数据包络分析中的基准:实现现实目标的平衡努力

IF 4.4 3区 管理学 Q1 OPERATIONS RESEARCH & MANAGEMENT SCIENCE Annals of Operations Research Pub Date : 2024-09-09 DOI:10.1007/s10479-024-06216-w
Hernán P. Guevel, Nuria Ramón, Juan Aparicio
{"title":"数据包络分析中的基准:实现现实目标的平衡努力","authors":"Hernán P. Guevel, Nuria Ramón, Juan Aparicio","doi":"10.1007/s10479-024-06216-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The minimum distance models have undoubtedly represented a significant advance for the establishment of targets in Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA). These models may help in defining improvement plans that require the least overall effort from the inefficient Decision Making Units (DMUs). Despite the advantages that come with Closest Targets, in some cases unsatisfactory results may be given, since improvement plans, even in that context, differ considerably from the actual performances. This generally occurs because all the effort employed to reach the efficient DEA frontier is channeled into just a few variables. In certain contexts these exorbitant efforts in some inputs/outputs become unapproachable. In fact, proposals for sequential improvement plans can be found in the literature. It could happen that the sequential improvement plans continue to be so demanding in some variable that it would be difficult to achieve such targets. We propose an alternative approach where the improvement plans require similar efforts in the different variables that participate in the analysis. In the absence of information about the limitations of improvement in the different inputs/outputs, we consider that a plausible and conservative solution would be the one where an equitable redistribution of efforts would be possible. In this paper, we propose different approaches with the aim of reaching an impartial distribution of efforts to achieve optimal operating levels without neglecting the overall effort required. Therefore, we offer different alternatives for planning improvements directed towards DEA efficient targets, where the decision-maker can choose the one that best suits their circumstances. Moreover, and as something new in the benchmarking DEA context, we will study which properties satisfy the targets generated by the different models proposed. Finally, an empirical example used in the literature serves to illustrate the methodology proposed.</p>","PeriodicalId":8215,"journal":{"name":"Annals of Operations Research","volume":"41 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Benchmarking in data envelopment analysis: balanced efforts to achieve realistic targets\",\"authors\":\"Hernán P. Guevel, Nuria Ramón, Juan Aparicio\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10479-024-06216-w\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>The minimum distance models have undoubtedly represented a significant advance for the establishment of targets in Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA). These models may help in defining improvement plans that require the least overall effort from the inefficient Decision Making Units (DMUs). Despite the advantages that come with Closest Targets, in some cases unsatisfactory results may be given, since improvement plans, even in that context, differ considerably from the actual performances. This generally occurs because all the effort employed to reach the efficient DEA frontier is channeled into just a few variables. In certain contexts these exorbitant efforts in some inputs/outputs become unapproachable. In fact, proposals for sequential improvement plans can be found in the literature. It could happen that the sequential improvement plans continue to be so demanding in some variable that it would be difficult to achieve such targets. We propose an alternative approach where the improvement plans require similar efforts in the different variables that participate in the analysis. In the absence of information about the limitations of improvement in the different inputs/outputs, we consider that a plausible and conservative solution would be the one where an equitable redistribution of efforts would be possible. In this paper, we propose different approaches with the aim of reaching an impartial distribution of efforts to achieve optimal operating levels without neglecting the overall effort required. Therefore, we offer different alternatives for planning improvements directed towards DEA efficient targets, where the decision-maker can choose the one that best suits their circumstances. Moreover, and as something new in the benchmarking DEA context, we will study which properties satisfy the targets generated by the different models proposed. Finally, an empirical example used in the literature serves to illustrate the methodology proposed.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":8215,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Annals of Operations Research\",\"volume\":\"41 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Annals of Operations Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-024-06216-w\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"OPERATIONS RESEARCH & MANAGEMENT SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of Operations Research","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-024-06216-w","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"OPERATIONS RESEARCH & MANAGEMENT SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在数据包络分析(DEA)中,最小距离模型无疑是确定目标的一大进步。这些模型有助于确定改进计划,使效率低下的决策单元(DMU)所需的总体努力最小。尽管 "最接近目标 "有其优势,但在某些情况下,其结果可能并不令人满意,因为即使在这种情况下,改进计划也与实际绩效相差甚远。出现这种情况的原因通常是,为了达到有效的 DEA 边界,所有的努力都集中在了少数几个变量上。在某些情况下,为某些投入/产出所付出的巨大努力是无法实现的。事实上,在文献中可以找到关于顺序改进计划的建议。可能出现的情况是,顺序改进计划对某些变量的要求仍然很高,以至于很难实现这些目标。我们提出了另一种方法,即改进计划要求参与分析的不同变量做出类似的努力。在缺乏有关不同投入/产出的改进局限性的信息的情况下,我们认为一个合理而保守的解决方案是可以公平地重新分配努力的方案。在本文中,我们提出了不同的方法,目的是在不忽视所需总体努力的情况下,实现公平的努力分配,以达到最佳运营水平。因此,我们提供了针对 DEA 有效目标的不同改进规划方案,决策者可以选择最适合自身情况的方案。此外,作为基准 DEA 的新内容,我们还将研究哪些属性能够满足所提出的不同模型生成的目标。最后,文献中使用的一个经验实例将对所提出的方法进行说明。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Benchmarking in data envelopment analysis: balanced efforts to achieve realistic targets

The minimum distance models have undoubtedly represented a significant advance for the establishment of targets in Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA). These models may help in defining improvement plans that require the least overall effort from the inefficient Decision Making Units (DMUs). Despite the advantages that come with Closest Targets, in some cases unsatisfactory results may be given, since improvement plans, even in that context, differ considerably from the actual performances. This generally occurs because all the effort employed to reach the efficient DEA frontier is channeled into just a few variables. In certain contexts these exorbitant efforts in some inputs/outputs become unapproachable. In fact, proposals for sequential improvement plans can be found in the literature. It could happen that the sequential improvement plans continue to be so demanding in some variable that it would be difficult to achieve such targets. We propose an alternative approach where the improvement plans require similar efforts in the different variables that participate in the analysis. In the absence of information about the limitations of improvement in the different inputs/outputs, we consider that a plausible and conservative solution would be the one where an equitable redistribution of efforts would be possible. In this paper, we propose different approaches with the aim of reaching an impartial distribution of efforts to achieve optimal operating levels without neglecting the overall effort required. Therefore, we offer different alternatives for planning improvements directed towards DEA efficient targets, where the decision-maker can choose the one that best suits their circumstances. Moreover, and as something new in the benchmarking DEA context, we will study which properties satisfy the targets generated by the different models proposed. Finally, an empirical example used in the literature serves to illustrate the methodology proposed.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Annals of Operations Research
Annals of Operations Research 管理科学-运筹学与管理科学
CiteScore
7.90
自引率
16.70%
发文量
596
审稿时长
8.4 months
期刊介绍: The Annals of Operations Research publishes peer-reviewed original articles dealing with key aspects of operations research, including theory, practice, and computation. The journal publishes full-length research articles, short notes, expositions and surveys, reports on computational studies, and case studies that present new and innovative practical applications. In addition to regular issues, the journal publishes periodic special volumes that focus on defined fields of operations research, ranging from the highly theoretical to the algorithmic and the applied. These volumes have one or more Guest Editors who are responsible for collecting the papers and overseeing the refereeing process.
期刊最新文献
Digital operations research models for intelligent machines (industry 4.0) and man-machine (industry 5.0) systems AI-based decision support systems for sustainable business management under circular economy Leveraging interpretable machine learning in intensive care Correction: Power utility maximization with expert opinions at fixed arrival times in a market with hidden gaussian drift Designing resilient supply chain networks: a systematic literature review of mitigation strategies
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1