical. (2) seeks a (virtual) unit n

ji kj xj ; j1 kj y j that guaran-

In this paper, we propose an approach to deal with the

selective measures under variable returns to scale (VRS) tees at least the output level yo of DMUo in all components

P

n

assumption. However, in some situations, some special j1 kj yrj P yro ; r 1; . . . ; m , while reducing the input

measures must appear in evaluation model, so that the vector xo proportionally to a value as small as possible

managers concern comes true. These measures are named P

n

xed measures and we also consider them in developing j1 kj xij 6 h xio ; i 1; . . . ; m . If z2 1 (or equivalently

ho 1, 8i sxi 0 and 8r syr 0), then DMUo is efcient.

our approach.

M. Toloo, T. Tichy / Measurement 65 (2015) 2940 31

Otherwise it is inefcient, which implies that performance measures from the remaining inputs and out-

P Pn

n

outperforms (hxo, yo). puts (selective measures). In the case of no preferences

ji kj xj ; j1 kj y j

between different inputs (or outputs), the formulated

The multiplier form of BCC model (1) and the envelop-

model covers all performance measures.

ment form of BCC model (2) differ from similar forms of

In the following subsections, we extend two multiplier

the CCR model by their inclusion of the free variable u0

P and envelopment forms of selecting model. In particular,

and the convexity constraint nj1 kj 1, respectively. On

we develop two individual and aggregate models for each

the other hand, since these two models, multiple and

forms of selecting models. In individual models, the perfor-

envelopment, are mutually dual, from dual optimality con-

mance of each DMU is considered, meanwhile aggregate

ditions for linear programming problems z1 z2 . For a dee-

models deal with overall performance of the collection of

per discussion of multiplier and envelopment forms of BCC

DMUs. To formulate new models we utilize auxiliary bin-

model we refer the reader to Cooper et al. [14]. As will be

ary variable and subsequently proposed models are MIP.

shown, we formulate two multiplier and envelopment

forms of selecting models that are mixed integer linear

4.1. Selective measures and individual DMUs

programs (MIP) and hence their optimal objective values

are not identical.

Let s1 and s2 denote subsets of outputs corresponding to

One should note that to have accurate results, the num-

xed-output and selective-output measures, respectively.

ber of inputs and outputs, and DMUs must support the rule

Similarly, assume that m1 and m2 are the parallel subsets

of thumb, and if this condition will not be met, the results

of inputs. We extended two multiplier and envelopment

are not reliable. In the next section, we propose two forms

forms of BCC models (1) and (2) to obtain two different

of selecting DEA model that can handle the situations, in

approaches for measuring the efciency score of DMUo

which the manager has to select some of the performance

with keeping the rule of thumb.

measures among suggested inputs and outputs.

4.1.1. Multiplier form of selecting model

4. The proposed approach We extend the multiplier form of the BCC model and

propose the following multiplier form of selecting model

Consider n DMUs, each using m inputs to produce s out- to deal with selective measures:

puts, where n < max{3(m + s), m s}. In this situation, one X

s

approach for having a sharper discrimination among DMUs max z3 ur yro u0

is adopt an assurance region method or the cone ratio r1

has to have more information about the value of these Xm

i1

closely related to these facts. In the lack of such informa-

tion, two main methods can be applied to hold property

Xs X

m

ur yrj u0 v i xij 6 0 j 1; . . . ; n

(2): increasing the number of units (n) or decreasing the r1 i1

3

number of performance measures (m + s). In the rst X X nhni po

y x

method, we add some more DMUs for the evaluation, br bi 6 min ; 2 n jm1 j js1 j

r2s2 i2m2

3

meanwhile in the second method we ignore some inputs x x

and outputs. In practice, it is hardly possible to increase ebi 6 i 6 Mbiv i 2 m2

y y

the number of DMUs and consequently we resort to formu- ebr 6 ur 6 Mbr r 2 s2

late some models which optimally decrease the number of x y

bi ; br 2 f0; 1g i 2 m2 ; r 2 s2

performance measures.

Firstly suppose 3(m + s) = max{3(m + s), m s}. In this v i ; ur P e i 2 m1 ; r 2 s1

case, m + s [n/3] performance measures should be where e > 0 is a small number and M is a large positive

ignored in a way that the efciency scores of all DMUs number. In fact, the model (3) is an extended version of

decrease as much as possible. Note that decreasing the ef- the proposed model in [44] to consider VRS assumption.

ciency score of all DMUs leads to maximum discrimination For each selective input and output measure we introduce

among efcient DMUs. If one considers all possible input x y

the binary variables bi and br , respectively. What is left is

and output combinations, then model (2) must be solved to prove that the rule of thumb holds when one uses

Pn=31 m s model (3).

n i1 times. In a similar manner,

n=3 i i

the number of times that model (2) must be solved is Theorem 1. The selecting model (3) will meet the rule of

P m s thumb.

n ni1 when m s = max{3(m + s), m s}.

n=i i

Apparently, this method is inappropriate even for not a

very large set of performance measures. In this study, a Proof. See Appendix A. h

new approach is proposed to tackle this issue.

In some cases, the decision maker believes that some It should be mentioned here that if n < 36, then we have

p P y P x

performance measures are more important than others n=3 < 2 n and hence the constraint r2s2 br i2m2 bi 6

p

and we x these measures (as xed measures), and select minfn=3; 2 ng jm1 j js1 j leads to the constraint

32 M. Toloo, T. Tichy / Measurement 65 (2015) 2940

Ps y Pm x n X

n

r1 br i1 bi

jm1 j js1 j and otherwise it

6

Ps y

3

Pm x p kj yrj syr yro r 2 s1

implies the constraint r1 br i1 bi 6 2 n jm1 j j1

js1 j. X

n

x

Now suppose that a manger is interested in selecting kj xij sxi hxio M1 di i 2 m2

exactly p out of m2 selective inputs and q out of s2 selective j1

p

outputs, where p q 6 minfn=3; 2 ng jm1 j js1 j. This X

n

y

conditions will be easily established in model (3), when the kj yrj syr yro M1 dr r 2 s2

P y P x p j1

constraint r2s2 br i2m2 bi 6 minfn=3; 2 ng jm1 j X

P

x

di p

js1 j is replaced with two constraints i2m2 bi p and

P i2m2

r2s2 br q. Note that to select input and output measures, X y

we rst solve selecting model (3) and obtain a set of optimal dr q

x y

r2s2

bi and br for each DMU. If for the majority of the units

x y

X

n

bi 1br 1, then we select it as an input (output) mea- kj 1

sure. Now, the multiplier form of BCC model (1) can be used j1

di ; dr 2 f0; 1g i 2 m2 ; r 2 s2

If there is no priority in choosing selective measures

sxi ; syr P0 8i; 8r

(s1 = m1 = /), we propose following selecting model:

kj P 0 8j 5

X

s

max z4 ur yro u0 where M is a very large positive number and also p and q

r1

are two positive parameters such that p q 6

s:t: p

min n3 ; 2 n jm1 j js1 j.

Xm

In order to show the contribution of proposed model

v i xio 1

i1

(5), we state and prove a theorem which ensures the cor-

Xs X

m rect efciency score by keeping the rule of thumb:

ur yrj u0 v i xij 6 0 j 1; . . . ; n

r1 i1 Theorem 2. The presented model (5) will meet the rule of

X X nhni po

br

y x

bi 6 min ;2 n 4 thumb.

r2s2 i2m2

3

x x

e 6 vi 6

bi Mbi i 1; . . . ; m Proof. See Appendix A. h

y y

e 6 ur 6

br Mbr r 1; . . . ; s Now, we eliminate the nonlinear terms from the formu-

X

s

y

lated mixed integer nonlinear programming model (5).

br P1 Toward this end, we replace the nonlinear term by a new

r1

x y

variable on which a number of constraints is imposed. First

bi ; br 2 f0; 1g i 1; . . . ; m; r 1; . . . ; s x

for i e m2 let t xi di sxi and clearly what is left is to add some

v i ; ur P e i 1; . . . ; m; r 1; . . . ; s x

suitable constraint to have txi sxi when di 1 and other-

x

P y wise ti 0. This can be done by imposing the following

The constraint sr1 br P 1 is added to have at least one

P x restrictions to the model:

output measure. Note that the condition m i1 bi P 1 can be x

Pm

0 6 txi 6 Mdi

extracted form the rst constraint r1 v i xio 1 . Similar x

to the proof of Theorem 1, one can prove that model (4) sxi M1 di 6 t xi 6 sxi

fullls the rule of thumb. where M is a very large positive number. If di 0, then the

x

x

constraint sxi M1 di 6 t xi 6 sxi is redundant and on the

4.1.2. Envelopment form of selecting model other hand from the constraint 0 6 t xi 6 Mdi we have

x

ti 0. Otherwise (i.e. di 1) 0 6 ti 6 Mdi is redundant

tiplier and envelopment, which are mutually dual. This x

and the constraint sxi M1 di 6 txi 6 sxi converts to

section extends the envelopment form of selecting model. x x x x x

si 6 ti 6 si and hence t i si . In a similar manner, we let

As will be shown subsequently, although different forms of y

tyr dr syr for r e s2 and impose the following restrictions

selecting models are not mutually dual, they are related to the model:

together. y

We formulate the following envelopment form of 0 6 tyr 6 Mdr

y

selecting model: syr M1 dr 6 t yr 6 syr

! !

X X X x

X y As a result, the following mixed integer linear program-

max z5 h e sxi syr e di sxi dr syr ming is formulated:

i2m1 r2s1 i2m2 r2s2

! !

s:t: X X X X

max z6 h e sxi syr e t xi t yr

Xn

i2m1 r2s1 i2m2 r2s2

kj xij sxi hxio i 2 m1

j1 s:t:

M. Toloo, T. Tichy / Measurement 65 (2015) 2940 33

p

X

n

where p P 1; q P 1; p q 6 min n3; 2 n jm1 j js1 j.

kj xij sxi hxio i 2 m1 Notice that from p P 1 (q P 1) we have at least one input

j1

(output).

X

n

kj yrj syr yro r 2 s1 It is worth noting that unlike the multiplier and envel-

j1 opment forms of BCC model which are LP, the proposed

Xn

x

forms of selecting models are MIP. As a result, the optimal

kj xij sxi hxio M1 di i 2 m2 objective value of the multiplier form of selecting model

j1

(3), z4 , is not equal to the optimal objective value of the

X

n

y

kj yrj syr yro M1 dr r 2 s2 envelopment form model (6), z6 . The following theorem

j1 expresses the relation between these values:

X x

di p

Theorem 3. 0 < z6 6 z3 6 1.

i2m2

X y

dr q Proof. See Appendix A. h

r2s2

Xn

Indeed, these forms are not mutually dual and, as will

kj 1

j1

be illustrated by a real data set in banking industry, multi-

x plier form of selecting model selects the selective measures

0 t xi Mdi i 2 m2

x based on the maximum performance whereas the maxi-

sxi M1 di t xi sxi i 2 m2

y

mum discrimination among DMUs is considered in envel-

0 t yr Mdr i 2 s2 opment form.

y

sr M1 dr t yr syr

y

r 2 s2 In the proposed individual approaches, the manager

x y

di ; dr 2 f0; 1g i 2 m2 ; r 2 s2 solves the proposed multiplier or envelopment forms of

x y selecting models for each DMU and obtains a set of optimal

ti ; tr 0 i 2 m2 ; r 2 s2

x y x y

sxi ; syr 0 8i; 8r bi and br (or di and dr ) specic to that DMU. One criterion

kj 0 8j 6 for selecting measures would then be to base it on the

majority choice among the DMUs. Meanwhile in aggregate

If the manager has no priority over choosing selective approach, the manager makes decision based on a set of

x y x y

measures, in model (6) we can set s1 = m1 = / to achieve obtained optimal bi and br (or di and dr ) specic to all

following envelopment form of selecting model: DMUs. Such a model would be helpful if ties are encountered

! using the proposed selecting models (37) on an individual

X

m X

s

max z7 h e txi tyr DMU basis. In the following subsection, we adopt this aggre-

j1 r1 gate approach for both multiplier and envelopment forms.

s:t:

Xn 4.2. Selective measures and aggregate efciency

kj xij sxi hxio i 1; . . . ; m

j1 The overall performance of the collection of DMUs can

X

n

be considered as an alternative approach for selecting per-

kj yrj syr yro r 1; . . . ; s

j1

formance measures. To follow this viewpoint, we examine

Xn the efciency of the aggregate outputs to aggregate inputs

x

kj xij sxi hxio M1 di i 1; . . . ; m with the outlook on selective measures in this part. Specif-

j1 ically, we suggest the following MIPs to obtain the aggre-

Xn

y gate efciency in multiplier and envelopment forms:

kj yrj syr yro M1 dr r 1; . . . ; s

j1 Aggregate multiplier form

Xm

x Xs

di p 7 max z8 ~r u0

ur y

i1 r1

Xs

y

dr q s:t:

r1 Xm

Xn v i ~xi 1

kj 1 i1

j1 Xs X

m

txi

0 Mdi

x

i 1; . . . ; m ur yrj u0 v i xij 6 0 8j

x r1 i1

sxi M1 di txi sxi i 1; . . . ; m X y X x nhni po

y y br bi 6 min ;2 n

0 tr Mdr r 1; . . . ; s r2s

3

2 i2m 2

y

syr M1 dr tyr syr r 1; . . . ; s

x y

ebxi 6 v i 6 Mbxi 8i

di ; dr 2 f0; 1g i 1; . . . ; m; r 1; . . . ; s

ebyr 6 ur 6 Mbyr 8r

txi ; t yr 0 i 1; . . . ; m; r 1; . . . ; s

X

s

sxi ; syr 0 i 1; . . . ; m; r 1; . . . ; s y

br P 1

kj 0 j 1; . . . ; n r1

34 M. Toloo, T. Tichy / Measurement 65 (2015) 2940

x y

bi ; br 2 f0; 1g 8i; 8r nancial institutions from Eurozone) with just a few large

v i ; ur P e 8i; 8r 8 banks, although it can currently be regarded as highly

competitive, especially due to aggressive policy of small

Aggregate envelopment form banks in the retail segment.

! Even if data of some banks were omitted, Table 1 clearly

Xm X

s

max z9 h e x

ti y

tr shows that just three or four large banks make the market.

i1 r1 Even though, the market can currently be regarded as com-

s:t: petitive and innovative due to the presence of small banks.

Note nally, that the Czech banking sector can be regarded

Xn

kj xij sxi h~xi 8i as very stable and no serious impact of recent subprime

j1 crises was recorded, mainly due to public rescue of large

X

n banks in late 90s and their subsequent acquisition of Euro-

kj yrj syr y

~r 8r pean nancial institutions.

j1 In order to select the most important bank features, we

X

n

x follow Mostafa [32] who investigated 26 research papers

kj xij sxi h~xi M1 di 8i done on banking industry in different countries. The inputs

j1

and outputs that were applied in these studies are shown

X

n

kj yrj syr y

~r M1 dr 8r y in Table D.1 in Appendix D. Reference to the table shows

j1 that in more than 80% of the bank studies employee is con-

X

m sidered as an input and subsequently it is reasonable to

x

di p 9 consider it as a xed input. Considering the managers

i1 interests, availability of information and the most utilized

Xs

y measures in Table D.1, the inputs and outputs measures

dr q are suggested as follows:

r1

Inputs: Employees, Number of branches, Assets, Equity,

Xn

kj 1 Expenses.

j1 Outputs: Deposits, Loans, Non-interest income, Interest

0 txi Mdi

x

8i income.

x Table 1 exhibits the data set and the BCC-efciency

sxi M1 di t xi sxi 8i score. The last column in the table shows that 93% of banks

y

0 tyr Mdr 8r (i.e. 13 of 14) are efcient. Such result is questionable and

y is due to an inadequate number of performance measures.

syr M1 dr t yr syr 8r

x y To get an acceptable result, we have to decrease the num-

di ; dr 2 f0; 1g 8i; 8r

ber of performance measure such that n excess 3(m + s).

x y

ti ; tr 0 8i; 8r Toward this end, we rst apply the multiplier form of

sxi ; syr 0 8i; 8r selecting model (3) to the data set in Table 1. Reference

kj 0 8j to the optimal solution shows that Expenses is selected

input and Deposits and Loans are selected outputs.

where Table 2 summarizes all xed and selected data and also

X

n acceptable efciency score which is obtained by the BCC

~x xij i 1; . . . ; m model. As can be extracted from this table, there are 5 ef-

j1 cient banks out of 14 banks which shows the proposed

X

n

multiplier model is succeed in decreasing the percentage

~

y yrj r 1; . . . ; s of efcient DMUs from 93% to 36% with the maximum

j1

number of acceptable efcient DMU. Nevertheless, as will

In the next section, we utilize a real data set of banking be illustrated, the proposed envelopment form can

industry in order to show the applicability of the proposed decrease the number of efcient DMUs even more than

multiplier and envelopment approaches. multiplier form, but with the minimum number of accept-

able efcient DMU.

5. Application Notwithstanding the obtained BCC-efciency scores in

Table 1, these scores in Table 2 illustrate that the proposed

This section illustrates the proposed approach through multiplier form of selecting model is succeed in holding the

a real data set obtained from annual reports of 14 banks rule of thumb and achieving the satisfactory efciency

active in the Czech Republic (see Appendix B for their brief scores.

description). Following the ndings of Mostafa [32] we To decrease the number of efcient DMUs and discrim-

pick up the most important measures to analyze the ef- inate between them we apply the proposed envelopment

ciency of banking sector in the Czech Republic, a member form of selecting model (5) to the data set in Table 1 with

state of EU, which, however, has not joined the Eurozone p = 1, q = 2. The optimal solution implies that Number of

yet. The Czech Republic has relatively stable economy with Branches, Non-interest income and Loans are selective

close tights to Germany and its banking sector is highly measures. Last column of Table 3 demonstrates the

internationalized (majority of banks are owned by acceptable efciencies which are obtained by applying

M. Toloo, T. Tichy / Measurement 65 (2015) 2940 35

Table 1

Bank data and efciency score.

efciency

Employees No. of Assets Equity Expenses Deposits Loans Non-interest Interest

branches income income

AIR 400 18 33 600 2596 745 30 696 11 135 14 554 1

CMZRB 217 5 111 706 4958 566 86 967 16 813 634 1700 1

CS 10 760 658 920 403 93 190 18 259 688 624 489 103 15 412 37 717 1

CSOB 7801 322 937 174 73 930 16 087 629 622 479 516 8,747 32 697 1

EQB 296 13 8985 1296 601 7502 5611 19 215 1

ERB 72 1 33 614 464 173 2940 1762 15 131 1

FIO 59 36 18 561 726 347 17 174 6465 211 536 1

GEMB 3346 260 135 474 34 486 5276 97 063 101 898 3943 11 026 1

ING 293 10 128 425 913 1034 92 579 19 216 468 5139 1

JTB 407 3 85 087 7233 1333 62 085 39 330 487 3686 1

KB 8 758 399 786 836 100 577 13 511 579 067 451 547 8834 35 972 1

LBBW 365 18 31 300 2774 1138 20 274 2528 128 1046 0.8625

RB 2927 125 197 628 18 151 57 112 144 143 150 138 2829 8563 1

UCB 2004 98 318 909 38 937 13 804 195 120 192 046 2740 8891 1

Table 2

Selective measures obtained by multiplier form model and BCC-efciency score.

Employees Expenses Deposits Loans

AIR 400 745 30 696 11 135 0.5607

CMZRB 217 566 86 967 16 813 1

CS 10 760 18 259 688 624 489 103 1

CSOB 7801 16 087 629 622 479 516 1

EQB 296 601 7502 5611 0.4551

ERB 72 173 2940 1762 1

FIO 59 347 17 174 6465 1

GEMB 3346 5276 97 063 101 898 0.5875

ING 293 1034 92 579 19 216 1

JTB 407 1333 62 085 39 330 1

KB 8 758 13 511 579 067 451 547 1

LBBW 365 1138 20 274 2528 0.25

RB 2927 57 112 144 143 150 138 0.5346

UCB 2004 13 804 195 120 192 046 1

Table 3

Selective measures by envelopment form and BCC-efciency score.

Employees No. of branches Non-interest income Loans

AIR 400 18 14 11 135 0.3686

CMZRB 217 5 634 16 813 1

CS 10 760 658 15 412 489 103 1

CSOB 7801 322 8,747 479 516 1

EQB 296 13 19 5611 0.3419

ERB 72 1 15 1762 1

FIO 59 36 211 6465 1

GEMB 3346 260 3943 101 898 0.7704

ING 293 10 468 19 216 0.773

JTB 407 3 487 39 330 1

KB 8 758 399 8834 451 547 0.8591

LBBW 365 18 128 2528 0.256

RB 2927 125 2829 150 138 0.7506

UCB 2004 98 2740 192 046 1

the BCC model to the suggested data set. It can be forms of classifying models in the paper,

extracted that there are 7 efcient banks, and as a result, 4 4

336 14 optimization problems must be

the formulated selecting model successfully decreased 1 2

the percentage of efcient DMUs from 93% to 50%. solved. In other words, the formulated selecting models

It is worth to point out that to obtain the same results in this paper choice the selective measures with fairly

without utilizing the proposed multiplier or envelopment fewer computations.

36 M. Toloo, T. Tichy / Measurement 65 (2015) 2940

x

measure p is not selected. If bp 1, then the selective mea-

The efciency discrimination among DMUs is question-

sure p is selected since have v p > 0. In a similar manner,

able when the rule of thumb in the envelopment DEA mod- y

els is violated. Sometimes, the rule does not come across and we obtain uq 0 when bq 0 which means the selective

one way to tackle this issue is selecting some of inputs/out- output q is not selected. We also have uq > 0 when

puts in a manner that the efciency of each DMU or the y

bq 1. As a result, total number of considered inputs

aggregate efciency of all DMUs does not lessen. and output, including xed and selective measures, in

In this paper, we dealt with selecting inputs/outputs P x

selecting model (3) is equal to jm1 j i2m2 bi

and modied both multiplier and envelopment forms of P P P

y y x

BCC model to obtain two alternative selecting models that js1 j r2s2 br . Consider the constraint r2s2 br i2m2 bi

p

could select the performance measures so that the number 6 minfn=3; 2 ng jm1 j js1 j. If n=3 minfn=3;

of DMUs, inputs and outputs meet the rule of thumb. Indi- p P x

2 ng, then we have n P 3jm1 j i2m2 bi

vidual and aggregate versions of selecting models were P y p p

js1 j r2s2 br ; otherwise, i.e. 2 n minfn=3; 2 ng,

developed for both forms of formulated selecting models. P y P x p

In addition, if there are some xed performance measures, the constraint r2s2 br i2m2 bi 6 2 n jm1 j js1 j

p P x P y

then selective measures can be chosen through the intro- leads to 2 n P jm1 j i2m2 bi js1 j r2s2 br and

duced selecting models. The multiplier form of selecting consequently an easy calculation shows that

model gives us the maximum efciency scores whereas P x P y

n P jm1 j i2m2 bi js1 j r2s2 br . As a result, from

the maximum discrimination between efcient DMUs is

the optimal solution of the selecting model (3) we obtain

achieved by applying the envelopment form. The sug- n P P

x y

gested approaches have a major contribution to many of n P max 3 jm1 j i2m2 bi js1 j r2s2 br ; jm1 j

P P

the evaluating efciency topics. Potential use of the pro- x y

i2m2 bi js1 j r2s2 br g which completes the proof. h

posed approach was illustrated with application to bank-

ing industry.

Past research has examined the effect of holding the Proof of Theorem 2. Let i e m2 and r e s2. If di 1, then

Pn x x

rule of thumb in DEA on having a reliable and acceptable the constraint j1 kj xij si hxio M1 di changes to

Pn x

efciency scores (see Cooper et al. [14]). Nevertheless, it j1 kj xij si hxio which means input measure i is

is less clear how to select input and output measures. To Pn x

selected. Otherwise, the constraint j1 kj xij si hxio

summarize our contribution, we formulated some DEA x P n x

M1 di converts to j1 kj xij si hxio M which, for M

models which choose some measures in different condi- P

tions to keep the rule of thumb in DEA. sufciently large, implies that nj1 kj xij sxi hxio is redun-

Future research could use the proposed method of this dant and subsequently input measure i is not selected. Note

x

paper, with mirror modications, in various aspects. Deter- that in the objective function, the term di sxi considers slack

mining selective measures in other traditional DEA models, variables of selected inputs. Considering the number of

P x

such as additive, slacks-based measure, hybrids and non- xed-input measures, |m1|, and the constraint i2m2 di p

radial models, can be considered as some further research the total number of input measures is |m1| + p. Similarly, if

topics. Furthermore, the proposed formulated models in y Pn y

dr 1, then the constraint j1 kj yrj sr yro is active;

this study can be extended to handle selective measures in P y

otherwise it is redundant. The constraint r2s2 dr q

the presence of imprecise, negative data or fuzzy data sets.

implies that the total number of xed-output and selec-

tive-output measures is s1 + q. As a result, the number of

Acknowledgements measures in model (5) is m1 s 1 p q 6

p

minfn=3; 2 ng. This completes the proof. h

The project is a result of European Social Fund project

CZ.1.07/2.3.00/20.0296. The research of the rst author y x

Proof of Theorem 3. Let u ; u0 ; v ; b ; b and

was supported by the Czech Science Foundation (GACR x y x y

h ; k ; sx ; sy ; d ; d ; t ; t be the optimal solution of

Project 14-31593S). The second authors research was sup-

models (3) and (6), respectively. Consider model (5) and

ported through the Czech Science Foundation (GACR)

under project 13-13142S and furthermore by the European let m fijdxi 1g and s frjdyr 1g. It is easy to verify

Regional Development Fund in the IT4Innovations Centre that the optimal solution of the following envelopment

of Excellence Project (CZ.1.05/1.1.00/02.0070) and, an SGS form of BCC is h ; k ; sx ; sy :

Research Project of VSB-TU Ostrava. !

X X

max z10 h e sxi syr

i2m1 [m r2s1 [s

Appendix A

s:t:

A.1. Proof of theorems Xn

kj xij sxi hxio i 2 m1 [ m

j1

y x

Proof of Theorem 1. Let u ; u0 ; v ; b ; b be the opti- X

n

mal solution of selecting model (3). Consider a selective kj yrj syr yro r 2 s1 [ s

x j1

input, say p. If bp 0, then from the constraint

Table C.1

Papers containing practical applications.

Year DMUs Inputs Outputs

1 Diversication-consistent data envelopment analysis based on directional-distance measures M. Branda 2015 48 10 1

2 A Bounded Data Envelopment Analysis Model in a Fuzzy Environment with an Application to Safety in A. Hatami-Marbini, M. Tavana, K. Gholami, Z. Ghelej Beigi 2015 8 2 2

the Semiconductor Industry

3 Finding an initial basic feasible solution for DEA models with an application on bank industry M. Toloo, A. Masoumzadeh, M. Barat 2015 50 3 3

4 Interval data without sign restrictions in DEA A. Hatami-Marbini, A. Emrouznejad, P. J. Agrell 2014 20 3 2

5 A network DEA assessment of team efciency in the NBA P. Moreno, S. Lozano 2014 30 2 1

6 Incorporating health outcomes in Pennsylvania hospital efciency: an additive super-efciency DEA J. Du, J. Wang, Y. Chen, S.Y. Chou, J. Zhu 2014 119 4 3

approach

7 On relations between DEA-risk models and stochastic dominance efciency tests M. Branda, M. Kopa 2014 48 4 1

8 An Epsilon-free Approach for Finding the Most Efcient Unit in DEA M. Toloo 2014 12 2 2

9 The most cost efcient automotive vendor with price uncertainty: A new DEA approach M. Toloo, T. Ertay 2014 73 7 5

10 Finding the best asset nancing alternative: A DEA-WEO approach M. Toloo, A. Kraska 2014 139 4 1

11 Diversication-consistent data envelopment analysis with general deviation measures M. Branda 2013 25 4 1

12 Chance-constrained DEA models with random fuzzy inputs and outputs M. Tavana, R. Khanjani Shiraz, A. Hatami-Marbini, P.J. 2013 30 2 2

Agrell, K. Paryab

13 The most efcient unit without explicit inputs: An extended MILP-DEA model M. Toloo 2013 40 1 6

14 Assessment of the site effect vulnerability within urban regions by data envelopment analysis: A case A. Farzipour Saein, R. Farzipoor Saen 2013 20 3 1

study in Iran

15 Positive and normative use of fuzzy DEA-BCC models: A critical view on NATO enlargement A. Hatami-Marbini, M. Tavana, S. Saati, P.J. Agrell 2012 18 6 5

16 A common set of weight approach using an ideal decision making unit in data envelopment analysis S. Saati, A. Hatami-Marbini, P.J. Agrell, M. Tavana 2012 286 2 4

17 Alternative solutions for classifying inputs and outputs in data envelopment analysis M. Toloo 2012 50 2 3

18 Super-efciency infeasibility and zero data in DEA H.S. Lee, J. Zhu 2012 15 8 1

19 The examination of pseudo-allocative and pseudo-overall efciencies in DEA using shadow prices J.C. Paradi, F.K. Tam 2012 100 5 6

20 Reducing differences between proles of weights: A peer-restricted cross-efciency evaluation N. Ramon, J.L. Ruiz, I. Sirvent 2011 14 3 2

21 A cross-dependence based ranking system for efcient and inefcient units in DEA J.X. Chen, M. Deng 2011 20 2 2

22 Performance and congestion analysis of the Portuguese hospital services P. Simoes, R.C. Marques 2011 68 3 3

23 Employing post-DEA Cross-evaluation and Cluster Analysis in a sample of Greek NHS Hospitals A. Flokou, N. Kontodimopoulos, D. Niakas 2011 27 3 4

24 A neutral DEA model for cross-efciency evaluation and its extension Y.M. Wang, K.S. Chin 2010 14 3 2

25 Some alternative models for DEA cross-efciency evaluation Y.M. Wang, K.S. Chin 2010 7 3 3

26 Malmquist productivity index based on common-weights DEA: The case of Taiwan forests after C. Kao 2010 17 4 3

reorganization

27 A semi-oriented radial measure for measuring the efciency of decision making units with negative A. Emrouznejad, A.L. Anouze, E. Thanassoulis 2010 13 2 3

data, using DEA

28 A distance friction minimization approach in data envelopment analysis: A comparative study on S. Suzuki, P. Nijkamp, P. Rietveld, E. Pels 2010 30 4 2

airport efciency

29 Efciency evaluations with context-dependent and measure-specic data envelopment: An A. Ulucan, K. Bar 2010 81 2 6

application in a World Bank supported project

30 Measuring the performance of nancial holding companies C.M. Chao, M.M. Yu, M.C. Chen 2010 14 3 3

31 DEA model with shared resources and efciency decomposition Y. Chen, J. Dub, H.D. Sherman, J. Zhu 2010 27 3 3

32 DEA-based production planning J. Dua, L. Liang, Y. Chen, G. Bi 2009 20 2 5

33 DEA game cross-efciency approach to Olympic rankings J. Wu, L. Liang, Y. Chen 2009 62 2 3

34 A new method for ranking discovered rules from data mining by DEA M. Toloo, B. Sohrabi, S. Nalchigar 2009 46 1 4

35 A new integrated DEA model for nding most BCC-efcient DMU M. Toloo, S. Nalchigar 2009 19 2 4

36 Slacks-based efciency measures for predicting bank performance S.T. Liu 2009 24 3 3

37 Efciency measurement and ranking of the tutorial system using IDEA H.T. Lin 2009 20 1 2

38 The link between operational efciency and environmental impacts A joint application of Life Cycle S. Lozano, D. Iribarren, M.T. Moreira, G. Feijoo 2009 62 14 1

Assessment and Data Envelopment Analysis

37

38 M. Toloo, T. Tichy / Measurement 65 (2015) 2940

X

n

kj 1

Outputs j1

4 sxi P 0 i 2 m1 [ m

2

1

3

4

5

6

1

4

y

sr P 0 r 2 s1 [ s

Inputs

4

7

4

2

2

3

2

3

4

kj P 0 j 1; . . . ; n 10

Number of

DMUs

163

85

23

18

19

33

50

37

20

positive and less than or equal to 1 we have 0 < z10 6 1.

Consider the following dual model of (10):

2009

2009

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2004

Year

X

max z11 ur yro uo

r2s1 [s

A. Renner, J.M. Kirigia, E.A. Zere, S.P. Barry, D.G. Kirigia, C.

s:t:

X

v i xio 1

i2m1 [m 11

X X

ur yrj u0 v i xij 6 0 j 1; . . . ; n

r2s1 [s

i2m1 [m

vi P e i 2 m1 [ m

L. Liang, J. Wu, W.D. Cook, J. Zhu

ur P e r 2 s1 [ s

F.R. Forsund, L. Hjalmarsson

Let u 0 ; v

; u be the optimal solution of model (11).

Kamara, L. H.K. Muthur

T. Sueyoshi, M. Goto

W.D. Cook, J. Zhu

P.V. Geymueller

M.M. Mostafa

x

1; i 2 m y 1; r 2 s

b ;b

Author(s)

i r

0; i 2 m2 =m 0; r 2 s2 =s

Y. Chen

; u y ; b

; b x is a

feasible solution of model (3) with objective value z9 . Hence,

Technical efciency of peripheral health units in Pujehun district of Sierra Leone: a DEA application

we have z10 z11 6 z3 and what is left is to show that z3 6 1.

Static versus dynamic DEA in electricity regulation: the case of US transmission system operators

y x x y

u ; u0 ; v ; b ; b , and x b and b . If we redene

Methodological comparison between DEA and DEADA from the perspective of bankruptcy

fijbxi 1g and s frjbyr 1g, then u ; u0 ; v is an

m

optimal solution of the multiplier form of BCC model (11)

and hence 0 < z4 6 1 which completes the proof. h

Modeling the efciency of top Arab banks: A DEAneural network approach

Appendix B

Finding the most efcient DMUs in DEA: An improved integrated model

Alternative secondary goals in DEA cross-efciency evaluation

AIR Air Bank Small and very new

market participant

owned by Czech

Rank order data in DEA: A general framework

however, registered in

the Netherlands

CMZRB Ceskomoravsk A specialized banking

zrucn a institution managed by

Ranking efcient units in DEA

representatives in order

to support selected

market segments

CS Cesk sporitelna Large, traditional bank,

Table C.1 (continued)

assessment

Austria

Title

obchodn banka owned by KBC Bank,

No.

39

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

40

M. Toloo, T. Tichy / Measurement 65 (2015) 2940 39

Bank Full name Description Bank Full name Description

Belgium RB Raiffeisen Bank Mid-size, owned by

EQB Equa Bank Though existing for Austrian bank of the

more than 20 years, same name

former IC Banka, UCB UniCredit Bank Fourth largest bank after

currently owned by Czech Republic several mergers (HVB

Equa Group, Malta Bank, Bank Austria

ERB Evropsko-rusk Small and relatively Creditanstalt and

banka new, owned by a natural traditional Czech bank

person Zivnostensk banka),

FB Fio Banka Small, though exiting currently owned by

more than 20 years, Austrian bank of the

owned by Fio holding, respective name, which

Czech Republic is owned by Italian

GEMB GE Money Bank Mid-size, owned by GE UniCredit

Holding, USA

ING ING Bank N.V. Midsize branch of

foreign bank

JTB J&T Bank Small to mid-size, Appendix C

owned indirectly by two

natural persons Practical applications in DEA.

KB Komercn banka Large, traditional bank See Table C.1.

owned by Societe

General, France Appendix D

LBBW LBBW Bank CZ Small, owned by

Landesbank Baden- Inputoutput measures in bank studies

Wurttemberg, Germany See Table D.1.

Table D.1

Inputs and outputs in bank studies adapted from Mostafa [32].

Employees 22 84.62 Loans 12 46.15

Expenses 11 42.31 Number of transactions 8 30.77

Space 5 19.23 Deposits 7 26.92

Terminals 5 19.23 Non- interest income 7 26.92

Capital 5 19.23 Interest income 5 19.23

Deposits 4 15.38 customer response 3 11.54

Assets 4 15.38 Revenues 3 11.54

Number of branches 4 15.38 Prot 3 11.54

Rent 3 11.54 Investment in securities 3 11.54

Number of accounts 3 11.54 Advances 2 7.69

Credit application 2 7.69 Current accounts 2 7.69

ATMs 2 7.69 Error corrections 1 3.85

Location 2 7.69 Liability sales 1 3.85

Costs 2 7.69 Maintenance 1 3.85

Marketing 2 7.69 Marketed balances 1 3.85

Selected nancial ratios 1 3.85 Selected nancial ratios 1 3.85

Supplier 1 3.85 Insurance commission 1 3.85

Acquired equipment 1 3.85 Satisfaction 1 3.85

Funds from customers 1 3.85 ROA 1 3.85

Loanable funds 1 3.85 ROE 1 3.85

Counter transactions 1 3.85

Net worth 1 3.85

Borrowings 1 3.85

Loans 1 3.85

Size 1 3.85

Sale FTE 1 3.85

City employment rate 1 3.85

40 M. Toloo, T. Tichy / Measurement 65 (2015) 2940

References [28] H.T. Lin, Efciency measurement and ranking of the tutorial system

using IDEA, Expert Syst. Appl. 36 (2009) 1123311239.

[29] S.T. Liu, Slacks-based efciency measures for predicting bank

[1] G.R. Amin, M. Toloo, Finding the most efcient DMUs in DEA: an

performance, Expert Syst. Appl. 36 (2009) 28132818.

improved integrated model, Comput. Ind. Eng. 52 (2007) 7177.

[30] S. Lozano, D. Iribarren, M.T. Moreira, G. Feijoo, The link between

[2] G.R. Amin, M. Toloo, A polynomial-time algorithm for nding Epsilon

operational efciency and environmental impacts: a joint

in DEA models, Comput. Oper. Res. 31 (5) (2004) 803805.

application of life cycle assessment and data envelopment

[3] R.D. Banker, A. Charnes, W.W. Cooper, Models for estimation of

analysis, Sci. Total Environ. 407 (2009) 17441754.

technical and scale inefciencies in data envelopment analysis,

[31] P. Moreno, S. Lozano, A network DEA assessment of team efciency

Manage. Sci. 30 (1984) 10781092.

in the NBA, Ann. Oper. Res. 214 (2014) 99124.

[4] M. Branda, Diversication-consistent data envelopment analysis

[32] M.M. Mostafa, Modeling the efciency of top Arab banks: a DEA-

based on directional-distance measures, Omega 52 (2015) 6576.

neural network approach, Expert Syst. Appl. 36 (2009) 309320.

[5] M. Branda, Diversication-consistent data envelopment analysis

[33] J.C. Paradi, F.K. Tam, The examination of Pseudo-allocative and

with general deviation measures, Eur. J. Oper. Res. 226 (2013) 626

pseudo-overall efciencies in DEA using shadow prices, J. Product.

635.

Anal. 37 (2012) 115123.

[6] M. Branda, M. Kopa, On relations between DEA-risk models and

[34] N. Ramon, J. Ruiz, I. Sirvent, Reducing differences between proles of

stochastic dominance efciency tests, Central Eur. J. Oper. Res. 22

weights: a peer-restricted cross-efciency evaluation, Omega 39

(2014) 1315.

(2011) 634641.

[7] C.M. Chao, M.M. Yu, M.C. Chen, Measuring the performance of

[35] A. Renner, J.M. Kirigia, E.A. Zere, S.P. Barry, D.G. Kirigia, C. Kamara,

nancial holding companies, Serv. Ind. J. 30 (2010) 811829.

L.H.K. Muthuri, Technical efciency of peripheral health units in

[8] A. Charnes, W.W. Cooper, E. Rhodes, Measuring the efciency of

Pujehun district of Sierra Leone: a DEA application, BMC Health Serv.

decision making units, Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2 (1978) 429444.

Res. 5 (2005) 77.

[9] A. Charnes, W.W. Cooper, E. Rhodes, Short communication:

[36] S. Saati, A. Hatami-Marbini, P.J. Agrell, M. Tavana, A common set of

measuring the efciency of decision making units, Eur. J. Oper. Res.

weight approach using an ideal decision making unit in data

3 (1979) 339.

envelopment analysis, J. Ind. Manage. Optim. 8 (3) (2012) 623637.

[10] J.X. Chen, M. Deng, A cross-dependence based ranking system for

[37] P. Simoes, R.C. Marques, Performance and congestion analysis of the

efcient and inefcient units in DEA, Expert Syst. Appl. 38 (2011)

Portuguese hospital services, Central Eur. J. Oper. Res. 19 (2011) 39

96489655.

63.

[11] Y. Chen, Ranking efcient units in DEA, Omega 32 (2004) 213219.

[38] T. Sueyoshi, M. Goto, Methodological comparison between DEA

[12] Y. Chen, J. Dub, H.D. Sherman, J. Zhu, DEA model with shared

(data envelopment analysis) and DEA-DA (discriminant analysis)

resources and efciency decomposition, Eur. J. Oper. Res. 207 (2010)

from the perspective of bankruptcy assessment, Eur. J. Oper. Res. 199

339349.

(2009) 561575.

[13] W.D. Cook, J. Zhu, Rank order data in DEA: a general framework, Eur.

[39] S. Suzuki, P. Nijkamp, P. Rietveld, E. Pels, A distance friction

J. Oper. Res. 174 (2006) 10211038.

minimization approach in data envelopment analysis: a

[14] W.W. Cooper, L.M. Seiford, K. Tone, Data Envelopment Analysis: A

comparative study on airport efciency, Eur. J. Oper. Res. 207

Comprehensive Text with Models, Applications, References and

(2010) 11071115.

DEA-Solver Software, 2nd ed., Springer, Berlin, 2007.

[40] M. Tavana, R. Khanjani Shiraz, A. Hatami-Marbini, P.J. Agrell, K.

[15] A. Farzipour Saein, R. Farzipoor Saen, Assessment of the site effect

Paryab, Chance constrained DEA models with random fuzzy inputs

vulnerability within urban regions by data envelopment analysis: a

and outputs, Knowl.-Based Syst. 52 (2013) 3252.

case study in Iran, Comput. Geosci. 48 (2012) 280288.

[41] M. Toloo, Alternative solutions for classifying inputs and outputs in

[16] J. Du, J. Wang, Y. Chen, S.Y. Chou, J. Zhu, Incorporating health

data envelopment analysis, Comput. Math. Appl. 63 (2012) 1104

outcomes in Pennsylvania hospital efciency: an additive super-

1110.

efciency DEA approach, Ann. Oper. Res. 221 (2014) 161172.

[42] M. Toloo, An epsilon-free approach for nding the most efcient unit

[17] J. Dua, L. Liang, Y. Chen, G. Bi, DEA-based production planning,

in DEA, Appl. Math. Model. 38 (13) (2014) 31823192.

Omega 38 (2010) 105112.

[43] M. Toloo, The most efcient unit without explicit inputs: an

[18] A. Emrouznejad, A.L. Anouze, E. Thanassoulis, A semi-oriented radial

extended MILP-DEA model, Measurement 46 (2013) 36283634.

measure for measuring the efciency of decision making units with

[44] M. Toloo, M. Barat, A. Masoumzadeh, Selective measures in data

negative data, using DEA, Eur. J. Oper. Res. 200 (2010) 297304.

envelopment analysis, Ann. Oper. Res. (2015), http://dxdoi.org/

[19] A. Flokou, N. Kontodimopoulos, D. Niakas, Employing post-DEA

10.1007/s10479-014-1714-3.

cross-evaluation and cluster analysis in a sample of greek NHS

[45] M. Toloo, T. Ertay, The most cost efcient automotive vendor with

hospital, J. Med. Syst. 35 (2011) 10011014.

price uncertainty: a new DEA approach, Measurement 52 (2014)

[20] F.R. Forsund, L. Hjalamarsson, Are all scales optimal in DEA? Theory

135144.

and empirical evidence, J. Product. Anal. 21 (2004) 2548.

[46] M. Toloo, A. Kraska, Finding the best asset nancing alternative: a

[21] P.V. Geymueller, Static versus dynamic DEA in electricity regulation:

DEA-WEO approach, Measurement 55 (2014) 288294.

the case of US transmission system operators, Central Eur. J. Oper.

[47] M. Toloo, A. Masoumzadeh, M. Barat, Finding an initial basic feasible

Res. 17 (2009) 397413.

solution for DEA models with an application on bank industry,

[22] A. Hatami-Marbini, A. Emrouznejad, P.J. Agrell, Interval data without

Comput. Econ. (2015), http://dxdoi.org/10.1007/s10614-014-9423-

sign restrictions in DEA, Appl. Math. Model. 38 (2014) 20282036.

1.

[23] A. Hatami-Marbini, M. Tavana, K. Gholami, Z. Ghelej Beigi, A

[48] M. Toloo, S. Nalchigar, A new integrated DEA model for nding most

bounded data envelopment analysis model in a fuzzy environment

BCC-efcient DMU, Appl. Math. Model. 33 (2009) 597604.

with an application to safety in the semiconductor industry, J.

[49] M. Toloo, B. Sohrabi, S. Nalchigar, A new method for ranking

Optim. Theory Appl. 164 (2015) 679701.

discovered rules from data mining by DEA, Expert Syst. Appl. 36

[24] A. Hatami-Marbini, M. Tavana, S. Saati, P.J. Agrell, Positive and

(2009) 85038508.

normative use of fuzzy DEABCC models: a critical view on NATO

[50] A. Ulucan, K. Bar, Efciency evaluations with context-dependent and

enlargement, Int. Trans. Oper. Res. 20 (3) (2012) 411433.

measure-specic data envelopment: an application in a World Bank

[25] A. Kao, Malmquist productivity index based on common-weights

supported project, Omega 38 (2010) 6883.

DEA: the case of Taiwan forests after reorganization, Omega 38

[51] Y.M. Wang, K.S. Chin, Some alternative models for DEA cross-

(2010) 484491.

efciency evaluation, Int. J. Product. Econ. 128 (2010) 332338.

[26] H.S. Lee, J. Zhu, Super-efciency infeasibility and zero data in DEA,

[52] Y.M. Wang, K.S. Chin, A neutral DEA model for cross-efciency

Eur. J. Oper. Res. 216 (2012) 429433.

evaluation and its extension, Exp. Syst. Appl. 37 (2010) 36663675.

[27] L. Liang, J. Wu, W.D. Cook, J. Zhu, Alternative secondary goals in DEA

[53] J. Wu, L. Liang, Y. Chen, DEA game cross-efciency approach to

cross-efciency evaluation, Int. J. Product. Econ. 113 (2008) 1025

Olympic rankings, Omega 37 (2009) 909918.

1030.

- A-Super-Efficiency-Model-for-Evaluating-Efficiency-in-the-Presence-of-Time-Lag-Effect.pdfUploaded byMiftahul Rizky Cahya Putra
- Math ThinkingUploaded byellyibrahim
- 146-8588969305470805808Uploaded byRashid Naweed Rashid
- Ashish Final Project (1)Uploaded bychhaperia_tinu
- MathsUploaded byThandolwetu Sipuye
- Manual FreefemUploaded byTarak Kharrat
- ijeepaperUploaded byHemal Pandya
- 605-632Uploaded byTuu Tue
- Response to Why Math WorksUploaded bySourabh Das
- 150046062-1-Survey-docxUploaded byGiantan_6
- QUploaded bySabhari Ram
- Design-of-Steel-Structures-EC3.pdf.pdfUploaded bymusiomi2005
- Public Sector Efficiency LA Wp202013 (1)Uploaded byDiego Retamozo Castillo
- i005_article_2012_02.pdfUploaded byMarija Pavlovic
- Averch Johnson ElectricityUploaded bykaziamid
- Measures of Efficiency in the Takaful Industry of Bangladesh-A Non-Parametric ApproachUploaded byAlexander Decker
- lesson plan 2 reflectionUploaded byapi-309363754
- Ep 10899909Uploaded byscribdir
- PrivatizationUploaded byHadiBies
- Linear modeling in Transportation problem: Need of reliable Public transportation system in Madhya Pradesh with special reference to Gwalior division”Uploaded byInternational Organization of Scientific Research (IOSR)
- ued496 vanzyl joanne journal entry 5Uploaded byapi-445489365
- Sarkis ChapterUploaded byrkgcr7
- SSRN-id2846683Uploaded byMohamed Hussien
- ecp549_enUploaded byP K Thakur
- PSE PSP Amerika LatinUploaded byOkto Cahyana
- 1-s2.0-S187705091000459X-mainUploaded byBenjamin Naula
- Ian Vazquez, Combined application of LCA ....pdfUploaded byСања Вучковић
- DEA IntroductionUploaded byworld4me
- Introduction to DEAUploaded byworld4me
- SynopsisUploaded byKanika

- Production Efficiency of Chinese Banks a RevisitUploaded byDavid Adeabah Osafo
- Board Demographic Diversity, Independence, And Corporate Social PerformanceUploaded byDavid Adeabah Osafo
- Does Corporate Governance Structures Promote Shareholders or Stakeholders Value Maximization_ Evidence From African BanksUploaded byDavid Adeabah Osafo
- CG-01-2015-0007Uploaded byDavid Adeabah Osafo
- Firm-level Determinants of Gender Diversity in the Boardrooms_Evidence From Some Emerging MarketsUploaded byDavid Adeabah Osafo
- Almeida and Divino (2015)Uploaded byDavid Adeabah Osafo
- Agostino, Leonida and Trivieri (2005)Uploaded byDavid Adeabah Osafo
- Board diversity and its effects on bank performance_An international analysis.pdfUploaded byDavid Adeabah Osafo
- Evaluation of Bank Branches by Means of Data Envelopment Analysis.pdfUploaded byDavid Adeabah Osafo
- Performance Benchmarking and Strategic Homogeneity of Indian BanksUploaded byDavid Adeabah Osafo
- Financial Development, International Migrant Remittances and Endogenous Growth in GhanaUploaded byDavid Adeabah Osafo
- Efficiency and Productivity of Banking Sector a Critical Analysis of Literature and Design of Conceptual ModelUploaded byDavid Adeabah Osafo
- Evaluating the Cost Efficiency of Insurance Companies in GhanaUploaded byDavid Adeabah Osafo
- Female Directors in Bank Boardrooms and Their Influence on Performance and Risk TakingUploaded byDavid Adeabah Osafo
- Firm Operation Performance Analysis Using Data Envelopment Analysis and Balanced Scorecard-A Case Study of a Credit Cooperative BankUploaded byDavid Adeabah Osafo
- History Lessons DEAUploaded byDavid Adeabah Osafo
- Islamic Banks_Efficiency and Its Determinants in PakistanUploaded byDavid Adeabah Osafo
- Interpretation of Modelling Results in Data Envelopment AnalysisUploaded byDavid Adeabah Osafo
- Market Structure, Efficiency and Profitability of Insurance Companies in GhanaUploaded byDavid Adeabah Osafo
- Measuring Efficiency, Effectiveness and Performance of Indian Public Sector BanksUploaded byDavid Adeabah Osafo
- Modeling the Operating Efficiency of Banks a Nonparametric MethodologyUploaded byDavid Adeabah Osafo
- On the Cross-methodological Validation of Bank Efficiency AssessmentsUploaded byDavid Adeabah Osafo
- Predicting Change in Bank Efficiency in Jordan a Data Envelopment AnalysisUploaded byDavid Adeabah Osafo
- Data Envelopment Analysis as Nonparametric Least Squares RegressionUploaded byDavid Adeabah Osafo
- Cost and Profit Efficiency of Conventional and Islamic Banks in GCC CountriesUploaded byDavid Adeabah Osafo
- Data Envelopment Analysis, Operational Research and UncertainityUploaded byDavid Adeabah Osafo
- A Bootstrap Approach to Analyse Productivity Growth in European BankingUploaded byDavid Adeabah Osafo
- Profit Efficiency in the European Union Banking Industry_ a Directional Technology Distance FunctionUploaded byDavid Adeabah Osafo
- Quantifying Management's Role in Bank Survival Using DEA_The Case of JamaicaUploaded byDavid Adeabah Osafo

- 22jjUploaded byMircea Baciu
- CIVL5458 2014 Semester 1 StudentUploaded bySuman Saha
- Mahathir Bin Mohammad as National EquivocatorUploaded byubers
- 46904-01-ban-iee.pdfUploaded byMasnun Rahman
- What is a Kidney TransplantUploaded bySandesh Gurung
- Chenone Project Report MmUploaded byBilal Naseer
- STAGE PLAYUploaded byKlaribelle Villaceran
- 3º TESTE 5º ANO-Ing.docxUploaded byamandahowarth8909
- isobel raphaelUploaded byapi-326507735
- Residential differentiation and communities in the cityUploaded byIshanie Niyogi
- 2nd Cainan - Luke 3_36 vs Genesis 11_12Uploaded bywallace santana
- A Prospective Study of the Oral Manifestations of Crohn’sUploaded byRizqi Ammaliyyah II
- 2.General Welding TerminologyUploaded byAl Amin Zubir
- ReEd Comparative Study OutlineUploaded byMart Dumali Sambalud
- FInal Exam ReviewUploaded bySwathi Shetty
- The New Environment for Intelligence.pptxUploaded byŁukasz Ostrowski
- ChatLog Search Engine Marketing_ Weekday 2015-08-04 21_33Uploaded byJohn Sey
- mcs_table.odpUploaded byAli Mhamadi AliHamada Chahidi
- Breast CancerUploaded byJCneri
- zaha hadid-Herault Culture SportUploaded bykienviet
- NT_Manual(1)Uploaded byyes_4u89
- Dalrymple Theodore - Junk Medicine - Doctors, Lies and the Addiction Bureaucracy (2006)Uploaded byAleksanderCostaPinto
- WSJT-X Users GuideUploaded bysaguaroastro
- Boonyawat 2017Uploaded bymary
- 02 Aga Bagoes Ardiansyah 7fkhususUploaded byAga Bagoes Ardiansyah
- History Spring08Uploaded byAnonymous 9VcxlFErf
- Cover Ijsbar With Impact FactorUploaded byAnonymous 7nqz5kv
- Surveying and Levelling Instruments Theoretically and Practically DescribedUploaded byRaju Vraju
- Cost Definition and ClassificationUploaded byKristine Sangalang
- Monopoly by Komilla ChadhaUploaded byKomilla Chadha