When does data envelopment analysis outperform a naïve efficiency measurement model? (English) Zbl 1157.90437
Summary: This paper compares the results from data envelopment analysis (DEA) to a naïve efficiency measurement model, which generates a scalar efficiency score by averaging all output-input ratios. Random data and real-life data are used to test the relative performance of the naïve model against various DEA models. The results suggest that the proposed the naïve model replicates DEA efficiency scores almost perfectly for constant return-to-scales and low heterogeneity in output-input data. It is therefore concluded that heterogeneity in output-input data is important to take advantage of the capability of DEA. It is also shown that heterogeneity is more relevant to efficiency measurement than the number of dimensions.
MSC:
| 90B50 | Management decision making, including multiple objectives |
| 90C31 | Sensitivity, stability, parametric optimization |
References:
| [1] | Aaker, D. A.; Carman, J. M., Are you overadvertising?, Journal of Advertising Research, 22, 4, 57-70 (1982) |
| [2] | Adler, N.; Friedman, L.; Sinuany-Stern, Z., Review of ranking methods in the data envelopment analysis context, EJOR, 140, 249-265 (2002) · Zbl 1001.90048 |
| [3] | Andersen, P.; Petersen, N. C., A procedure for ranking efficient units in data envelopment analysis, Management Science, 39, 1261-1264 (1993) · Zbl 0800.90096 |
| [4] | Banker, R.; Charnes, A.; Cooper, W. W., Some models for estimating technical and scale inefficiencies in data envelopment analysis, Management Science, 30, 9, 1078-1092 (1984) · Zbl 0552.90055 |
| [5] | Charnes, A.; Cooper, W. W.; Rhodes, E., Measuring the efficiency of decision making units, EJOR, 3, 429-444 (1978) · Zbl 0416.90080 |
| [6] | Charnes, A.; Cooper, W. W.; Rhodes, E., Evaluating program and managerial efficiency: An application of data development analysis to program follow through, Management Science, 27, 6, 668-697 (1981) |
| [7] | Chen, Y.; Ali, A. I., output-input ratio analysis and DEA, EJOR, 142, 467-479 (2002) · Zbl 1081.90566 |
| [8] | Cherchye, L.; Post, T., Methodological Advances in DEA: A survey and an application for the dutch electricity sector, Statistica Nederlandica, 57, 4, 410-438 (2003) |
| [9] | Coelli, T.; Perelman, S., Technical efficiency of European railways: A distance function approach, Applied Economics, 32, 1967-1976 (2000) |
| [10] | Cooper, W. W.; Park, K. S.; Pastor, J. T., RAM: A range adjusted measure of inefficiency for use with additive models, Journal of Productivity Analysis, 11, 5-42 (2000) |
| [11] | Cooper, W. W.; Park, K. S.; Zu, G., IDEA and AR-IDEA: Models for dealing with imprecise data in DEA, Management Science, 45, 597-607 (1999) · Zbl 1231.90289 |
| [12] | Cooper, W. W.; Tone, K., Measures of inefficiency in data envelopment analysis and stochastic frontier estimation, European Journal of Operational Research, 99, 72-88 (1997) · Zbl 0953.90532 |
| [13] | Donthu, N.; Yoo, B., Retail Productivity Assessment: Using data envelopment assessment, Journal of Retailing, 74, 89-117 (1998) |
| [14] | Doyle, J. R.; Green, R. H.; Cook, W. D., Upper and lower bound evaluation of multiattribute objects: Comparison models using linear programming, Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 64, 3, 261-273 (1995) |
| [15] | Drake, L.; Simper, R., The measurement of English and Welsh police force efficiency: A comparison of distance function models, EJOR, 147, 165-186 (2003) · Zbl 1011.90532 |
| [16] | Färe, R.; Grosskopf, S., Theory and application of directional distance functions, Journal of Productivity Analysis, 13, 93-103 (2000) |
| [17] | Farrell, M. J., The measurement of productive efficiency, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 120, A: III, 253-290 (1957) |
| [18] | Grosskopf, S., Statistical inference and non-parametrical efficiency: A selective survey, Journal of Productivity Analysis, 7, 161-176 (1996) |
| [19] | Hershberger, E.K., Osmonbekov, T., Donthu N. Benchmarking marketing performance. Working Paper 2001; January 21st; Georgia State University.; Hershberger, E.K., Osmonbekov, T., Donthu N. Benchmarking marketing performance. Working Paper 2001; January 21st; Georgia State University. |
| [20] | Hjalmarsson, L.; Kumbhakar, S. C.; Heshmati, A., DEA, DFA and SFA: A comparison, Journal of Productivity Analysis, 7, 303-327 (1996) |
| [21] | Horsky, D.; Nelson, P., Evaluation of salesforce size and productivity through efficient frontier benchmarking, Marketing Science, 15, 310-320 (1996) |
| [22] | Jenkins, L.; Andersen, M., A multivariate statistical approach to reducing the number of variables in data envelopment analysis, EJOR, 147, 51-61 (2003) · Zbl 1011.90528 |
| [23] | Kamakura, W. A.; Ratchford, B. T.; Agarwal, J., Measuring marketing efficiency and welfare loss, Journal of Consumer Research, 15, 289-302 (1998) |
| [24] | Lavidge, R. J.; Steiner, G. A., A Model for Predicitive Measurements in Advertising, Journal of Marketing, 25, 59-62 (1961) |
| [25] | Lee, J. Y., Comparing SFA and DEA methods for measuring production efficiency for forest and paper companies, Forest Product Journal, 55, 51-56 (2005) |
| [26] | Löthgren, M., Specification and estimation of stochastic multiple-output production and technical inefficiency, Applied Economics, 32, 1533-1540 (2000) |
| [27] | Luo, X.; Donthu, N., Benchmarking advertising efficiency, Journal of Advertising Research, 41, 7-18 (2001) |
| [28] | Luo, X.; Donthu, N., Assessing advertising media spending inefficiencies in generating sales, Journal of Business Research, 58, 28-36 (2005) |
| [29] | Miller, A.; Cioffi, J., Measuring marketing effectiveness and value: The Unisys marketing dashboard, Journal of Advertising Research, 44, 237-240 (2004) |
| [30] | Ross, A.; Dröge, C., An integrated benchmarking approach to distribution center performance using DEA modeling, Journal of Operations Management, 20, 19-32 (2002) |
| [31] | Seiford, L. M.; Zhu, J., An investigation of returns to scales in DEA, Omega, 27, 1-11 (1999) |
| [32] | Shaw, R.; White, C., Improving marketing accountability through better management of the market research process, Journal of Marketing Management, 15, 857-870 (1999) |
| [33] | Simar, L.; Wilson, P. W., Statistical inference in non-parametric frontier models: The state of the art, Journal of Productivity Analysis, 13, 48-78 (2000) |
| [34] | Strong, E. K., The Psychology of Selling (1926), McGraw-Hill: McGraw-Hill New York |
| [35] | Tanaka, K., Takeda, E., Nakajima, N., 2002. Measuring the performance of advertising campaigns based on DEA: An empirical study. Working Paper 2002; Setsuan University.; Tanaka, K., Takeda, E., Nakajima, N., 2002. Measuring the performance of advertising campaigns based on DEA: An empirical study. Working Paper 2002; Setsuan University. |
| [36] | Thomas, R. R.; Barr, R. S.; Cron, W. L.; Slocum, J. W., A process for evaluating retail store efficiency: A restricted DEA approach, International Journal of Research in Marketing, 15, 487-503 (1998) |
| [37] | Tone, K., A slack-based measure of super-efficiency in data envelopment analysis, EJOR, 143, 32-41 (2002) · Zbl 1073.90520 |
| [38] | Wadud, A.; White, B., Farm household efficiency in Bangladesh: a comparison of stochastic frontier and DEA methods, Applied Economics, 32, 1665-1673 (2000) |
| [39] | Zhu, J., Data envelopment analysis vs. principal component analysis: An illustrative study of economic performance of Chinese cities, EJOR, 111, 50-61 (1998) · Zbl 0938.91018 |
This reference list is based on information provided by the publisher or from digital mathematics libraries. Its items are heuristically matched to zbMATH identifiers and may contain data conversion errors. In some cases that data have been complemented/enhanced by data from zbMATH Open. This attempts to reflect the references listed in the original paper as accurately as possible without claiming completeness or a perfect matching.
