Determining Ranking Ranges Using Goal Programming in DEA

Authors

  • Zahra Moazenzadeh Department of Mathematics, North Tehran Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran.
  • Khadije Mahfeli Department of Mathematics, North Tehran Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran.
  • Maryam Shadab * Department of Mathematics, North Tehran Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran. https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9854-0173

https://doi.org/10.48314/jidcm.v1i3.74

Abstract

Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) is a powerful non-parametric method used to evaluate the relative efficiency of Decision-Making Units (DMUs). The cross-efficiency method has been introduced as an extension of DEA, enabling each unit to be evaluated not only by its own optimal weights but also by the weights of its peers. By integrating DEA and the cross-efficiency method, a more reliable ranking of DMUs can be achieved, enhancing the discriminative power of the evaluation and supporting better decision-making. Alcaraz et al. [1] proposed a method to determine the ranking range of DMUs within the cross-efficiency evaluation. Their proposed models were non-linear. In this article, we use the goal-programming method and convert the nonlinear models into LPs to explore the best and worst ranks for each DMU. Our proposed method and the presented linear models are easier to solve and require less time and computation for systems.  

Keywords:

Data envelopment analysis, Cross-efficiency, Ranking ranges, Goal-programming, Best and worst rank

References

  1. [1] Alcaraz, J., Ramón, N., Ruiz, J. L., & Sirvent, I. (2013). Ranking ranges in cross-efficiency evaluations. European journal of operational research, 226(3), 516–521. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2012.11.034
  2. [2] Charnes, A., Cooper, W. W., & Rhodes, E. (1978). Measuring the efficiency of decision making units. European journal of operational research, 2(6), 429–444. https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-2217(78)90138-8
  3. [3] Banker, R. D., Charnes, A., & Cooper, W. W. (1984). Some models for estimating technical and scale inefficiencies in data envelopment analysis. Management science, 30(9), 1078–1092. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.30.9.1078
  4. [4] Andersen, P., & Petersen, N. C. (1993). A procedure for ranking efficient units in data envelopment analysis. Management science, 39(10), 1261–1264. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.39.10.1261
  5. [5] Mehrabian, S., Alirezaee, M. R., & Jahanshahloo, G. R. (1999). A complete efficiency ranking of decision making units in data envelopment analysis. Computational optimization and applications, 14(2), 261-266. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008703501682
  6. [6] Kaviani, M. A., & Abbasi, M. (2015). A robust data envelopment analysis method with bounded data for ranking operations strategies. International journal of strategic decision sciences, 6(3), 49–64. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/2826988.2826992
  7. [7] Jahanshahloo, G. R., Lotfi, F. H., Shoja, N., Tohidi, G., & Razavyan, S. (2004). Ranking using l1-norm in data envelopment analysis. Applied mathematics and computation, 153(1), 215–224. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0096-3003(03)00625-8
  8. [8] Khodabakhshi, M., & Aryavash, K. (2012). Ranking all units in data envelopment analysis. Applied mathematics letters, 25(12), 2066–2070. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aml.2012.04.019
  9. [9] Jahanshahloo, G. R., & Firoozi Shahmirzadi, P. (2013). New methods for ranking decision making units based on the dispersion of weights and norm 1 in data envelopment analysis. Computers & industrial engineering, 65(2), 187–193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2013.02.010
  10. [10] Ziari, S., & Raissi, S. (2016). Ranking efficient DMUs using minimizing distance in DEA. Journal of industrial engineering international, 12(2), 237–242. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40092-016-0141-2
  11. [11] Ziari, S. (2016). An alternative transformation in ranking using l 1-norm in data envelopment analysis. Journal of industrial engineering international, 12(3), 401-405. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40092-016-0149-7
  12. [12] Jahanshahloo, G. R., Lotfi, F. H., Sanei, M., & Jelodar, M. F. (2008). Review of ranking models in data envelopment analysis. Applied mathematical sciences, 2(29), 1431–1448. https://www.m-hikari.com/ams/ams-password-2008/ams-password29-32-2008/lotfiAMS29-32-2008-1.pdf
  13. [13] Bánhidi, Z., & Dobos, I. (2024). Measuring digital development: ranking using data envelopment analysis (DEA) and network readiness index (NRI). Central european journal of operations research, 32(4), 1089–1108. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10100-024-00919-y
  14. [14] Chen, Y. (2004). Ranking efficient units in DEA. Omega, 32(3), 213–219. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2003.11.001
  15. [15] Sexton, T. R., Silkman, R. H., & Hogan, A. J. (1986). Data envelopment analysis: Critique and extensions. New directions for program evaluation, 1986(32), 73–105. https://doi.org/10.1002/ev.1441
  16. [16] Wu, J., Liang, L., & Yang, F. (2009). Achievement and benchmarking of countries at the summer olympics using cross efficiency evaluation method. European journal of operational research, 197(2), 722–730. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2008.06.030
  17. [17] Wang, Y. M., & Chin, K. S. (2010). A neutral DEA model for cross-efficiency evaluation and its extension. Expert systems with applications, 37(5), 3666–3675. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2009.10.024
  18. [18] Wang, Y. M., & Chin, K. S. (2010). Some alternative models for DEA cross-efficiency evaluation. International journal of production economics, 128(1), 332–338. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2010.07.032
  19. [19] Yingwen, C., Zhixi, Z., Yingying, Z., & Yahan, Z. (2025). Cross efficiency evaluation in two-stage data envelopment analysis model with dual fairness concerns. Journal of productivity analysis, 64(3), 535–550. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11123-025-00783-1
  20. [20] Hamadou, Y. K. (2025). Evaluating the impact of digital mobile e-learning on school management efficiency: A cross-efficiency DEA and bootstrapped regression analysis. Journal of economic and social thought, 12(2), 86–104. https://journals.econsciences.com/index.php/JEST/article/view/2611
  21. [21] Örkcü, H. H., & Bal, H. (2011). Goal programming approaches for data envelopment analysis cross efficiency evaluation. Applied mathematics and computation, 218(2), 346–356. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amc.2011.05.070
  22. [22] Davtalab-Olyaie, M. (2019). A secondary goal in DEA cross-efficiency evaluation: A “one home run is much better than two doubles” criterion. Journal of the operational research society, 70(5), 807–816. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01605682.2018.1457482
  23. [23] Doyle, J., & Green, R. (1994). Efficiency and cross-efficiency in DEA: Derivations, meanings and uses. Journal of the operational research society, 45(5), 567–578. https://doi.org/10.1057/jors.1994.84
  24. [24] Liang, L., Wu, J., Cook, W. D., & Zhu, J. (2008). Alternative secondary goals in DEA cross-efficiency evaluation. International journal of production economics, 113(2), 1025–1030. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2007.12.006

Downloads

Published

2025-09-16

Issue

Vol. 1 No. 3 (2025): Journal of Intelligent Decision and Computational Modelling (JIDCM)

Section

Articles

How to Cite

Moazenzadeh, Z. ., Mahfeli, K. ., & Shadab, M. . (2025). Determining Ranking Ranges Using Goal Programming in DEA. Journal of Intelligent Decision and Computational Modelling, 1(3), 181-189. https://doi.org/10.48314/jidcm.v1i3.74

Similar Articles

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.