Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

Omega 32 (2004) 213 – 219

www.elsevier.com/locate/dsw

Ranking ecient units in DEA

Yao Chen∗
College of Management, University of Massachusetts, Lowell, MA 01845, USA
Received 8 April 2003; accepted 14 November 2003

Abstract
Super-eciency data envelopment analysis (DEA) model can be used in ranking the performance of ecient decision
making units (DMUs). Because of the infeasibility problem associated with the super-eciency DEA model, ranking has been
restricted to the model where constant returns to scale and proportional changes in all inputs or all outputs are assumed. In fact,
when super-eciency is used as an eciency stability measure, infeasibility means the highest super-eciency. However,
if super-eciency is interpreted as input saving or output surplus achieved by a speci5c ecient DMU, infeasibility does
not necessarily mean the highest super-eciency. In order to obtain a complete ranking of ecient DMUs when the two
assumptions are relaxed, a modi5ed super-eciency DEA model is proposed to overcome the infeasibility problem and to
correctly capture the super-eciency represented by the input saving or the output surplus. The current paper suggests using
both input- and output-oriented super-eciency models to characterize the super-eciency when infeasibility occurs. As a
result, we can rank the ecient DMUs if infeasibility occurs. The approach is applied to 20 largest Japanese companies and
15 US cities, respectively.
? 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Data envelopment analysis (DEA); Eciency; Infeasibility; Ranking

1. Introduction simultaneously changed in the same proportion. When ei-

Data envelopment analysis (DEA) is a data-oriented
method for measuring and benchmarking the relative e-
ciency of peer decision making units (DMUs) with multiple
inputs and multiple outputs [1,2]. When a DMU under
evaluation is not included in the reference set of the orig-
inal DEA models, the resulting DEA models are called
super-eciency DEA models. Zhu [3] and Seiford and Zhu
[4] developed a number of new super-eciency models to
determine the eciency stability regions. Based upon the
CCR model, Banker and GiAord [5] and Banker et al. [6]
were the 5rst to develop and use the super-eciency model
to discriminate the performance among ecient DMUs
(see also [7]). The CCR super-eciency DEA model is
developed under (i) the DEA frontier exhibits constant
returns to scale (CRS) and (ii) all inputs (or outputs) are
∗ Tel.: +1-978-934-2764; fax: +1-978-934-4034.
E-mail address: yao chen@uml.edu (Y. Chen).
ther of the conditions is not satis5ed, infeasibility of the re-
lated linear program is very likely to occur (see, e.g., [4,8]).
When infeasibility occurs, it is dicult to obtain a com-
plete performance ranking of ecient units, since we do not
have a value associated with infeasibility to represent the
super-eciency.
Seiford and Zhu [9] developed necessary and su-
cient conditions for infeasibility in various super-eciency
DEA models. Note that the super-eciency concept has
been used in many situations, including detecting inGu-
ential observations [6,10], and acceptance decision rules
[11], among others. i.e., the meaning of super-eciency
has diAerent interpretations. We should note that an
input-oriented super-eciency DEA model measures the
input super-eciency when outputs are 5xed at their cur-
rent levels while an output-oriented super-eciency DEA
model measures the output super-eciency when inputs
are 5xed at their current levels. From the diAerent uses
of super-eciency concept, Chen [12] argues that it can
be interpreted as the degree of eciency stability or input

0305-0483/$ - see front matter ? 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.omega.2003.11.001
214 Y. Chen / Omega 32 (2004) 213 – 219

saving/output surplus achieved by an ecient DMU. If which exhibits VRS can be written as [13]
super-eciency is used as an eciency stability measure,
then infeasibility means that an ecient DMU’s eciency min o
classi5cation is stable in the presence of data errors. There-

n
fore, we can use +∞ to represent the super-eciency score. s:t: j xij 6 o xio ; i = 1; 2; : : : ; m;
Consequently, the infeasibility problem is solved and we j=1
can have a complete ranking of ecient DMUs in terms of
eciency stability.

n
j yrj ¿ yro ; r = 1; 2; : : : ; s;
Using the variable returns to scale (VRS) super-eciency
j=1
DEA model as an example, the current study extends
the work of Chen [12] and discusses the situation when

n

super-eciency is interpreted as input saving or output j = 1;

surplus. It is shown that infeasibility does not necessar- j=1

ily represent the highest super-eciency. As indicated in j ¿ 0; j = 1; : : : ; n: (1)

Seiford and Zhu [9], the infeasibility of the input-oriented
VRS super-eciency DEA model is associated with
VRS-ecient DMUs that have the largest output values, and
the infeasibility of output-oriented VRS super-eciency
DEA model is associated with VRS-ecient DMUs that
have the smallest input values. However, having the largest
output values does not necessarily mean that a speci5c e-
cient DMU possesses any input super-eciency represented
by the input saving. Similarly, having the smallest input
values does not necessarily mean that a speci5c ecient
DMU possesses any output super-eciency represented by
where, xio and yro are, respectively, the ith input and rth
output for a DMUo under evaluation.
All the frontier DMUs (ecient DMUs) have o∗ = 1. In
order to discriminate the performance of ecient DMUs, we
use the following VRS super-eciency DEA model where
DMUo is not included in the reference set [9];
min oVRS-super


n

the output surplus. A modi5ed super-eciency DEA model s:t: j xij 6 oVRS-super xio ; i = 1; 2; : : : ; m;
j=1
is provided to overcome the infeasibility problem and to j=0
correctly capture the possible super-eciency existing in
forms of the input saving or the output surplus. It is shown

n

that if the modi5ed super-eciency DEA model is still in- j yrj ¿ yro ; r = 1; 2; : : : ; s;
j=1
feasible, then this infeasibility means zero super-eciency. j=0
We study the super-eciency under the condition that
not all inputs (or outputs) are simultaneously changed in

n

the same proportion. The approach is applied to 20 largest j = 1;

j=1
Japanese companies and 15 US cities, respectively. The ap- j=0
plication shows that (i) if an ecient DMU does not have
any input super-eciency (input saving), it must have out- j ¿ 0; j = 0: (2)
put super-eciency (output surplus), and (ii) if an ecient
DMU does not have any output super-eciency, it must While the CRS super-eciency DEA model is usually
have input super-eciency. The paper suggests using both feasible, 1 model (2) is not. Seiford and Zhu [9] show that
input- and output-oriented super-eciency DEA models to model (2) is infeasible if and only if g∗ ¡ 1, where g∗ is
fully characterize the super-eciency. the optimal value to the following model:
The paper is organized as follows. Section 2 discusses is-
sues related to the VRS super-eciency DEA models. We g∗ =max g
then study the infeasibility in the VRS super-eciency DEA
models with a procedure to overcome the infeasibility prob-

n
s:t: j yrj ¿ gyro ; r = 1; : : : ; s;
lem. The approach is then applied to 20 largest Japanese j=1
companies and 15 US cities. Conclusions are provided in j=0
the last section.

2. Super-eciency 1 Zhu [3] indicates that the (input-oriented) CRS super-eciency

DEA model is always feasible unless certain patterns of zero data

Suppose we have n DMUs {DMUj : j = 1; 2; : : : ; n}, entries are present in the inputs. Therefore, if one assumes all data
which produce s outputs, yrj (r = 1; 2; : : : ; s) by utilizing m are positive, then the (input-oriented) CRS super-eciency DEA
inputs, xij (i = 1; 2; : : : ; m). An input-oriented DEA model model is always feasible.
 Y. Chen / Omega 32 (2004) 213 – 219 215

n
Property (ii). For a DMUo , if there exists a G ⊂ {1; : : : ; m}
j = 1;
such that GVRS-super ¡ 1, then oVRS-super 6 1.
∗ ∗
j=1
j=0

Property (iii). For DMUo , if oVRS-super ¿ 1, then oVRS-super

∗ ∗

j ¿ 0; j = 0: (3)
6 min {GVRS-super }.
∗

G⊂{1;:::; m}
Thus, if DMUo has the largest output values (regardless
of the input values), model (2) must be infeasible. Since a
Note that if oVRS-super 6 1, then any optimal so-
∗
data set always contains at least such a DMUo , model (2)
must be infeasible and in order to obtain a complete ranking, lution to (2) is a feasible solution to (4). Therefore,
oVRS-super ¿ GVRS-super for all G ⊂ {1 : : : ; m}. Thus
∗ ∗
we have to solve the infeasibility problem associated with
model (2).
Property (iv). For DMUo , if oVRS-super 6 1, then oVRS-super
∗ ∗
Model (2) assumes that all inputs must change in the
¿ max {GVRS-super }.
∗
same proportion. i.e., model (2) measures super-eciency
in terms of all inputs. If a subset of inputs, denoted as G ⊂ G⊂{1;:::; m}

{1; : : : ; m}, is of interest, we can have

Note that model (2) is an input-oriented super-eciency
min VRS-super
G DEA model. We can also have an output-oriented version.


n max VRS-super
o
s:t: j xij 6 GVRS-super xio ; i ∈ G;
j=1

n

j=0 s:t: j xij 6 xio ; i = 1; 2; : : : ; m;

j=1
j=0


n
j xij 6 xio ; i = G;


n
j yrj ¿ oVRS-super yro ;
j=1
j=o r = 1; 2; : : : ; s;
j=1
j=0


n
j yrj 6 yro ; r = 1; 2; : : : ; s;
j=1

n

j=0 j = 1;
j=1
j=0


n
j = 1;
j=1 j ¿ 0 (j = o): (5)
j=0
Thus, if DMUo has the smallest input values (regardless
j ¿ 0; j = 0: (4) of the output values), model (5) must be infeasible. Since
a data set always contains at least such a DMUo , model (5)
Note that when G = {1; : : : ; m}, model (4) becomes must be infeasible and in order to obtain a complete ranking,
model (2). Model (4) basically measures how much DMUo we have to solve the infeasibility problem associated with
can change its inputs associated with G before DMUo model (5).
reaches the frontier constructed from the remaining DMUs, Based upon Seiford and Zhu [9], Chen [12] shows the
i.e., model (4) measures the super-eciency in terms of following theorems with respect to the infeasibility.
inputs represented by G. Four possible cases are associ-
ated with (4): (i) GVRS-super ¿ 1; (ii) GVRS-super = 1; (iii)
∗ ∗
Theorem 1. If model (2) is infeasible and DMUo is
VRS-super ∗
G ¡ 1 and (iv) (4) is infeasible. 2 CRS-ine1cient, then model (5) must be feasible. 4
By comparing models (2) and (4), we can easily have 3
Theorem 2. If model (5) is infeasible and DMUo is
Property (i). For a DMUo , oVRS-super ¿ 1, if and only if
∗
CRS-ine1cient, then model (2) must be feasible.
there exists a G ⊂ {1; : : : ; m} such that GVRS-super ¿ 1 or
∗

(4) is infeasible. Theorem 3. Both models (2) and (5) are infeasible if and
only if DMUo is the only VRS e1cient DMU.
2 See [7] for a version under CRS associated with the same
Theorems 1–3 show that one of the input-oriented and
four possible cases i.e., even under the condition of CRS,
output-oriented VRS super-eciency DEA models must be
super-eciency DEA model can also be infeasible if only a subset
of inputs is of interest.
3 We assume that G
= {1; : : : ; m}. Otherwise, model (4) is the 4 Seiford and Zhu [9] also show that if model (5) is infeasible,

model (2) if G = {1; : : : ; m}. then DMUo must exhibit CRS or IRS.
216 Y. Chen / Omega 32 (2004) 213 – 219

feasible if the VRS frontier contains IRS, CRS and DRS

n
j yrj ¿ o yro ; r = 1; 2; : : : ; s;
DMUs. As noted in Chen [12], Theorem 3 describes a very j=1
rare situation which often does not exist in real world data
sets.

n
j = 1;
j=1

3. Infeasibility
j ¿ 0: (7)
Since either model (2) or model (5) must be infeasi-
ble for some ecient DMUs, in order to obtain a complete Applying model (6) is equivalent to applying model
ranking, we have to assign a super-eciency score for the (2) after all inecient DMUs are projected onto the VRS
infeasibility. frontier via proportional output augmentation through
It can be seen that super-eciency measures how far model (7).
DMUo is from the frontier constructed by the remaining Model (6) provides a correct characterization of
DMUs in terms of input increases in model (2) or output super-eciency in terms of input saving, since model (6)
decreases in model (5). Thus, if super-eciency is used as measures the possible input saving achieved by DMUo
a measure to measure the eciency stability, we have that against all other DMUs’ input levels.
infeasibility indicates that DMUo ’s eciency classi5cation Note that model (6) may still be infeasible if g∗ ¡ 1 in
is stable to any simultaneous input changes if model (2) is model (3) when yrj are replaced by ŷ rj (=∗ yrj ). This
infeasible or to any simultaneous output changes if model indicates that DMUo does not indicate super-eciency in
(5) is infeasible [8]. Therefore, we can denote the optimal terms of input saving, since DMUo cannot be moved onto
value of oVRS-super as +∞ to represent the super-eciency the frontier constructed from the remaining DMUs via in-
score. As a result, ecient DMUs associated with infea- put increases, indicating that DMUo has the largest input
sibility are top ranked and infeasibility means the highest levels given the current output levels. We therefore denote
super-eciency. oVRS-super = ˜VRS -super∗ = 1 when model (6) is infeasible, in-
∗
o
Now, suppose model (2) is feasible when an ecient dicating zero input super-eciency which means zero input
DMUo is under evaluation. The optimal value of oVRS-super saving for DMUo .
indicates that the inputs of DMUo can be increased to reach Let o represent the score for characterizing the
a level that is used by other DMUs or by the convex com- super-eciency in terms of input saving, we have
bination of other DMUs. To achieve this, we solve model
(2) in the following format: 5 
oVRS-super ;
∗

 if model (2) is feasible;
min VRS-super
o




 ˜VRS-super∗ ;
o if model (2) is infeasible and model


n
o =
s:t: j xij 6 ˜oVRS-super xio ; i = 1; 2; : : : ; m; 

 (10) is feasible;
j=1 



j=o 1; if model (6) is infeasible:


n (8)
j ŷ rj ¿ = ŷ ro = yro ; r = 1; 2; : : : ; s;
j=1
j=o Note that o ¿ 1. If o ¿ 1, a speci5c ecient DMUo has
input super-eciency. If o = 1, DMUo does not have in-


n
put super-eciency. Thus, based upon o , a complete per-
j = 1;
j=1
formance ranking of ecient DMUs can be obtained even
j=o if model (2) or model (6) is infeasible. When model (6) is
infeasible, g∗ ¡ 1 indicates that the super-eciency is ac-
j ¿ 0 j = o: (6) tually reGected in DMU’s outputs via output surplus.
∗ ∗ Similar to model (6), we may also adjust the input values
where ŷ rj =  yrj and  is the optimal value to the fol-
in model (5) by the input-oriented VRS DEA model (1)
lowing output-oriented VRS DEA model
when model (5) is feasible.
∗o = max o

max ˜ oVRS-super
n
s:t: j xij 6 xio ; i = 1; 2; : : : ; m;
j=1

n
s:t: j x̂ij 6 x̂io = xio ; i = 1; 2; : : : ; m;
j=1
5 See [12] for an numerical example. j=o
 Y. Chen / Omega 32 (2004) 213 – 219 217

n

n
j yrj ¿ ˜ oVRS-super yro ; r = 1; 2; : : : ; s; j yrj ¿ yro ; r = 1; 2; : : : ; s;
j=1 j=1
j=o


n


n j = 1;
j = 1; j=1
j=1
j=o j ¿ 0; j = 1; : : : ; n: (13)
j ¿ 0; (j = o): (9)
Model (13) is a VRS DEA model where inputs that are
where x̂ij = j∗ xij
and j∗
is the optimal value to model (1) not associated with set G are allowed to improve. If DMUo
when DMUj is under evaluation. is ecient under model (1), it must also be ecient under
Let o represent the score for characterizing the output model (13).
super-eciency, we have Then, based upon model (13), for DMUj (j = o),

 VRS -super∗ if model (5) is feasible; let x̃ij = G∗ xij , and we solve model (4) in the following

 o

 format:

 ˜ VRS-super∗ if model (5) is feasible and model
o
o =
 min ˜GVRS-super

 (14) is feasible;





n
1 if model (9) is infeasible: s:t: j xij 6 ˜GVRS-super xio ; i ∈ G;
(10) j=1
j=o
Note that o 6 1. If o ¡ 1, a speci5c ecient DMUo
has output super-eciency. If o = 1, DMUo does not have

n

output super-eciency. Thus, based upon o , a complete j x̃ij 6 xio ; i = G;

j=1
performance ranking of ecient DMUs can be obtained even j=o
if model (5) or model (9) is infeasible.
From the above discussion we see that super-eciency

n

is represented by only the input saving or by only the j yrj ¿ yro ; r = 1; 2; : : : ; s;

output surplus when infeasibility occurs. Both input- and j=1
j=o
output-oriented VRS super-eciency models should be
used to rank the ecient DMUs.

n
We may integrate o and o into one super-eciency j = 1;
score. For example, we may select w and w such that j=1
j=o
w + w = 1 and de5ne
1
S o = w o + w  (11) j ¿ 0; j = o: (14)
o
or
If model (14) is infeasible, then DMUo has zero
1
Ŝ o = w w o : (12) super-eciency in terms of input saving associated with
o
inputs in set G. 6
If one uses model (4) to rank the performance of ef-
5cient DMUs, a similar procedure can be applied. If
super-eciency is used as an eciency stability measure,
then infeasibility of model (4) means that DMUo has the 4. Application
highest super-eciency since the eciency of DMUo is
stable to input changes associated with set G [8]. However, We apply our approach by two data sets. One consists of
if super-eciency is used to measure input saving, then we 20 largest Japanese companies in 1999 (see Table 1). The
use the following procedure when model (4) is infeasible. other consists of 15 Fortune’s top US cities in 1996 (see
First, we solve the following DEA model for all DMUs Table 2). 7
min G


n
s:t: j xij 6 xio ; i ∈ G; 
j=1
6As 5rst noted in [4], model (4) without nj=1 j = 1 (i.e., a
CRS super-eciency DEA model where only the inputs associated


n
with set G are allowed to change) is also likely to be infeasible.
j xij 6 G xio ; i = G; The same suggested procedure can be applied.
j=1 7 The DEA Excel Solver of Zhu [2] is used in our calculations.
218 Y. Chen / Omega 32 (2004) 213 – 219

Table 1
Japanese companies
VRS-super ∗
DMU Company Main business Asset Equity Employee Revenue o∗ ∗o o

1 Mitsui & Co. General trading 50905.3 5137.9 40,000 106,793.2 1 1 Infeasible
2 Itochu Corp. General trading 51432.5 2333.8 5775 106,184.1 1 1 6.69295
3 Mitsubishi Corp. General trading 67553.2 7253.2 36,000 104,656.3 0.74248 1.01974
4 Toyota Motor Corp. Cars, trucks 112698.1 47177 183,879 97,387.6 0.4108 1.09658
5 Marubeni Corp. General trading 49742.9 2704.3 5844 91,361.7 0.91739 1.12202
6 Sumitomo Corp. General trading 41168.4 4351.5 30,700 86,921 1 1 1.02091
7 Nippon Telegraph & Tel. Telecommunications 133008.8 47467.1 138,150 74,323.4 0.26865 1.43687
8 Nissho Iwai Corp. General trading 35581.9 1274.4 19,461 66,144 1 1 1.14580
9 Hitachi Ltd. Electronics, machinery 73917 21914.2 328,351 60,937.9 0.40528 1.75249
10 Matsushita Electric Indl. Appliances, electronics 60639 26988.4 282,153 58,361.6 0.47569 1.82985
11 Sony Corp. Electronics, media 48117.4 13930.7 177,000 51,903 0.54156 1.94793
12 Nissan Motor Cars, car parts 52842.1 9583.6 39,467 50,263.5 0.47975 2.12448
13 Honda Motor Cars, motorcycles 38455.8 13473.8 112,200 47,597.9 0.62931 1.69408
14 Toshiba corp. Electronics, machinery 46013 8023.3 198,000 40,492.7 0.45933 2.39076
15 Fujitsu Ltd. Computers 39052.2 8901.6 188,000 40,050.3 0.53631 2.04784
16 Tokyo electric power Power generation 110055.8 12157.7 50,558 38,869.5 0.18567 2.74748
17 Nec Corp. Electronics, computers 38015 6517.4 157773 36,356.4 0.50901 2.18979
18 Tomen Corp. General trading 16696 676.1 3654 30,205.3 1 1 2.89988
19 Japan Tobacco Cigarettes 17023.6 10816.6 31,000 29,612.2 0.98076 1.04567
20 Mitsubishi Electric Corp. Electronics 31997 4129.6 116,479 28,982.2 0.5218 2.26573

4.1. Ranking of Japanese companies
The DEA inputs are asset, equity and number of employ-
ees and the DEA output is revenue. Either model (1) or
model (7) indicates that 5 of them are VRS-ecient (see
columns 7 and 8 in Table 1). In order to discriminate the
performance of these 5 VRS-ecient companies, we ap-
ply model (2). The last column of Table 1 reports the op-
timal value to (2), oVRS-super . It can be seen that model
∗
(2) is infeasible when DMU 1 (Misui) is under evalua-
tion. We 5rst adjust the original output values for all DMUs
by their output-oriented VRS eciency scores from model
(7) (∗o ) and then apply model (10) to DMU 1. We ob-
tain ˜VRS -super∗ = 2:36628 (optimal value to (14)) as the (in-
o
put) super-eciency score for DMU 1. Thus, we have the
top-ranked Japanese company DMU 2 (Itochu) followed by
DMU 18 (Tomen), DMU 1 (Mitsui), DMU 8 (Nissho) and
DMU 6 (Sumitomo).
4.2. Ranking of US cities
We here use high-end housing price (1000 US$),
lower-end housing monthly rental (US$), and number of
violent crimes as three DEA inputs and median household
income (US$), number of population with bachelor’s de-
gree (million) and number of doctors (thousand) as three
DEA outputs in evaluating the 15 US cities.
The 9th and 10th columns of Table 2 report the optimal
values to models (1) and (7), respectively. It can be seen
that 10 cities are ecient. Columns 11 and 12 of Table 2
report the input super-eciency score o de5ned in (8)
and the output super-eciency score o de5ned in (10),
respectively.
Both models (2) and (6) are infeasible for DMU 3
(Philadelphia), DMU 8 (Washington) and DMU13 (Boston)
(see column 11 in Table 2). This indicates that the three
cities do not have super-eciency in terms of their in-
put values. We assign one as their input super-eciency
score and then turn to model (5) to characterize the output
super-eciency. Model (5) shows that DMU 3 and DMU
8 are the two top-ranked cities along with DMU 13 ranked
number 4, indicating that the three cities achieve higher
output levels.
Note that the 11th and 12th columns verify Theorems 1
and 2. DMU 2 (Denver) and DMU 9 (Pittsburgh) are in-
feasible under models (5) while they are feasible under
model (2).
Since both models (5) and (11) are infeasible for DMU 2
and DMU 9, we assign one as their output super-eciency
score.
The last two columns of Table 2 report integrated
super-eciency scores So and Ŝ o , respectively, when
w = w = 0:5. Except for DMU 4 and DMU 13, the two
scores yield a consistent ranking of the 10 ecient cities.
5. Conclusions
The current paper shows that if super-eciency is used as
an eciency stability measure, then the infeasibility means
the highest super-eciency. However, if super-eciency
 Y. Chen / Omega 32 (2004) 213 – 219 219

0.99216 (10)
is interpreted as input saving/output surplus, the infeasi-
0.80370 (3)

0.77336 (2)
0.86773 (5)

0.82575 (4)
0.97834 (9)

0.87933 (6)
0.95580 (8)
0.88837(7)
0.65993(1)
bility may indicate zero super-eciency. The applications
show that we can overcome the infeasibility problem. Since
Sˆo a

input-oriented and output-oriented super-eciency DEA

models measure input and output super-eciency respec-
tively, in order to fully characterize the super-eciency
(10)
(3)

(2)
(6)
(7)
(1)

1.26746 (4)
1.02265 (9)

1.15906 (5)
1.04659 (8)
and rank the ecient DMUs, both input-oriented and
1.26839
1.00797
1.41454
1.15677
1.12712
1.51531
output-oriented super-eciency DEA models are needed.
So a

Acknowledgements
1 (infeasible)

1 (infeasible)
0.91456

0.54672
0.92080
0.92032
0.66035

0.65150

0.75866
0.97315
The author is grateful to the helpful comments and sug-
gestions made by two anonymous referees.
o

1 (infeasible)

1 (infeasible)

1 (infeasible)

References
1.44335
1.01593

1.22752
1.16766
1.51628

1.04529

1.06559

[1] Charnes A, Cooper WW, Rhodes E. Measuring the eciency

of decision making units. European Journal of Operational
o

Research 1978;2:429–44.
[2] Zhu Joe. Quantitative models for performance evaluation and
1.11481

1.05266
1.22900
1.24855

1.14548

benchmarking: data envelopment analysis with spreadsheets,

o a

Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers; 2002.

1
1
1
1
1
1

1
1

1
1

[3] Zhu Joe. Robustness of the ecient DMUs in data

0.94968

0.92652
0.77243
0.73827

0.80117

envelopment analysis. European Journal of Operational

Research 1996;90:451–60.
o a

[4] Seiford LM, Joe Zhu. Stability regions for maintaining

1
1
1
1
1
1

1
1

1
1

eciency in data envelopment analysis. European Journal of

Doctor

9.878
5.301

7.209

8.784

7.805

18.208
4.665
3.575

Operational Research 1998;108:127–39.

4.94

4.48
15.41

8.82

10.05
18.2

8.5

[5] Banker RD, GiAord JL. A relative eciency model for the
evaluation of public health nurse productivity. Pittsburgh, PA,
USA: School of Urban and Public AAairs, Carnegie Mellon
B. Degree

University; 1988.
0.6534
0.5529

0.3184
1.7158
0.4512
1.2195
0.9205
0.5825

0.2365
1.135
0.729
0.319
0.515

0.321

[6] Banker RD, Das S, Datar SM. Analysis of cost variances for
1.04

management control in Hospitals. Research in Governmental

and Nonpro5t Accounting 1989;5:268–91.
Income

[7] Andersen P, Petersen NC. A procedure for ranking ecient

46,928
42,879
43,576
45,673
40,990
39,079
38,455
54,291
34,534
41,984
43,249
43,291
46,444
41,841
40,221

units in data envelopment analysis. Management Science

1993;39:1261–4.
[8] Seiford LM, Joe Zhu. Sensitivity analysis of DEA models for
1193.06
1131.64

1340.55

917.04

3240.75
2197.12
778.35
1245.75
Violent

634.7
657.5
882.4
3286.7

3714.3
2963.1

simultaneous changes in all the data. Journal of the Operational

3468

Research Society 1998;49:1060–71.

[9] Seiford LM, Joe Zhu. Infeasibility of super-eciency data
envelopment analysis models. INFOR 1999;37(May): 174–
number in parentheses represents rank.
Rental

87.
581
558
600
609
613
558
580
625
535
650
740
775
888
727
695

[10] Wilson P. Detecting inGuential observations in data

envelopment analysis. Journal of Productivity Analysis
Houseprice

1995;6:27–45.
[11] Seiford LM, Joe Zhu. An acceptance system decision rule with
data envelopment analysis. Computers Operations Research
586
475
201
299
318
265
467
583
347
296
600
575
351
283
431

1998;25:329–32.
[12] Chen Yao. Measuring super-eciency in DEA in the presence
Philadelphia
Minneapolis

Washington

of infeasibility. European Journal of Operational Research,

Milwaukee
Cincinnati

Pittsburgh

Baltimore

Nashville
St Louis

2003 (to appear).

Raleigh
Denver

Atlanta

Boston
Seattle

Dallas

[13] Banker RD, Charnes A, Cooper WW. Some models for

City

estimating technical and scale eciencies in data envelopment

US Cities

analysis. Management Science 1984;30:1078–92.

Table 2

a The
DMU

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15