2019 8th International Conference on Modeling Simulation and Applied Optimization (ICMSAO)

Solving DEA models in spreadsheets and modeling

languages
Josef Jablonsky
Department of Econometrics
University of Economics, Prague
13067 Praha 3, Czech Republic
email: jablon@vse.cz
ORCID: 0000-0003-0606-354X

Abstract—Data envelopment analysis (DEA) models are Maximize

tools for efficiency and performance evaluation of a set of r
decision-making units (DMUs). They are formulated as linear
programming problems that have to be solved for each DMU of
 uk yqk
k 1
the given set. The paper discusses problems with solving DEA
q  m
models and presents an original system written in LINGO  v j xqj
modeling language and using MS Excel as the user's interface. j 1
This system covers main DEA models including multiplier and
envelopment models, models for ranking of DMUs, network subject to (2)
models, etc. Depending on the version of the LINGO system the r
DEA solver can analyze problems from 200 until the unlimited
number of DMUs.
 uk yik
k 1
m
 1, i  1,..., n,
Keywords—data envelopment analysis, modeling languages,
LINGO, MS Excel, solver
 v j xij
j 1

I. INTRODUCTION
The history of data envelopment analysis (DEA) models
started in 1978 when Charnes, Cooper and Rhodes published
their pioneering work [1]. In general, they define efficiency as
the level of transformation of inputs into outputs, and the
efficiency score of the i-th decision-making unit (DMUi,
i = 1,…,n) as the weighted sum of its outputs divided by the
weighted sum of inputs as shown in (1):
v j   , uk   ,
where  is an infinitesimal constant that ensures strict
positivity of the weights. Model (2) is not linear but can be
easily transformed into a linear program using Charnes-
Cooper transformation. The linearized version of input-
oriented CCR model is as follows:
Maximize
r

r
 uk yqk ,
k 1
 uk yik subject to (3)
k 1
 i    m
m
 v j xij  v j xqj  1,
j 1
j 1
r m

where xij, j = 1,…, m, is the non-negative value of the j-th input

 uk yik   v j xij  0, i  1,..., n,
k 1 j 1
for the DMUi, yik, k = 1,…, r, is the non-negative value of the
k-th output for the same unit, and vj, j = 1,…, m, and uk, v j   , uk   .
k = 1,…, r, are the weights of the inputs and outputs,
respectively. In this way, the efficiency score i of the DMUi Model (3) is often denoted as the multiplier version of
is a measure of the transformation of m inputs into r outputs. CCR input-oriented model. The dual problem to (3) is the
envelopment CCR input-oriented model:
In DEA models, the efficiency score (1) is not considered
absolutely but relatively with respect to other units of the set. Minimize
The model introduced in [1] maximizes the efficiency score of  m r 
the unit under evaluation under the assumption that the q    s j   sk 
efficiency scores of all other units are lower or equal than 1.  j 1 
 k 1 
This model (often denoted as CCR model) looks as follows: subject to (4)
n
 xij λi  s j  θq xqj , j  1,...,m,
i 1
n
 yik λi  sk  yqk , k  1,...,r,
i 1
The research is supported by the Grant Agency of the Czech Republic,
project no. 19-08985S, Models for efficiency and performance evaluation
in non-homogeneous economic environment.

XXX-X-XXXX-XXXX-X/XX/$XX.00 ©20XX IEEE

978-1-5386-7684-4/19/$31.00 ©2019 IEEE

 2019 8th International Conference on Modeling Simulation and Applied Optimization (ICMSAO)
sk  0, k  1,..., r ,
s j  0, j  1,..., m,
i  0, i  1,..., n.
Output-oriented versions (multiplier and envelopment) of
the CCR model can be derived in a similar way. Since 1978,
many modifications of the CCR model have been formulated.
Banker, Charnes and Cooper [2] extended the formulations
above by different assumptions about returns to scale. Models
(3) and (4) assume constant returns to scale, i.e. define the
conic envelope of the data set. In order to consider variable
(VRS), non-increasing (NIRS) or non-decreasing (NDRS)
returns to scale model (4) have to be extended by one of the
following constraints:
n models (3) and (4) and several of their modifications,
VRS  i  1,
i 1
n Except for those rather commercial software tools, one
NIRS  i  1, (5)
i 1
n designed as an add-in application for MS Excel and used
NDRS  i  1.
i 1
The multiplier form (3) of the CCR model must be modified
accordingly. The units under evaluation are identified as
efficient if their efficiency scores (objective functions of
models (3) or (4)) equal to 1, lower values indicate
inefficiency.
Next Section of the paper informs about several most
important commercial and academic solvers for DEA models.
Section 3 describes in detail the system for solving DEA
models created by the authors. Its properties and advantages
are shortly discussed in the final Section of the paper.
II. SOLVING DEA MODELS
In order to verify the level of efficiency, the presented
DEA models have to be solved n times, where n is the number
of DMUs. That is why decision makers interested in using
DEA models need appropriate software tools. There are
several commercial DEA solvers but they are not free, and
their availability is limited. Among the most known DEA
solvers belong:
 Frontier Analyst version 4 (www.banxia.com) which
is one of the first commercial solvers for DEA models.
It is oriented rather on managerial use and not suitable
for research because the system covers a quite limited
number of models. The top version allows solving
problems with 20000 DMUs and 32 variables (inputs
and outputs).
 Performance Improvement Management (PIM) DEA
software (www.deasoftware.co.uk) is a better option
for both managerial and research purposes than the
previous one. It is cheaper and includes a much higher
number of DEA models of various categories.
 DEA Solver Pro 12.1 (www.saitech-inc.com) is the
tool that is based on the textbook Cooper, Seiford and
Tone [3] and supports all models included in this
book. It means the number of models is high but newer
versions of models are not included. The price of this
solver does not depend on the number of DMU as in
the previous two cases.
 DEA Frontier Excel add-in (www.deafrontier.net) is
an MS Excel add-in application created by J. Zhu.
This solver contains all models included in the
author's book [4], i.e. the number of models if high and
is still being extended. A free version of this software
is limited by 20 DMUs and a selection of available
models.
 MaxDEA Ultra (Basic) version 7 (www.maxdea.cn)
includes probably the highest number of DEA models
(Ultra version) at all. It is an exciting option for all
individuals interested in efficiency and performance
evaluation. Basic version allows solving problems
with the unlimited number of DMUs using traditional
and it is free.
can find several free solvers with different capabilities and
user's comfort. Some time ago we created a solver that was
in/built Excel optimization tool for solving linear programs
within DEA models. More information about this system can
be found in [5]. This tool was and still is downloadable from
author's web pages, but it has several disadvantages. It is
limited to problems up to 200 DMUs which is given by limits
of standard solver in MS Excel, and it is quite slow. Another
problem is a quite difficult extension of the system by other
models. That is why we have decided to create a new system
that will cover a higher number of models and will be
available to interested users easily even for a higher number
of DMUs. This new system uses MS Excel similarly that the
previous one but uses LINGO solver as an external linear
programming solver.
III. MS EXCEL/LINGO DEA SOLVER
LINGO is a modeling language and system with several
favorable properties concerning our goals. See Schrage [6]
for more details. Among its main advantages belong:
 The model written in LINGO modeling language is
general and can be used for any data sets of any sizes.
 The model can read data sets from MS Excel sheet and
export its results back MS Excel.
 LINGO commands allow repeating of calculations of
the same model with different parameters which is the
case of DEA models.
 LINGO models can be easily modified which is
especially crucial for DEA models that often differ not
significantly in their mathematical formulation.
 LINGO models can be placed directly to a hidden
Excel sheet and run using a simple VBA procedure.
This property allows building a library of models that
can be called from MS Excel menu.
 LINGO linear solver has better properties (is faster)
than in-built Excel solver.
For illustration purposes, we will show how close the
model written in LINGO language is to its mathematical
 2019 8th International Conference on Modeling Simulation and Applied Optimization (ICMSAO)

formulation. We will use the envelopment form of CCR B. Multiplier models

model (4):
The same models as in the previous case but in their
MODEL: multiplier form. The user can choose input or output
SETS: orientation of the model and one of four assumptions for
INP/@OLE('datadea.xlsx')/:SMIN; returns to scale. Output information given by this group of
OUT/@OLE('datadea.xlsx')/:SPLUS; models are:
DMU/@OLE('datadea.xlsx')/:LAMBDA, ESCORE;
MATX(DMU,INP): X;  Efficiency scores,
MATY(DMU,OUT): Y;
ENDSETS  Target values for inefficient units (how to improve
their input/outputs to reach the efficient frontier), and
DATA:
X, Y = @OLE('datadea.xlsx');  Multipliers for inputs and outputs, i.e. optimal values
EPS = 10E-8; of variables vj, j = 1,…, m, and uk, k = 1,…, r.
ENDDATA
C. Slack-based measure (SBM) models
MIN = THETA - EPS*(@SUM(INP:SMIN) +
@SUM(OUT:SPLUS)); SBM models measure the distance of inefficient units from
@FOR(INP(J): @SUM(DMU(I): X(I,J)*LAMBDA(I)) the efficient frontier using slack and surplus variables
+ SMIN(J) = THETA*X(Q,J)); s j , j  1,..., m , and sk , k  1,..., r. This group of models con-
@FOR(OUT(K): @SUM(DMU(I): Y(I,K)*LAMBDA(I)) -
SPLUS(K) = Y(Q,K));
tains the following three modules in our application:
 Additive model with different assumptions about
CALC: returns to scale. These models are identical to
@FOR(DMU(P): Q = P;
formulation (4) after removing radial variable q and
@SOLVE();
ESCORE(P) = THETA;); an infinitesimal constant  from the objective function.
ENDCALC  Weighted additive model is identical to the previous
case but allows adding weights of the slacks/surpluses
DATA:
to the objective function.
@OLE('datadea.xlsx') = ESCORE;
ENDDATA  SBM model introduced in Tone [7]. Recently, this
END model belongs among very popular DEA models in
This LINGO model reads the names of inputs, outputs and various applications. Instead of the sum of slacks and
DMUs from the ranges of the file datadea.xlsx INP, OUT, surpluses, this model minimizes the following
and DMU respectively. The matrices of inputs and outputs expression:
are read from ranges X and Y. The results (in this case
1 m 
efficiency scores of all DMUs) are exported to the range
ESCORE of the same file.
1
m j 1

 s j / xqj 
q  (6)
For the case of variable returns to scale the LINGO model 1 r
can be easily modified by adding the row 
1   sk / yqk
r k 1

@SUM(DMU: LAMBDA) = 1;
Constraints of the model are the same as in the previous
to the body of the model. two cases. The objective function is not linear, but as
The system we created consists of several groups of DEA proposed in [7] it can be linearized, and our solver uses
models that will be described briefly below. this linearized version.
The DMUs under evaluation are efficient according to the
A. Envelopment models SBM models if all slack and surplus variables are 0, i.e. the
This group of models contains traditional input-oriented objective function of additive models is 0 and Tone's SBM
model (4) and its output-oriented modification. Both models model is 1. Otherwise, the DMUs are inefficient.
can be extended by assumptions about returns to scales (VRS, This module of the system returns the output information
NIRS, NDRS) by adding one of the constraints (5). The in the same structure as envelopment models.
following is the main information offered by this group of
models for all DMUs: D. Models for ranking of efficient DMUs
 Efficiency scores, Even though the main aim of DEA models is not to rank
 Target values for inefficient units (how to improve the DMUs, decision makers often require a ranking of the
their input/outputs to reach the efficient frontier), and DMus within the given set. All models of first three groups
split the DMUs into two classes – efficient and inefficient. The
 Non-zero weights of DMUs (peers) – optimal values inefficient ones can be ranked using their efficiency score
of i, i = 1,…, n, variables. given by the DEA model applied, but the efficient ones cannot
be raked using this measure because their efficiency scores are
identical. To distinguish among the efficient units, various
models on various methodological principles have been
 2019 8th International Conference on Modeling Simulation and Applied Optimization (ICMSAO)
proposed in the past. Our application contains three of them
that belong probably the most often used models of this
category:
 Super-efficiency model introduced by Andersen and
Petersen in [8]. This model is identical to model (4),
only removes the unit under evaluation from the set of
DMUs, i.e. the weight of this unit q = 0. In this way,
the efficiency score of the inefficient units remains
unchanged, but the score for efficient units is greater
than 1 which allows their ranking.
1 m *
 x j / xqj
m j 1
Minimize  qSBM  , (7)
1 r *
 yk / yqk
r k 1
n efficiency in both stages – the first one with input
subject to  xij i  s j  x*j , i = 1,2,...,n,
i 1,  q
n given by the model.
 yij i  sk  yk* , k = 1,2,...,r,
i 1,  q
x*j  xqj , j = 1,2,...,n,
yk*  yqk , k = 1,2,...,r,
i ≥ 0, i = 1,2,…,n, i ≠ q.
Model (7) is not linear but can be easily transformed
into a linear program that is used in our application.
For the units that are not efficient in Tone’s SBM
model returns model (7) objective function equal to 1,
the SBM efficient units have in this model super-
efficiency score greater than 1.
 Super-efficiency model formulated by Jablonsky in
[10]. This model measures the distance of the unit
under evaluation from the new efficient frontier after
its removing using undesirable slack and surplus
variable and goal programming methodology.
Mathematical formulation of this model can be found
in [10] or [11].
All three super-efficiency models return super-efficiency
scores that can be used for complete ranking of efficient
units.
E. Models with undesirable variables
In many cases, the efficiency evaluation model contains
undesirable variables, especially outputs. In this case, the data
set for undesirable measures must be modified (e.g. by
subtraction from the highest values of undesirable variables
within the set). Then, the traditional model (4) with four
possible assumptions about returns to scale is applied. The
results that are offered by this module are identical to the
results returned by envelopment models.
F. Models with uncontrollable variables
The inputs or outputs of the model cannot always be
directly controllable by decision-maker. In this case, the
uncontrollable variables must be fixed, and model (4) must be
modified accordingly. More information about this class of
DEA models can be found in [4], [5] or [11]. The results of
the module that allows solving these models are identical to
results of the module with envelopment models.
G. Network models
The last module of the application contains the possibility
to evaluate the efficiency of two-stage serial production
processes. In such processes, the outputs of the first stage enter
the second stage as inputs. The outputs of the second stage are
considered as final outputs of the production process. Several
models for two-stage processes have been proposed in the
past. Our application includes two of them. They are one of
the first models of this category. They are:
 Kao and Hwang model introduced in [12]. It is input or
output oriented, and its result is the overall efficiency
score over both stages.
 Chen model formulated in [13] that calculates
orientation, the second one with output orientation.
The application returns efficiency score of both stages
Working with the application is very easy – everything is
managed in MS Excel environment. Users need not know
anything about LINGO or other modeling languages. The only
need is to prepare the data set in an Excel file. There are no
special requirements on the data set – only need is to place the
matrices with inputs and outputs in continuous ranges in any
sheet. The results for each applied model are stored in
separated Excel sheets.
IV. CONCLUSIONS
MS Excel/LINGO DEA solver is a user-friendly
application. There are no special requirements on decision-
makers skills except basic knowledge of working with
spreadsheets. The following are its main features and
advantages:
 The application includes the most often used DEA
models.
 Using the application does not need any knowledge
about DEA or modeling languages.
 Extension of the system by other DEA models is
straightforward even though it cannot be done directly
by users of the system.
 Theoretically, the system can solve problems with an
unlimited number of DMUs. Its capacity is given by
the version of the installed LINGO solver that is free
for academic purposes in its top release.
 The system is fast – solving problems with 1000
DMUs takes just a few seconds.
 The DEA solver is free and can be downloaded from
the author’s web pages.
REFERENCES
[1] A. Charnes, W. W. Cooper, and E. Rhodes, “Measuring the efficiency
of decision making units”, Eur J Oper Res, vol. 2, pp. 429–444, 1978.
[2] R. D. Banker, A. Charnes, and W. W. Cooper, “Some models for
estimating technical and scale inefficiencies in data envelopment
analysis”, Manage Sci, vol. 30, pp. 10781092, 1984.
[3] W. W. Cooper, L. M. Seiford, K. Tone, Data envelopment analysis:
A comprehensive text with models, applications, references and DEA-
solver software, Berlin, Springer, 2006.
 2019 8th International Conference on Modeling Simulation and Applied Optimization (ICMSAO)
[4] J. Zhu, Quantitative models for performance evaluation and bench-
marking: Data envelopment analysis with spreadsheets. Boston,
Springer, 2009.
[5] J. Jablonský, “MS Excel based software support tools for decision
problems with multiple criteria”, In: 17th International Conference
Enterprise and Competitive Environment 2014. Book Series: Procedia
Economics and Finance, vol. 12, pp. 251258, Amsterdam, Elsevier,
2014.
[6] L. Schrage, Optimization modeling with LINGO. Chicago, Lindo
Systems Inc., Chicago, 1999.
[7] K. Tone, “A slack-based measure of efficiency in data envelopment
analysis”, Eur J Oper Res, vol. 130, pp. 498509, 2001.
[8] P. Andersen, and N. C. Petersen, “A procedure for ranking efficient
units in data envelopment analysis”, Manag Sci, vol. 39, pp. 1261
1264, 1993.
[9] K. Tone, “A slack-based measure of super-efficiency in data envelop-
ment analysis”, Eur J Oper Res, vol. 143, pp. 3241, 2002.
[10] J. Jablonsky, “Multicriteria approaches for ranking of efficient units in
DEA models”, Cent Eur J Oper Res, vol. 20, pp. 435–449, 2012.
[11] M. Dlouhy, J. Jablonsky, P. Zykova, Data envelopment analysis (in
Czech). Praha, Professional Publishing, 2018.
[12] C. Kao, and S. N. Hwang, “Efficiency decomposition in two-stage data
envelopment analysis: An application to non-life insurance companies
in Taiwan”, Eur J Oper Res, vol. 185, pp. 418–429, 2008.
[13] Y. Chen, L. Liang, and J. Zhu, “Equivalence in two-stage DEA
approaches”, Eur J Oper Res, vol. 193, pp. 600–604, 2009.
.