A Review on Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA)

Chuen Tse Kuah, Kuan Yew Wong, Farzad Behrouzi

Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia,
81310 UTM Skudai, Malaysia.
e-mails: jk_ct@hotmail.com, wongky@fkm.utm.my, farzad_behrouzi@yahoo.com


AbstractThis paper is a review paper focusing on the
methodological development of Data Envelopment Analysis
(DEA), a multi-factor performance measurement and
improvement tool. Since its introduction in 1978, vast studies
have been done on DEA, causing significant growth in its
methodology and applications in the real world. The purpose
of this paper is to provide a general introduction to DEA. The
basic DEA models and some important methodological
extensions of DEA, such as multilevel DEA models, stochastic
DEA models, and fuzzy DEA models, are discussed in the
paper. In addition, some current and future research trends
are highlighted.
Keywords-DEA; performance improvement
I. INTRODUCTION
Since Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) was first
introduced by Charnes, Cooper, and Rhodes in 1978 [1], the
simple yet powerful method has been vastly developed and
used to assess the relative efficiencies of multiple-input
multiple-output decision making units (DMUs). The
popularity of DEA is due to its ability to measure relative
efficiencies of multiple-input and multiple-output DMUs
without prior weights on the inputs and outputs. To date,
DEA is still widely researched and is being applied in many
areas and domains. For example, agriculture industry [2],
banking industry [3], information technology and
information system [4], education [5], airline [6], computer
industry [7], power plant [8], sport [9], stock market [10],
government [11], supply chain [12], and many more.
In the current paper, we present various fundamental
DEA models and some important methodological extensions
of DEA that have enhanced its effectiveness. In addition, we
also present some current research trends of DEA. However,
readers should be noted that the coverage of this paper is not
meant to be complete as the volume of literature is immense.
Therefore, for those who are interested in a thorough
discussion on the various topics of DEA, please refer to
[13,14,15,16].
Section II gives a general review on some basic DEA
models. Section III examines a number of extensions of
DEA model. Section IV discusses several multilevel DEA
models. A discussion on stochastic and fuzzy DEA models is
presented in Section V, followed by conclusions in section
VI.
II. BASIC DEA MODELS
This section describes some primary DEA models which
are important in the development of DEA methodology.
A. CCR Model
CCR DEA model was the first DEA model, which was
proposed in [1]. It was named after the three authors
(Charnes, Cooper, and Rhodes). In DEA, the organization
under study is called a DMU. A DMU is an entity
responsible for converting input(s) into output(s) and whose
performances are to be evaluated. Consider there are n
DMUs: DMU
1
, DMU
2
, , and DMU
n
. Each DMU
j
, (j = 1,
2, , n) uses m inputs x
ij
(i = 1, , m) and generates s
outputs y
rj
(r = 1, , s). Let the input weights v
i
(i = 1, ,
m) and the output weights u
r
(r = 1, , s) as variables. Let
the DMU
j
to be evaluated on any trial be designated as
DMU
0
(0 = 1, 2, , n). The efficiency of each DMU
0
, e
0
, is
thus found by solving the linear programming below, which
is known as multiplier form in DEA,

0
= o

0
(1)
s. .

0
=

0
-

0
<

~
The model is run n times in identifying the relative
efficiency scores of all the DMUs. Each DMU selects a set
of input weights v
i
and output weights u
r
that maximize its
efficiency score. Generally, a DMU is efficient if it obtains
the maximum score of 1; else, a DMU is inefficient.
For every inefficient DMU, CCR identifies a set of
corresponding efficient DMUs that can be utilized as
benchmarks for improvement. The benchmarks can be
obtained from the dual problem of (1). By duality, the model
can be written as envelopment form, as shown in (2).
Readers can refer to [17] on how to convert a multiplier form
linear programming into envelopment form.
n 0
0
(2)
s. . z
]

] ]
- 0
0

0
<
z
]

] ]
-
0
~
2010 Fourth Asia International Conference on Mathematical/Analytical Modelling and Computer Simulation
978-0-7695-4062-7/10 $26.00 2010 IEEE
DOI 10.1109/AMS.2010.45
168
z
]
~
Problem (2) has an optimal solution when = 1, = 1,
and 0. The DMUs with the optimal solution are referred
to as efficient DMUs. For inefficient DMUs, CCR projects
them onto the efficient frontier (the segment formed by
efficient DMUs) by reducing each input by the
proportionality factor , which is obtained from the
envelopment model above, while maintaining the output
levels. Another way of projecting the inefficient DMUs to
the efficient frontier is by increasing the outputs by a
proportionality factor 1/.
Despite its simplicity, CCR has some limitations. First,
an inefficient DMU and its benchmarking DMUs may not be
similar in their operations. The reason, as pointed out in [18],
is due to the composite DMU does not exist in reality. To
surmount this problem, performance-based clustering
methods have been used by researchers to cluster similar
DMUs into groups. The efficient DMUs in a cluster are
utilized to benchmark other inefficient DMUs in a particular
cluster [19].
The second limitation of CCR model is that it assumes
constant return to scale (CRS), which may not be true for
some applications. To address this issue, researchers have
implemented variable return to scale (VRS) into the original
DEA model. The basic VRS model is known as BCC
(Banker, Charnes, Cooper) model [20], which will be
explained in the following section.
B. BCC Model
In BCC model [20], VRS is assumed and the efficient
frontier is formed by the convex hull of the existing DMUs.
The envelopment form of BCC is,
n 0
0
(3)
s. . z
]
~
and other constraints in (2). Note that BCC differs from
CCR in that it has the additional convexity constraint,
z
] ]
= . A DMU
0
is BCC-efficient if it has an optimal
solution of = 1, = 1, and 0. The difference between
CRS and VRS is illustrated with a single input-single output
example in Fig. 1 and Fig. 2, which show the efficient
frontiers of the models. In CCR, due to the CRS assumption,
only DMU C is efficient. While for BCC, due to the VRS
assumption, the efficient frontier is spanned by DMUs A, C,
D, and F; these DMUs are BCC-efficient. Generally, a DMU
is BCC-efficient if it is CCR-efficient but it is not necessary
that a BCC-efficient DMU is CCR-efficient.
Referring to Fig. 2, that line segment connecting point A
and point C, forms the increasing return to scale segment of
the efficient frontier; constant return to scale occurring at
point C; while all points to the right of point C is
experiencing decreasing return to scale. For more detailed
discussion on return to scale classification in DEA, readers
can refer to [21].

Figure 1. Efficient frontier of CCR model

Figure 2. Efficient frontier of BCC model
III. EXTENSIONS OF BASIC DEA MODELS
A. Additive Model
There are two types of measures in DEA, viz. radial and
non-radial. Both CCR and BCC are radial models. Radial
means the inputs (or outputs) are reduced (increased)
proportionally while maintaining the outputs (or inputs).
Additive model is a non-radial DEA model, which moves an
inefficient DMU to the efficient frontier by reducing inputs
and increasing outputs concurrently.
Additive model, which is also known as Pareto-
Koopmans model, was first introduced in [22]. Both CCR
and BCC models can be modified to be additive models.
Problem (4) shown below is an additive model arose from
BCC model,

0
= o s

+ s

(4)
s. . z
]

] ]
-
o
+ s

-
=
z
]

] ]
-
o
- s

+
=
z
] ]
=
z
]
, s

-
, s

+
~
where s

-
and s

+
are the slacks, specifically, s

-
is the
input excesses and s

+
is the output shortfalls. A DMU is
additive-efficient if all the slacks equal to zero at its optimum
solution. Note that the efficient frontier generated by this
additive model is exactly the same with the one generated by
169
(3) due to the convexity constraint z
] ]
= . Therefore, a
DMU is additive-efficient if and only if it is BCC-efficient.
An additive-inefficient DMU can be projected to the
efficient frontier by adjusting the inputs and outputs using
the slacks, as shown below,

- s

-
(5)

+ s

+
(6)
A weakness of the additive model was it does not provide
an actual measure of efficiency. To address this issue, a
measure of efficiency for additive model was proposed [22],

0
= o( s

-

0
/

+ s

+

0
/

) (7)
Dividing s

-
and s

+
by
0
and
0
render these slacks
units invariant. While o controls the overall scale. Charnes et
al. [22] suggested o to be ( +s).
0
provides an actual
measure of efficiency for additive model. However, notice
that the optimum value of
0
is zero. This is not consistent
with the efficiency measures as in CCR and BCC models.
B. Slacks-Based Model (SBM)
To overcome the weakness in the additive model, a
variant of additive model was proposed in [23,24], namely,
slacks-based model (SBM) presenting a measure of
efficiency of,
n =
1-
1
m
s
i
-
x
i0 i
1+
1
s
s
r
+
y
r0 r
(8)
subjecting to the same constraints in (4). This fractional
programming problem can be transformed into linear
programming as shown in [24]. The optimum solution of
SBM is 1, which can only be achieved when all the slacks
equal to zero. This is consistent with CCR and BCC models.
C. Hybrid Measures
Difference between radial approach and non-radial
approach in DEA exists in the characterization of input or
output items. Radial inputs and outputs change
proportionally; while non-radial inputs and outputs change
non-proportionally. CCR and BCC are two radial models,
while additive model and SBM are two examples of non-
radial models. These models can be applied to evaluate a
group of DMUs efficiencies based on the characterization of
their inputs and outputs. If all inputs and outputs are radial,
CCR or BCC may be used; if all are non-radial, then additive
model or SBM may be utilized.
However, there are situations where the inputs and/or
outputs are a mixture of radial and non-radial. These
differences should be reflected in the measurement of
efficiency. Cooper et al. [14] therefore integrated radial and
non-radial models in a unified framework and presented a
hybrid measure of efficiency, which includes both radial and
non-radial in the model.
D. Russel Measure
Another DEA model that is important in the
methodology development of DEA is Russel Measure (RM),
which was first formulated by Fre and Lovell [25]. RM
aggregates both output and input efficiencies in the
framework of a radial measure and treatments between input
and output orientation are not required. RM, despite its
usefulness, is too complicated in computation wise because
it was formulated as a nonlinear programming problem [26].
RM was then revisited by a number of researchers. For
instance, RM was extended into an improved model named
as Enhanced Russell Graph Measure (EGRM) [26]. EGRM
has reduced the computational complication of RM, but as a
trade off, it can only give approximate RM scores.
A recent development of RM is published in [27]. By
utilizing second-order cone programming (SOCP), the
researchers are able to solve RM directly, without depending
on EGRM. The proposed SOCP approach can provide an
exact RM score. Their research is a major breakthrough in
RM measurement. Interested readers are recommended to
refer to their research paper.
E. Free Disposal Hull (FDH)
Free Disposal Hull (FDH) model in [28] is another model
which has received a considerable amount of researchers
attention. Instead of the convexity assumption that most
DEA models use, FDH employs the assumption that the
efficient frontier is constructed only by observed DMUs. The
idea of FDH is to ensure that efficiency measurements are
the results of actual observed performances. The concept is
illustrated in Fig. 3. As can be seen, the boundary of the set
and its connection represents the "hull" that envelops all the
production possibilities from the actual observation.
The basic FDH model is an easy method to use, in fact, it
can be extended from the CCR or BCC model with an
additional constraint z
]
e {,]. For more discussion on the
FDH model, one can refer to [14,28,29,30].
F. Cross Efficiency Model
Cross efficiency model, which was initiated by Sexton,
Silkman, and Hogan [31], allows a DMU to be evaluated by
not just with its own optimal weights, but also all the other
DMUs optimum weights. In cross efficiency model, first the
optimal weights for the inputs and outputs of each DMU are
computed using a typical DEA procedure. Next, each DMU
is to be evaluated using the n sets of weights, obtaining n
efficiency scores for each DMU. Lastly, cross efficiency
score for a DMU is the average value of its n efficiency
scores. The DMUs can then be ranked according to their
cross efficiency scores. Further discussion on cross
efficiency model can be found in [19]. Numerous
applications and improved models of cross efficiency can be
found in the literature, for example, [32,33].
G. Super Efficiency Model
In the super-efficiency models, the DMU under
evaluation is excluded from the reference set. In other words,
the super-efficiency score of a DMU is based on a reference
set constructed from all other DMUs except itself.
170

Figure 3. Efficient frontier of FDH model
The concept of super-efficiency was proposed in [34].
There are troubles with these super-efficiency measures, for
examples, the super-efficiency measures are lacking of units
invariance and there are non-solution possibilities in VRS
super-efficiency model [35].
Not much effort was given to resolve the non-solution
problem. Only until recently, an alternative approach to
resolve this non-solution problem in super-efficiency model
has been proposed in [36].
Super-efficiency models have been widely applied in
different application, for instances, ranking of efficient
DMUs [34], determining efficiency regions [37], detecting
outliers [38], and detecting the extreme efficient DMUs [39].
IV. DISCUSSIONS ON MULTILEVEL AND MULTISTAGE
MODELS
The models presented thus far are single level models.
However, there are applications where the efficiency has to
be viewed in a multilevel or multistage perspective. The four
models that will be discussed in this section are among the
various multilevel and multistage DEA models.
A. Network DEA Models
One of the drawbacks of the traditional DEA models is
the neglect of intermediate activities. A simple example is
evaluating efficiencies of companies which consist of
multiple divisions in each company. Each division utilizes its
own input resources for producing its own outputs and there
are linking activities between the divisions. In traditional
DEA models, the companies are evaluated without
considering the continuity of links between divisions. Some
DEA models employ multiple steps, using intermediate
products as outputs in one division and as inputs in another
division, to evaluate the companies and their divisions. This,
however, cannot deal with the linking activities in one single
step. Therefore, network DEA models were developed to
deal with this issue.
Fre and Grosskopf [40] originated the studies on
network DEA. The researchers investigated the so-called
black box of DEA. Their research was then improved by
other researchers. Examples of extensions and applications
of network DEA are, evaluating organizations with complex
internal structures in [41], evaluating pharmacies
productivity and customer satisfaction in [42], and a slacks-
based network DEA model, which can decompose the
overall efficiency into divisional efficiencies, has been
proposed in [43]. There is an increasing number of current
studies being done on network DEA, thus, it can be a
direction for future work.
B. Multi-component DEA Models
While the multilevel models which have been discussed
previously can be termed as serial processes, some
application areas involve multiple components or functions
that can be termed as parallel processes [16]. It is sometimes
needed to obtain a measure of performance for the DMUs
and for the components or functions in the DMUs at the
same time. The concept of partial efficiency measures was
first introduced in [44]. The situation is further complicated
when there are shared resources between the components or
functions. The DEA structure has to be modified to be able
to split those resources among the various components or
functions. Cook and Green [45] proposed the use of a multi-
component DEA model that can identify the overall
performance of a DMU and isolate particular components
which the company can improve on. In addition, the model
can be utilized to identify the core business of a company.
C. Hierarchical DEA Models
Some situations in multilevel efficiency measurement
might involve hierarchical structures or groupings.
Hierarchical DEA concept was introduced to evaluate DMUs
that fall naturally into hierarchies and groupings.
Hierarchical DEA enables one to view and evaluate
efficiencies of DMUs at various levels. The efficiency scores
of DMUs might be adjusted based on the level or group they
fall into.
An application of hierarchical model to evaluate power
plant efficiencies was demonstrated in [46]. Each power
plant is made up of several operating units. By utilizing
hierarchical DEA model, the researchers were able to
evaluate both the efficiency of each power unit relative to
other power units, and the efficiency of the power plants. In
their research, the hierarchical efficiency was viewed as a
multi-stage process. Cook and Green [47] revised and
improved the model. This improved hierarchical efficiency
measurement can be viewed at all levels simultaneously. As
pointed out by Cook and Green, the application of DEA
principles to hierarchical structures is an important and
potential area for research.
D. Supply Chain DEA Models
Supply chain is a relatively new and fast emerging area
in which multilevel DEA models are being applied. A
number of DEA-based approaches have been used to
evaluate supply chain efficiency. Wong and Wong [12], for
instance, have provided a realistic framework to study supply
chain performances. Several DEA models and approaches to
measure the overall efficiency of supply chain, as well as the
efficiencies of the members in the supply chain were
presented in [48].
171
V. DISCUSSIONS ON STOCHASTIC AND FUZZY DEA
As pointed out in [49], traditional DEA models in general
share one common limitation - they do not allow stochastic
variations in input-output data. The assumption that the data
are always measured with precision is very questionable in
applications that are highly dynamic. Two primary methods
that are used to overcome this weakness of DEA are
stochastic DEA and fuzzy DEA.
A. Stochastic DEA Models
Researchers have incorporated stochastic input and
output variations into DEA models. Particularly, stochastic
DEA models allow the existence of data errors and provide
probabilistic results. Examples of applications are as follow,
stochastic DEA and chance constrained programming
approaches were utilized to evaluate technical efficiencies in
[50]; Khodabakhshi and Asgharian [51] demonstrated the
use of stochastic DEA on input relaxation measure of
efficiency; stochastic data were incorporated to estimate the
most productive scale size in DEA [49]; and Cooper et al.
[52] employed chance constrained programming approaches
to handle congestion issues in stochastic DEA.
B. Fuzzy DEA Models
Application of fuzzy mathematical programming
approaches is another alternative to deal with data variations
in DEA. For instances, [53] demonstrated a fuzzy
mathematical programming approach to assess efficiencies
with DEA models; a method to represent the efficiency of a
DMU as a fuzzy efficiency was described in [54]; DEA
model was incorporated with fuzzy random inputs and
outputs in [55]; and [56] presented an integrated fuzzy DEA,
fuzzy C-means and computer simulation for optimization of
operator allocation in cellular manufacturing systems.
Increasing studies are being done in both the stochastic
and fuzzy DEA models to deal with the variations in data,
congestion, ranking, and variable coefficients in DEA.
However, it should be noted that stochastic and fuzzy are not
always favorable in DEA applications. For situation where
the data are known to be inaccurate, and the decision makers
want a rough estimate on the efficiencies of the DMUs,
stochastic or fuzzy DEA models might be favorable. Else if
the data is highly accurate, those deterministic models should
be utilized instead of stochastic or fuzzy DEA models.
VI. CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE TREND
This paper is intended to provide a general review of
several fundamental DEA models and various important
methodological extensions of DEA. Readers must be noted
that the applications of DEA are vast and this paper is not
intended to cover all the models and issues. For instances,
there are significant studies in the areas of sensitivity
analysis in DEA, modeling of different types of variables,
multiplier restrictions in DEA, resource constrained DEA,
and interfaces of DEA with other disciplines.
Several current and future research trends in DEA have
been highlighted in the text, namely, network DEA models,
hierarchical DEA models, application of DEA in supply
chain efficiency measurement, stochastic DEA models, and
lastly, fuzzy DEA models. All of these could be the
directions for future research.
REFERENCES
[1] A. Charnes, W. W. Cooper, and E. L. Rhodes, Measuring the
efficiency of decision making units, European Journal of
Operational Research, vol. 2, pp. 429444, 1978.
[2] Shang, S. and Mao, X., 2009, in IFIP International Federation for
Information Processing, Volume 293, Computer and Computing
Technologies in Agriculture II, Volume 1, eds. D. Li, Z. Chunjiang,
(Boston: Springer), 3948.
[3] A. S. Camanho and R. G. Dyson, "Cost efficiency measurement with
price uncertainty: a DEA application to bank branch assessments,"
European Journal of Operational Research, vol. 161, pp. 432-446,
2005.
[4] A. Azadeh, A. Keramati, and M. Jafary Songhori, "An integrated
Delphi/VAHP/DEA framework for evaluation of information
technology/information system (IT/IS) investments," The
International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, vol.
45, pp. 1233-1251, 2009.
[5] T. Agasisti and C. Prez-Esparrells, "Comparing efficiency in a cross-
country perspective: the case of Italian and Spanish state
universities," Higher Education, vol. 59, pp. 85-103, 2010.
[6] M.-M. Yu and P.-C. Chen, "Measuring air routes performance using a
fractional network data envelopment analysis model," Central
European Journal of Operations Research, 2009.
[7] Y. Chen and A. Iqbal Ali, "DEA Malmquist productivity measure:
New insights with an application to computer industry," European
Journal of Operational Research, vol. 159, pp. 239-249, 2004.
[8] W. D. Cook and J. Zhu, "Within-group common weights in DEA: An
analysis of power plant efficiency," European Journal of Operational
Research, vol. 178, pp. 207-216, 2007.
[9] W. W. Cooper, J. L. Ruiz, and I. Sirvent, "Selecting non-zero weights
to evaluate effectiveness of basketball players with DEA," European
Journal of Operational Research, vol. 195, pp. 563-574, 2009.
[10] M. Deetz, T. Poddig, I. Sidorovitch, and A. Varmaz, "An evaluation
of conditional multi-factor models in active asset allocation strategies:
an empirical study for the German stock market," Financial Markets
and Portfolio Management, vol. 23, pp. 285-313, 2009.
[11] S. Wang, G. Ran, L. Wang, and B. Shi, "An evaluation on
performance of rural eco-environment public expenditure of Chinese
local governments: theoretical and empirical analysis," Frontiers of
Earth Science in China, vol. 3, pp. 431-436, 2009.
[12] W. P. Wong, and K. Y. Wong, Supply chain performance
measurement system using DEA modeling, Industrial Management
& Data Systems, vol. 107, pp. 361-381, 2007.
[13] W. W. Cooper, L. M. Seiford, and J. Zhu, Handbook on Data
Envelopment Analysis, Kluwer Academic Publishers: Boston, 2004.
[14] W. W. Cooper, L. M. Seiford, and K. Tone, Data Envelopment
Analysis: A Comprehensive Text with Models, Applications,
References and DEA-Solver Software, 2nd Ed., Springer
Science+Business Media: NY, 2007.
[15] J. Zhu, and W. D. Cook, Modeling Data Irregularities and Structural
Complexities in Data Envelopment Analysis, Springer
Science+Business Media: NY, 2007.
[16] W. D. Cook and L. M. Seiford, "Data envelopment analysis (DEA) -
Thirty years on," European Journal of Operational Research, vol. 192,
pp. 1-17, 2009.
[17] R. J. Vanderbei, Linear programming: Foundations and Extensions,
3rd ed., Springer Science+Business Media: NY, 2008.
[18] S. Talluri, and K. P. Yoon, A cone-ratio DEA approach for AMT
justification, International Journal of Production Economics, 2000.
[19] J. Doyle and R. Green, Efficiency and cross efficiency in DEA:
Derivations, meanings and the uses, Journal of the Operational
Research Society, vol. 45, pp. 567578, 1994.
172
[20] R. D. Banker, A. Charnes, and W. W. Cooper, Some models for
estimating technical and scale inefficiencies in data envelopment
analysis, Management Science, vol. 30, pp. 10781092, 1984.
[21] R. D. Banker, W. W. Cooper, L. M. Seiford, R. M. Thrall, and J. Zhu,
"Returns to scale in different DEA models," European Journal of
Operational Research, vol. 154, pp. 345-362, 2004.
[22] A. Charnes, W. W. Cooper, B. Golany, L. M. Seiford, and J. Stutz,
Foundations of data envelopment analysis and ParetoKoopmans
empirical production functions, Journal of Econometrics, vol. 30, pp.
91 107, 1985.
[23] K. Tone, " A slacks-based measure of efficiency in data envelopment
analysis, Research Reports, Graduate School of Policy Science,
Saitama University, 1997.
[24] K. Tone, "A slacks-based measure of efficiency in data envelopment
analysis," European Journal of Operational Research, vol. 130, pp.
498509, 2001.
[25] R. S. Fre and C. A. K. Lovell, Measuring the technical efficiency of
production, Journal of Economic Theory, vol. 19, pp. 150162,
1978.
[26] J. T. Pastor , J. L. Ruiz, and I. Sirvent, "An enhanced DEA russell
graph efficiency measure," Europeon Journal of Operational
Research, vol. 115, pp. 596-607, 1999.
[27] T. Sueyoshi and K. Sekitani, "Computational strategy for Russell
measure in DEA: Second-order cone programming," European
Journal of Operational Research, vol. 180, pp. 459-471, 2007.
[28] L. Deprins, L. Simar, and H. Tulkens, Measuring labor efficiency in
post offices, in M. Marchand, P. Pestieau, H. Tulkens, Eds., The
Performance of Public Enterprises: Concepts and Measurement,
Elsevier Science Publishers: North Holland, 1984, pp. 243267.
[29] H. Tulkens, On FDH efficiency analysis: Some methodological
issues and applications to retail banking, courts and urban transit,
Journal of Productivity Analysis, vol. 4, pp. 183210, 1993.
[30] R. Green and W. D. Cook, A free disposal hull approach to
efficiency measurement, Journal of the Operational Research
Society, vol. 55, pp. 10591063, 2004.
[31] T. R. Sexton, R. H. Silkman, A. J. Hogan, Data envelopment
analysis: Critique and extensions, in R. H. Silkman, Eds., Measuring
Efficiency: An Assessmenit of Data Envelopment Analysis, Jossey
Bass and American Evaluation Association: San Francisco, 1986, pp.
73-105.
[32] R. H. Green, J. R. Doyle, and W. D. Cook, "Preference voting and
project ranking using DEA and cross-evaluation," European Journal
of Operational Research, vol. 90, pp. 461-472, 1996.
[33] T. R. Anderson, K. Hollingsworth, and L. Inman, The Fixed
Weighting Nature of A Cross-Evaluation Model, Journal of
Productivity Analysis, vol. 17, pp. 249255, 2002.
[34] P. Andersen and N.C. Petersen, A procedure for ranking efficient
units in data envelopment analysis, Management Science, vol. 39,
pp. 1261-1264, 1993.
[35] L. M. Seiford and J. Zhu, Infeasibility of super-efficiency data
envelopment analysis models, INFOR, vol. 37, pp. 174187, 1999.
[36] W. D. Cook, L. Liang, Y. Zha, and J. Zhu, A modified super-
efficiency DEA model for infeasibility, Journal of the Operational
Research Society, 2008.
[37] L. M. Seiford and J. Zhu, Stability regions for maintaining efficiency
in data envelopment analysis, European Journal of Operational
Research, vol. 108, pp. 127-139, 1998.
[38] P. W. Wilson, Detecting outliers in deterministic nonparametric
frontier models with multiple outputs, Journal of Business and
Economic Statistics, vol. 11, pp. 319-323, 1993.
[39] R. M. Thrall, Duality, classification and slacks in DEA, Annals of
Operations Research, vol. 66, pp. 109-138, 1996.
[40] R. Fre, S. Grosskopf, Intertemporal Production Frontiers: With
Dynamic DEA, Kluwer Academic Publishers: Boston, 1996.
[41] H. F. Lewis and T. R. Sexton, Network DEA: Efficiency analysis of
organisations with complex internal structure, Computers and
Operations Research, vol. 31, pp. 13651410, 2004.
[42] M. Lthgren and M. Tambour, Productivity and customer
satisfaction in Swedish pharmacies: A DEA network model,
European Journal of Operational Research, vol. 115, pp. 449458,
1999.
[43] K. Tone and M. Tsutsui, "Network DEA: A slacks-based measure
approach," European Journal of Operational Research, vol. 197, pp.
243-252, 2009.
[44] W. D. Cook and Y. Roll, Partial efficiencies in data envelopment
analysis, Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, vol. 37, pp. 171179,
1993.
[45] W. D. Cook and R. H. Green, "Multicomponent efficiency
measurement and core business identification in multiplant firms: A
DEA model," European Journal of Operational Research, vol. 157,
pp. 540-551, 2004.
[46] W. D. Cook, D. Chai, J. Doyle, R. H. Green, Hierarchies and groups
in DEA, Journal of Productivity Analysis, vol. 10, pp. 177198,
1998.
[47] W. D. Cook and R. H. Green, Evaluating power plant efficiency: A
hierarchical model, Computers and Operations Research, vol. 32, pp.
813823, 2005.
[48] J. Zhu, Quantitative Models for Performance Evaluation and
Benchmarking: Data Envelopment Analysis with Spreadsheets, 2nd
ed., Springer Science+Business Media: NY, 2009, pp. 161-186.
[49] M. Khodabakhshi, Estimating most productive scale size with
stochastic data in data envelopment analysis, Economic Modelling ,
vol. 26, pp. 968-973, 2009.
[50] W. W. Cooper, H. Deng, Z. Huang, X. Susan, Chance constrained
programming approaches to technical efficiencies and inefficiencies
in stochastic data envelopment analysis, Journal of the Operational
Research Society, vol. 53, pp. 13471356, 2002.
[51] M. Khodabakhshi and M. Asgharian, An input relaxation measure of
efficiency in stochastic data envelopment analysis, Applied
Mathematical Modelling, vol. 33, pp. 20102023, 2009.
[52] W. W. Cooper, H. Deng, Z. Huang, X. Susan, Chance constrained
programming approaches to congestion in stochastic data
envelopment analysis, European Journal of Operational Research,
vol. 155, pp. 487501, 2004.
[53] T. Leon, V. Liern, J. L. Ruiz, and I. Sirvent, A fuzzy mathematical
programming approach to the assessment of efficiency with DEA
models, Fuzzy Sets and Systems, vol. 139, pp. 407419, 2003.
[54] H.-S. Lee, P.-D. Shen, and W.-L. Chyr, "A Fuzzy Ranking Approach
to Data Envelopment Analysis," in Knowledge-Based Intelligent
Information and Engineering Systems, pp. 1285-1292, 2007.
[55] R. Qin and Y.-K. Liu, "A new data envelopment analysis model with
fuzzy random inputs and outputs," Journal of Applied Mathematics
and Computing, 2009.
[56] A. Azadeh, M. Anvari, B. Ziaei, and K. Sadeghi, "An integrated
fuzzy DEAfuzzy C-meanssimulation for optimization of operator
allocation in cellular manufacturing systems," The International
Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, vol. 46, pp. 361-375.

173