CEJOR

DOI 10.1007/s10100-015-0401-z

ORIGINAL PAPER

Efficiency analysis in multi-period systems:

an application to performance evaluation
in Czech higher education

Josef Jablonsky

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Abstract Data envelopment analysis (DEA) is a non-parametric method for efficiency

and performance analysis of decision making units. The paper deals with production
systems where decision making units are described by their inputs and outputs in
several consecutive periods. The paper presents (Park and Park in Eur J Oper Res
193(2):567–580, 2009) multi-period DEA model that is oriented on the “best” period
of the unit under evaluation only. This aim of this paper is to overcome the disad-
vantage of this model and formulate new models of this class that allow evaluation
the efficiency of decision making units within the whole production chain. The pre-
sented efficiency and super-efficiency multi-period DEA models are illustrated on a
case study. The study consists in analysis of research and teaching performance of 19
Czech economic faculties in four years period from 2009 until 2012. The model con-
siders two inputs (number of academic employees and labour costs) and two outputs
for teaching efficiency (number of students and number of graduated). Research effi-
ciency is expressed using the number of publications in various important categories
and the number of so called RIV points that describe the quality of publications.

Keywords Data envelopment analysis · Performance · Efficiency ·

Multi-period models

1 Introduction

Data envelopment analysis (DEA) is a non-parametric technique for evaluation of

relative efficiency of decision making units (DMUs) described by multiple inputs and

J. Jablonsky (B)
University of Economics Prague, W. Churchill Sq. 4, 13067 Praha 3, Czech Republic
e-mail: jablon@vse.cz
URL: http://webhosting.vse.cz/jablon

123
 J. Jablonsky

outputs. This approach introduced in (Charnes et al. 1978) is based on solving linear
programming problems for each of the DMUs under evaluation. Conventional DEA
models analyse relative technical efficiency of the set of n DMUs that are characterized
by m inputs and r outputs in one period. The efficiency score θq of the DMUq is
defined as the weighted sum of outputs divided by the weighted sum of inputs as
follows: r
u k ykq
θq = k=1 m , (1)
i=1 vi x iq

where u k , k = 1, 2, . . ., r is the positive weight of the k-th output, vi , i = 1, 2, . . ., m

is the positive weight of the i-th input, and xi j , i = 1, 2, . . ., m, j = 1, 2, . . ., n
and yk j , k = 1, 2, . . ., r, j = 1, 2, . . ., n are non-negative values for the DMU j
of the i-th input and the k-th output respectively. Conventional DEA models max-
imize the efficiency score (1) under the assumption that the efficiency scores of all
other DMUs do not exceed 1 (100 %). This problem must be solved for each DMU
separately, i.e. in order to evaluate the efficiency of all DMUs the set of n opti-
mization problems must be solved. The presented problem is not linear in objec-
tive function but it can be modified using Charnes-Cooper transformation into a
linear optimization problem and then solved easily. The transformation consists in
maximization of the nominator or minimization of the denominator in expression
(1). The constraints of this LP optimization problem express the upper bound for
efficiency scores of all DMUs except the DMUq and the unit sum of the denom-
inator/nominator in (1). The model that maximizes the nominator in (1) is refer-
enced as DEA input oriented model, the model that minimizes the denominator is
DEA output oriented model. In both cases the DMUs with θq = 1 are lying on
the efficient frontier estimated by the model and denoted as efficient units. Oth-
erwise the units are inefficient and the efficiency score can be explained as a rate
for reduction of inputs or expansion of outputs in order to reach the maximum effi-
ciency.
The above mentioned models are conventional DEA models with input or output
orientation. They can be further modified according to returns to scales and other
assumptions. An important group of modifications of conventional DEA models are
super-efficiency models. They aim at ranking of efficient units because they have iden-
tical maximum efficiency score in conventional models and cannot be ranked directly
according to their scores. Another category of DEA models are network models that
evaluate efficiency of production units with parallel or serial structure. Another stream
in theory and practice of DEA models deals with evaluation of efficiency in multi-
period production systems. In this case the models estimate the total efficiency in the
context of time serial data. There were proposed various models how to deal with
time serial data in DEA models in the past. Malmquist index (Fare and Grosskopf
1996) and dynamic analysis (Sueyoshi and Sekitani 2005) are only two of them that
are relatively widely applied. Park and Park (2009) have formulated a two-stage DEA
model that evaluates aggregative efficiency in multi-period case (further referenced as
PP model).
The paper aims at multi-period DEA models, formulates a modification of the model
presented in (Park and Park 2009) and applies the presented models to evaluation of

123
Efficiency analysis in multi-period systems

teaching and research efficiency of Czech economic faculties. In addition, an original

slack based measure (SBM) based efficiency and super-efficiency model for multi-
period systems is proposed.
The paper is organized as follows. Section 2 presents PP model and extends this
model by several modifications. Section 3 contains formulation of an original SBM
based multi-period model. Next section compares results of both group of models
presented in previous parts of the paper on the data set of Czech economic faculties. The
results of numerical experiments are analyzed and discussed. The final section of the
paper summarizes presented results and discusses possible future research in this field.

2 Multi-period DEA models

Conventional DEA models can be formulated either in their primal or dual form - see
e.g. (Zhu 2003). In this section we will use the dual form that has several advantages
with respect to formulation of multi-period models. Let us suppose that the DMUs
are described by the same set of inputs and outputs in T consecutive time periods
t = 1, 2, . . ., T , and assume that xit j , i = 1, 2, . . ., m, j = 1, 2, . . ., n, and ykt j , k =
1, 2, . . ., r, j = 1, 2, . . ., n are the values of the i-th input and the k-th output in the
t-th period of the DMU j. The first phase of the output oriented PP model with constant
(variable) returns to scale assumption that evaluates the aggregative efficiency of the
DMUq is formulated as follows:

Maximize θq
n
subject to xit j λtj ≤ xiq
t
, i = 1, 2, . . . , m, t = 1, 2, . . . , T,
j=1
n
yit j λtj ≥ θq yiq
t
, k = 1, 2, . . . , r, t = 1, 2, . . . , T, (2)
j=1
⎛ ⎞
n
⎝ λtj = 1, t = 1, 2, . . . , T ⎠ ,
j=1

λtj ≥ 0, j = 1, 2, . . . , n, t = 1, 2, . . . , T,

where λtj j = 1, 2, . . ., n, t = 1, 2, . . ., T are the variables of the model—

coefficients of linear (convex) combination of the DMUs in time period t, and θq
is the total aggregative efficiency score of the DMUq . Let θq∗ is the optimal objective
function value of Model (2). Then the second phase of the PP model is as follows:


T 
m 
T 
r
Maximize sit− /xiq
t
+ skt+ /yiq
t
,
t=1 i=1 t=1 k=1
n
subject to xit j λtj + sit− = xiq
t
, i = 1, 2, . . . , m, t = 1, 2, . . . , T,
j=1

123
 J. Jablonsky


n
yit j λtj − skt+ = θq∗ yiq
t
, k = 1, 2, . . . , r, t = 1, 2, . . . , T,
j=1
⎛ ⎞
n
⎝ λtj = 1, t = 1, 2, . . . , T ⎠ , (3)
j=1

sit− ≥ 0, i = 1, 2, . . . , m, t = 1, 2, . . . , T,
skt+ ≥ 0, k = 1, 2, . . . , r, t = 1, 2, . . . , T,
λtj ≥ 0, j = 1, 2, . . . , n, t = 1, 2, . . . , T,

where sit− and skt+ are slack/surplus variables belonging to constraints of Model (2).
According to the results of both stages the DMUs can be classified as follows:
• (Fully) efficient DMUs—the optimal objective function value of Model (2) θq∗ = 1
and matrices of slack and surplus variables are zero matrices.
• Weakly efficient DMUs—the optimal objective function value of Model (2) θq∗ = 1
and at least one element of matrices of slack/surplus variables is positive.
• Inefficient units—the optimal objective function value of Model (2) θq∗ > 1 (for
output oriented models).
The second phase of the PP model is slightly modified comparing to its original
formulation. The original formulation contains in its objective function a simple sum
of slack and surplus variables which seems to be meaningless due to possible high
differences in input/output values. That is why a sum of relative slack and surplus
variables is used in objective function of Model (3).
In order to evaluate the DMUs, Model (2) must be solved in the first phase and
depending on the optimal objective function value the second phase follows. This phase
must be applied when the optimal objective function value of the first phase is θq∗ = 1,
i.e. the DMU under evaluation is recognized as fully or weakly efficient. In this case the
second phase allows determination whether this unit is fully or weakly efficient. The
inefficient or weakly efficient DMUs can be ranked according to the optimal objective
function values from the first or second phase respectively. Nevertheless, the efficient
units cannot be ranked at all using the PP model as proposed in (Park and Park 2009).
In single period systems, this problem is solved by using of super-efficiency models
or any other models that allow ranking of efficient DMUs. Information about the most
important models of this class can be found e.g. in (Jablonsky 2007).
First super-efficiency model was introduced by Andersen and Petersen (1993).
Their model is based on the idea to remove the unit under evaluation from the set of
units and then measure its distance from the new efficient frontier. The super-efficiency
score of an originally efficient DMU is lower than one (taking into account the output
oriented model) and can be explained as a rate for possible worsening of outputs in
order to keep the efficiency status. A similar approach as in Andersen and Petersen
model can be used for multi-period models too. For these purposes Model (2) can be
extended by additional constraints that ensure zero values for all weights of the DMU
under evaluation, i.e.
λqt = 0, t = 1, 2, . . . , T, (4)

123
Efficiency analysis in multi-period systems

The advantages of this super-efficiency model consist in a possibility to discriminate

better among fully efficient DMUs and in its higher computational efficiency because
the second phase, i.e. Model (3), has to be solved for weakly efficient units only. It is
clear that the modified model must be solved for each DMU ones in its first phase and
usually only in exceptional cases (weakly efficiency) in its second phase in order to
get the complete ranking of DMUs.
Let us denote ϕq∗ optimal objective function value of Model (2) with the constraint
set extended by (4). The DMUs can be ranked according to ϕq∗ values as follows:
• (Fully) efficient DMUs, i.e. the units with ϕq∗ < 1 (for output oriented models),
can be ranked according to this value—lower values indicate higher rank.
• Weakly efficient DMUs, i.e. the units with ϕq∗ = 1, can be ranked according to the
results of Model (3)—of course θq∗ = ϕq∗ = 1 in this second phase model.
Inefficient DMUs, i.e. units with ϕq∗ > 1, can be ranked as the fully efficient units—
lower values of ϕq∗ indicate higher rank.
Main disadvantage of the presented PP model consists in its orientation on the
“best” period of the DMU under evaluation, i.e. the efficiency score given by this
model is always its best efficiency score over all particular periods considered. That is
why an application of this model can lead to inappropriate conclusions, e.g. the DMU
that is rated as highly efficient in one of the periods only and highly inefficient in all
other periods will be ranked higher than the unit that is efficient in all periods. The
main contribution of this paper consists in formulation of models that overcome this
disadvantage. This section contains two original modifications of the PP model. The
first one, Model (5), is oriented on the “worse” period of the unit under evaluation
and the second one, Model (6), derives an average efficiency score of the unit under
evaluation. The next section formulates a SBM multi-period model that takes into
account all periods in deriving the final efficiency score of the unit under evaluation.
A super-efficiency version of the SBM model is one of the further contributions of the
paper.
Model (5) that is oriented on the “worse” period, i.e. the result of the model is the
worse efficiency score over all periods (the value ψq ), is formulated as follows:
 T

Maximize θqt − εψq ,
t=1

n
subject to xit j λtj ≤ xiq
t
, i = 1, 2, . . . , m, t = 1, 2, . . . , T
j=1

n
yit j λtj ≥ θqt yiq
t
, k = 1, 2, . . . , r, t = 1, 2, . . . , T (5)
j=1
θqt ≤ ψq , t = 1, 2, . . . , T
λtj ≥ 0, λqt = 0, j = 1, 2, . . . , n, t = 1, 2, . . . , T,

where θqt is the efficiency score in the period t and ψq is the worse efficiency score of
the of the DMUq , and ε is an infinitesimal constant. The objective function of Model

123
 J. Jablonsky

(5) consists of two parts. The first part is the maximization of the efficiency scores
in the particular periods and the second one is the minimization of the maximum
efficiency score. The model returns optimal value ψq∗ which is the worse efficiency
score (or super-efficiency score for DMUs that are efficient in all particular periods)
of the unit under evaluation over all periods.
Average efficiency score ωq of the unit under evaluation can be given using the
following Model (6):


T
Maximize ωq = θqt /T,
t=1

n
subject to xit j λtj ≤ xiq
t
, i = 1, 2, . . . , m, t = 1, 2, . . . , T, (6)
j=1
n
yit j λtj ≥ θqt yiq
t
, k = 1, 2, . . . , r, t = 1, 2, . . . , T,
j=1
λtj ≥ 0, j = 1, 2, . . . , n, t = 1, 2, . . . , T,

The objective function of Model (6) returns average efficiency score of the unit under
evaluation over all periods. The optimum value of this model ωq∗ > 1 indicates ineffi-
ciency at least in one period, ωq∗ = 1 means that the unit under evaluation is globally
efficient, i.e. it is efficient in all considered periods. It is possible to discriminate among
these units using a super-efficiency model. Andersen and Petersen (1993) model is one
of suitable alternatives. For this purpose Model (6) has to be extended by constraint (4).
Then, the objective function of this extended model measures average super-efficiency
of the DMUq .

3 SBM multi-period model

SBM models are quite popular group of models that allow evaluation of efficiency
independently on the orientation of the model. Probably the most often applied and
discussed is the Tone’s model in its standard and super-efficiency versions—see (Tone
2002)—but this model is not suitable for its modification for multi-period analysis.
We propose for this purpose a standard SBM model that measures inefficiencies using
relative slacks, i.e. negative relative deviations in the input space and positive ones
in the output space. This model can be easily written for multi-period system as
follows:
 m

T  
r
t− t t+ t
Minimize υ= s1i /xiq /m + s2k /ykq /r /T,
t=1 i=1 k=1

n
t−
subject to xit j λtj + s1i = xiq
t
, i = 1, 2, . . . , m, t = 1, 2, . . . , T,
j=1

123
Efficiency analysis in multi-period systems


n
t+
ykt j λtj − s2i = ykq
t
, k = 1, 2, . . . , r, t = 1, 2, . . . , T, (7)
j=1
λtj ≥ 0, j = 1, 2, . . . , n,
t− t+
s1i ≥ 0, s2k ≥ 0, i = 1, 2, . . . , m, k = 1, 2, . . . , r, t = 1, 2, . . . , T,

t− t+
where s1i , s2k are negative and positive slacks in the period t of the i-th input and
the k-th output respectively. The other symbols have the same meaning as in Model
(6). The objective function of Model (7) consists of two parts. The first part measures
average inefficiency in input space and the second one the average inefficiency in the
output space. The total objective function value is the average of both inefficiencies
over all time periods.
The optimal objective function of Model (7) υ ∗ = 0 if the DMU under evaluation
is efficient in all periods, otherwise the DMU is inefficient at least in one period. The
units can be easily ranked according to the average inefficiency over all periods. The
units that are efficient in all periods can be ranked according to their average super-
efficiency measure that can be given using a modified version of the model proposed
in (Jablonsky 2012). Here, the super-efficiency is measured using undesirable slacks,
i.e. using positive deviations in the input space and negative ones in the output space.
The model is formulated in the following way:
 m

T  
r
t+ t t− t
Minimize ρ =1+ s1i /xiq /m + s2k /ykq /r /T,
t=1 i=1 k=1

n
t− t+
subject to xit j λtj + s1i − s1i = xiq
t
, i = 1, 2, . . . , m, t = 1, 2, . . . , T,
j=1
n
t− t+
ykt j λtj + s2i − s2i = ykq
t
, k = 1, 2, . . . , r, t = 1, 2, . . . , T, (8)
j=1
λtj ≥ 0, j = 1, 2, . . . , n, λqt = 0, t = 1, 2, . . . , T,
t− t+ t− t+
s1i ≥ 0, s1i ≥ 0, s2k ≥ 0, s2k ≥ 0,
i = 1, 2, . . . , m, k = 1, 2, . . . , r, t = 1, 2, . . . , T,
t+ t−
where s1i , s2k are positive and negative slacks in the period t of the i-th input and
the k-th output respectively and other symbols correspond to Model (7). It is possible
to prove that the DMUs inefficient in all periods have the efficiency score given by
Model (8) ρ ∗ = 1 and the units that are efficient in at least one period ρ ∗ > 1 (higher
values correspond to more efficient units). That is why the inefficient DMUs can be
ranked according to the efficiency scores given by Model (7) and the units identified
as efficient by this model can be discriminated according to the results of Model (8).
As stated previously Model (2) and Model (3) evaluate the DMUs over the
given time periods according to the best conditions of the DMU under evalua-
tion which can lead to very unsatisfactory results, e.g. the DMU highly efficient in
the first period and inefficient in all other periods can easily be rated as the best

123
 J. Jablonsky

DMU according to the PP Model (2). In order to analyze deeper the given multi-
period problem it is useful to derive the efficiency score based on the “worse”
period of the unit under evaluation, and/or calculate the average efficiency score.
This can be given using Model (5) and Model (6) that are formulated in Sect. 2.
A mutual comparison of the “best”, “worse”, and average efficiencies over all peri-
ods can contribute to better understanding the problem solved. An additional pos-
sibility for analysis of multi-period systems consists in application of the SBM
Model (7) and, if necessary, its super-efficiency version which is Model (8). They
are based on measuring the efficiency using slacks and using average efficiency
score instead of maximum efficiency score which usually leads to more appropriate
results.

4 Efficiency evaluation of Czech economic faculties

Evaluation of efficiency of teaching process and research outputs of higher educational

institutions belongs to important and widely discussed problems. The importance of
this task consists in the necessity to evaluate the performance of the institution in both
educational and research areas in order to have appropriate records for allocation of
funds for future periods. Many studies have been published in the past dealing with
applications of DEA models in (higher) education. Beasley (1995), Begicevic et al.
(2010) and Thanassoulis et al. (2011) is only a selection of several important ones.
Due to continuing discussion about future modifications of educational system
in higher education in the Czech Republic modelling in this field is of a high
importance. There are many open problems connected with the mentioned task.
One of them is the selection of appropriate indicators that describe the perfor-
mance of the evaluated institutions—they can be both of quantitative and quali-
tative nature and it is not always easy to get their numerical expression. Another
problem consists in the selection of a modelling tool for analysis of the given data
set. Various econometric and statistical models that are usually based on estima-
tion of parameters of production functions that explain the performance by several
defined indicators are widely used in this context. In this section of the paper we
apply DEA models presented in previous section for teaching and research effi-
ciency evaluation of 19 economic faculties of Czech public universities. Data set
available for the analysis contains information about various economic, teaching and
research characteristics in a four years period starting in 2009. Any attempt to apply
DEA models in any field including applications in education has to contain several
steps:
1. Definition of inputs. Two input variables used further in analysis are the number
of academic staffs and labour cost of the faculty.
2. Definition of outputs. There are considered two groups of output variables - one for
teaching efficiency and one for research efficiency. Teaching efficiency is described
by the total number of students and the number of graduated students. Research effi-
ciency is influenced by the number of publications in various categories—books,
papers in journals with a positive impact factor—Jimp, and papers in proceedings
indexed in Web of Science—CPCI (Conference proceedings Citation Index). The

123
Efficiency analysis in multi-period systems

overall quality of publications is measured by so called RIV points. Finally we

decided to work with two sets of outputs. The first set contains two teaching outputs
and research is measured by RIV points only. The second set of outputs consists
of two teaching outputs as in the first set and three research outputs—numbers of
publications in three important categories as mentioned above.
3. Selection of an appropriate DEA model and its assumptions (returns to scale,
weight restrictions, etc.). In order to evaluate overall efficiency of Czech economic
faculties from 2009 until 2012 the multi-period DEA models formulated in the
previous sections of the paper are applied. This allows to compare the results of
all presented models.
4. Analysis of the results given by the model(s).
The data set (two inputs, two “teaching” outputs and four “research” outputs) for all
19 economic faculties for the last year of the given time period (2012) is presented in
Table 1. The complete data set for the remaining periods is not presented due to space
limits.
All calculations were performed using our own codes written in LINGO modelling
language (www.lindo.com). The results for the first group of outputs (two teaching
and one research output) are presented in Table 2, the results for the second group of
outputs (five outputs together) are given in Table 3. The columns of both tables contain
the following information:

Table 1 Data set: 2012

Faculty Acad Labour # of # of Books CPCI Jimp RIV

staff costs stud grad points

FSV UK 137 57,831 4105 821 37.39 5.58 24.35 3632

EkF JCU 69 26,842 1764 522 2.74 7.00 1.50 578
FSE UJEP 67 26,246 2200 559 2.08 2.13 0.00 122
ESF MU 93 49,739 4453 738 12.66 11.67 8.00 1064
OPF SU 108 44,908 4385 882 3.77 14.07 9.33 853
FE ZCU 61 20,063 2312 519 3.04 3.67 3.17 367
HF TUL 83 32,510 2081 600 12.83 6.00 5.67 988
FES UP 78 35,977 2639 556 5.39 9.17 3.07 33
FP VUT 81 30,280 2758 821 4.53 6.50 2.63 538
EkF VSB 175 71,448 6539 1701 24.13 15.67 7.51 1684
FME Zlín 84 28,277 3419 970 5.99 29.03 3.50 889
FFU VSE 82 42,899 3176 805 2.84 1.50 10.50 946
FMV VSE 172 71,074 4713 1301 13.30 0.00 0.00 902
FPH VSE 106 47,113 3778 1022 4.61 3.67 3.33 422
FIS VSE 100 43,880 3332 686 4.35 48.22 11.54 1274
NH VSE 65 28,621 2572 462 5.41 2.83 15.12 1064
FM VSE 39 16,542 1437 321 0.16 8.84 2.00 277
PEF CZU 186 121,546 9462 2822 12.79 15.00 5.62 1648
PEF MZLU 114 49,361 3658 958 4.48 4.00 6.50 1151

123
 J. Jablonsky

Table 2 Efficiency scores and rank of faculties: 3 outputs

Faculty M (2) Rank M (5) Rank M (6) Rank M (7) Rank

Best Worse Avg SBM
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)

FSV UK 2.2046 1 1.1335 2 1.4844 1 0.0000 1

EkF JCU 0.9261 12 0.6015 18 0.7080 17 0.5777 12
FSE UJEP 0.9603 8 0.6978 13 0.7568 15 10.6395 18
ESF MU 1.0405 6 0.6151 17 0.7751 12 0.6629 13
OPF SU 0.9319 10 0.6206 16 0.7601 14 0.9414 16
FE ZCU 0.9531 9 0.8333 8 0.8825 9 11.9656 19
HF TUL 0.7356 18 0.4978 19 0.5807 19 1.4901 17
FES UP 0.8101 17 0.6598 14 0.7479 16 0.4914 10
FP VUT 0.9230 13 0.8446 6 0.9181 7 0.2496 5
EkF VSB 0.8883 14 0.8714 5 0.9198 6 0.3300 7
FME Zlin 1.4282 2 1.3078 1 1.3626 2 0.0000 1
FFU VSE 1.2244 5 0.8359 7 0.9226 5 0.1606 4
FMV VSE 0.6826 19 0.6340 15 0.6718 18 0.7595 14
FPH VSE 0.9288 11 0.8047 9 0.8871 8 0.4588 9
FIS VSE 0.8236 16 0.7272 12 0.7726 13 0.4961 11
NH VSE 1.2511 4 0.9946 3 0.9987 3 0.0219 3
FM VSE 0.8398 15 0.7304 11 0.7781 11 0.7898 15
PEF CZU 1.3193 3 0.9038 4 0.9741 4 0.3930 8
PEF MZU 0.9711 7 0.7688 10 0.8485 10 0.3026 6

• Column (1): Identification shortcut of the faculty.

• Columns (2) and (3): Efficiency scores given by Model (2) with additional con-
straints (4) for efficient DMUs. The efficiency scores are given as reciprocal values
in order to assign higher values to DMUs with higher efficiency. The values lower
than 1 indicate inefficiency of the unit under evaluation and the values higher than
1 that are given using PP super-efficiency model indicate efficiency of the DMUs.
The DMUs are ranked according to their efficiency and super-efficiency scores in
column (3).
• Columns (4) and (5): Efficiency scores returned by Model (5). The values can be
explained in the same way as in the previous case, i.e. higher values express higher
efficiency of the unit under evaluation, here in its worst case over all considered
periods.
• Columns (6) and (7): Average efficiency scores given by Model (6) and final
ranking of DMUs according to this measure.
• Columns (8) and (9): Efficiency scores computed using SBM Model (7). This is
the result of the first stage of the evaluation process. The efficiency scores of this
first stage allow ranking of DMUs that are SBM inefficient at least in one period.
In our study, it is possible to mention that two (four) faculties are SBM efficient in
all periods when the model with three (five) outputs is applied—their efficiency

123
Efficiency analysis in multi-period systems

scores are 0 (see Tables 2, 3). In order to discriminate among these globally efficient
DMUs we propose to use super-efficiency Model (8). The results of this model for
both cases, three and five-output DEA model, are presented in Table 4.

As it is evident from Table 4, the SBM super-efficiency measures do not differ signif-
icantly. They lead to the rankings that correspond more or less to the results of other
models presented in Tables 2 or 3, i.e. the most efficient faculty according to the model
with three outputs is FSV UK, which corresponds to national expectations, and the
most efficient unit according to the model with five outputs is FIS VSE.
The comparison of results given by the original PP model and its super-efficiency
modification is quite clear. The original procedure cannot rank fully efficient DMUs

Table 3 Efficiency scores and rank of faculties: 5 outputs

Faculty M (2) Rank M (5) Rank M (6) Rank M (7) Rank

Best Worse Avg SBM
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)

FSV UK 2.2352 2 1.5023 2 1.7602 2 0.0000 1

EkF JCU 0.8741 16 0.5881 18 0.6824 18 2.2312 10
FSE UJEP 0.7977 18 0.6978 13 0.7568 16 350.746 18
ESF MU 1.1076 9 0.6761 16 0.8330 12 0.5637 6
OPF SU 0.9537 13 0.6494 17 0.7841 14 90.9086 16
FE ZCU 0.9765 12 0.8349 10 0.8881 10 157.550 17
HF TUL 0.8682 17 0.5027 19 0.6563 19 3.3996 11
FES UP 0.8948 14 0.6974 14 0.7607 15 65.0574 15
FP VUT 1.0290 10 0.8446 8 0.9282 8 40.8177 14
EkF VSB 1.1660 7 0.8937 6 0.9642 6 0.3112 5
FME Zlin 1.5996 3 1.3728 3 1.4531 3 0.0000 1
FFU VSE 1.4215 5 0.8537 7 0.9403 7 0.7582 7
FMV VSE 0.7718 19 0.6791 15 0.7215 17 702.355 19
FPH VSE 1.1217 8 0.8047 11 0.9209 9 1.4083 9
FIS VSE 2.4911 1 1.6096 1 1.9646 1 0.0000 1
NH VSE 1.5779 4 1.3123 4 1.4306 4 0.0000 1
FM VSE 1.0271 11 0.8372 9 0.8836 11 4.2544 12
PEF CZU 1.3530 6 0.9038 5 0.9741 5 0.9284 8
PEF MZU 0.8867 15 0.7458 12 0.8075 13 7.3483 13

Table 4 Results of
Faculty Three outputs Rank Five outputs Rank
super-efficiency Model (8)
FSV UK 1.1092 2 1.1230 3
FME Zlin 1.1284 1 1.1297 2
FIS VSE Inefficient xx 1.1328 1
NH VSE Inefficient xx 1.1126 4

123
 J. Jablonsky

and, as it is shown, among the 19 faculties 6 are efficient (10 of them in case of the
second set of outputs), i.e. 6 or even 10 units cannot be ranked by using the original
model. The modified procedure allows ranking of all units easily.
Another question is a discussion about the contribution of the presented PP model
and its modification. As it is clear the efficiency (super-efficiency) score of this multi-
period model is given as the best (minimum in case of output oriented model) efficiency
score of particular periods. That is why we propose other two modifications of the PP
model that measure the efficiency according to the worse and average periods of the
unit under evaluation. The advantage of the PP model and its modifications consists
in a possibility to get the multi-period efficiency score by solving one optimization
problem for each DMU.
The results of models presented in Tables 2, 3 and 4 can be discussed from two
different points of view. The first one is a comparison of results given by different multi-
period models, i.e. the results separately within Table 2 on one hand and Table 3 on
the other hand. The second one is discussion about differences in efficiency evaluation
depending on two different sets of outputs used.
The results in both tables show that there is a significant difference in evaluation of
DMUs when they are evaluated according to their best or worst period, or according
to the average efficiency score from all periods. E.g. ESF MU (the fourth faculty in the
list) has its highest efficiency score 1.0405 (Table 2), which indicates efficiency at least
in one period, and quite high ranking (6th). Nevertheless, its worse efficiency score is
0.6151, which is one of the worse results among all faculties (17th). Probably more
correct information is given by average efficiency score—0.7751 and the 12th rank.
The SBM efficiency score leads in this case to similar results as average efficiency.
Comparison of results in Tables 2 and 3 are quite contradictory. They show that it
is very important to pay attention to a proper selection of input and output variables
of the model. The models with three outputs contain only one research output—the
number of RIV points. This number is given directly as the weighted sum of the
numbers of publications in particular categories (each category has its weight reflect-
ing its importance). The model with five outputs take into account three research
outputs—books, Jimp and CPCI proceedings (weighting of these three categories
is the main issue for definition of RIV points). The results in Table 2 show that
all DMUs that are globally efficient in first group of models remain globally effi-
cient in the second group as well. Nevertheless, the opposite relation does not hold.
Some of highly inefficient units in models with three outputs are efficient in models
with five outputs. An extreme situation occurs for FIS VSE. This faculty is highly
inefficient in the first group of models—its best efficiency score over all periods is
only 0.8236 (rank 16th). There is a little better result for this unit when the model
for the worse or average efficiency is used. In the contrary, FIS VSE is globally
efficient in the second group of models and its super-efficiency score is the best
and it is on the highest rank among all faculties. This difference can be explained
quite easily by analysis of the source data set presented in Table 1. FIS VSE has
the highest number of publication in CPCI proceedings in 2012, it is much higher
than the other faculties have. This fact causes that the faculty is globally efficient,
i.e. is efficient in all periods considered. This example demonstrates very well that

123
Efficiency analysis in multi-period systems

it is necessary to build the model carefully and explain its results in the context of
reality.

5 Conclusions

Analysis of efficiency of DMUs within multiple periods is an important task and many
various models were proposed for these purposes in the past. The paper presents the
PP model (2), which is one of the latest contributions in the area of multi-period DEA
models. Except the conventional PP model several its modifications are formulated.
The main motivation for formulation of these models consists in disadvantages of the
PP model that were discussed mainly in Sect. 2 of the paper. A super-efficiency PP
model and models that are, in the contrary to the PP model, based on the efficiency in
the “worse” period and average efficiency over all periods of the unit under evaluation
were formulated and tested on the real data set. In addition to the PP model and its
modifications an original SBM and super-SBM multi-period model has been proposed
as an alternative approach to conventional PP models.
The advantage of the proposed super-efficiency multi-period DEA model consists
in its computational efficiency because it is necessary to solve only one optimization
problem for each DMU in order to get its aggregative (super-) efficiency score. The
disadvantage is given by the fact that the final results depend on the efficiencies of
the DMUs in particular periods without any interconnections among periods. Another
problem consists in a possible infeasibility of Model (2) and its modifications with
additional constraints (4) under the assumption of variable returns to scale. This prob-
lem is widely discussed by many researchers, see e.g. Lee and Zhu (2012). A future
research in this field can be focused on analysis of multi-period production systems
with interconnections among the inputs and/or outputs in particular periods, and in
analysis of multi-period systems under the assumption of uncertainty in data set in all
or at least some periods.

Acknowledgments The research is supported by the Grant Agency of the Czech Republic, Project No.
P403/12/1387.

References

Andersen P, Petersen NC (1993) A procedure for ranking efficient units in data envelopment analysis.
Manag Sci 39(10):1261–1264
Beasley JE (1995) Determining teaching and research efficiencies. J Oper Res Soc 46(4):441–452
Begicevic N, Divjak B, Hunjak T (2010) Decision-making on prioritization of projects in higher education
institutions using analytic network process approach. CEJOR 18(3):341–364
Charnes A, Cooper WW, Rhodes E (1978) Measuring the efficiency of decision making units. Eur J Oper
Res 2(6):429–444
Fare R, Grosskopf S (1996) Intertemporal production frontiers with dynamic DEA. Kluwer, Boston
Jablonsky J (2007) Measuring the efficiency of production units by AHP models. Math Comput Model
46(7–8):1091–1098
Jablonsky J (2012) Multicriteria approaches for ranking of efficient units in DEA models. CEJOR 20(3):435–
449
Lee HS, Zhu J (2012) Super-efficiency infeasibility and zero data in DEA. Eur J Oper Res 216(2):429–433
Park KS, Park K (2009) Measurement of multiperiod aggregative efficiency. Eur J Oper Res 193(2):567–580

123
 J. Jablonsky

Sueyoshi T, Sekitani K (2005) Returns to scale in dynamic DEA. Eur J Oper Res 161(2):536–544
Thanassoulis E, Kortelainen M, Johnes G, Johnes J (2011) Costs and efficiency of higher education insti-
tutions in England: a DEA analysis. J Oper Res Soc 62(7):1282–1297
Tone K (2002) A slack-based measure of super-efficiency in data envelopment analysis. Eur J Oper Res
143(1):32–41
Zhu J (2003) Quantitative models for performance evaluation and benchmarking: Data envelopment analysis
with spreadsheets and DEA Excel Solver. Kluwer, Boston

123