Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

A modification of a mixed integer linear programming (MILP) model to avoid the computational complexity

  • Published:
Annals of Operations Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Having multiple optimal solutions to weights affects to a great extent the consistency of operations related to weights. The cross efficiency method is the most frequently studied topic in data envelopment analysis (DEA) literature. Originally, the cross efficiency method included the efficiency evaluations that were obtained for a decision making unit (DMU) by the classical DEA for the reuse of optimal weights in other DMUs. As the optimal weights in classical DEA solutions usually have multiple solutions, this reduces the usefulness of the cross evaluation. Lam (J Oper Res Soc 61:134–143, 2010) proposed a mixed-integer linear programming (MILP) formulation based on linear discriminant analysis and super efficiency method to choose suitable weight sets to be used in cross efficiency evaluation. In this study, Lam’s MILP model has been modified to reduce the steps during the solution process. The model also becomes a linear programming model after the modification to make it easier to use and to reduce the computational complexity. Numerical examples indicate that the proposed weight determination model both reduces the steps and minimizes computational complexity. Furthermore, it has similar performance with Lam’s MILP model for the cross efficiency evaluation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abbott, M. (2006). The productivity and efficiency of the Australian electricity supply industry. Energy Economics, 28, 444–454.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alcaraz, J., Ramón, N., Ruiz, J. L., & Sirvent, I. (2013). Ranking ranges in cross efficiency evaluations. European Journal of Operational Research, 226, 516–521.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, T. R., Hollingsworth, K. B., & Inman, L. B. (2002). The fixed weighting nature of a cross evaluation model. Journal of Productivity Analysis, 18(1), 249–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bagdadioglu, N., Price, C. M. W., & Weyman-Jones, T. G. (1996). Efficiency and ownership in electricity distribution: A nonparametric model of the Turkish experience. Energy Economics, 18, 1–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bagdadioglu, N., Basaran, A., & Price, C. M. W. (2007). Potential impact of electricity reforms on Turkish households. University of East Anglia ESRC Centre for Competition Policy and Norwich Business School, CCP working paper no. 07–8.

  • Bal, H., Örkcü, H. H., & Çelebioğlu, S. (2010). Improving the discrimination power and weight dispersion in the data envelopment analysis. Computers and Operations Research, 37(1), 99–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bowlin, W. F., Charnes, A., Cooper, W. W., & Sherman, H. D. (1985). Data envelopment analysis and regression approaches to efficiency estimation and evaluation. Annals of Operations Research, 2, 113–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Charnes, A., Cooper, W. W., & Rhodes, E. (1978). Measuring the efficiency of decision making units. European Journal of Operational Research, 2, 429–444.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Contreras, I. (2012). Optimizing the rank position of the DMU as secondary goal in DEA cross evaluation. Applied Mathematical Modelling, 36, 2642–2648.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, W. W., Ruiz, J. L., & Sirvent, I. (2007). Choosing weights from alternative optimal solutions of dual multiplier dual models in DEA. European Journal of Operational Research, 180, 443–458.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cullman, A., & Hirschhausen, C. (2008). Efficiency analysis of East European electricity distribution in transition: Legacy of the past? Journal of Productivity Analysis, 29, 155–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cullman, A., Crespo, H., & Plagnet, M. A. (2008). International benchmarking in electricity distribution: A comparison of French and German utilities. German Institute for Economic Research Discussion Paper, 830, 1–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doyle, J. R., & Green, R. (1994). Efficiency and cross efficiency in data envelopment analysis: Derivatives, meanings and uses. Journal of Operational Research Society, 45(5), 567–578.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Du, J., Cook, W. D., Liang, L., & Zhu, J. (2014). Fixed cost and resource allocation based on DEA cross efficiency. European Journal of Operational Research, 235, 206–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edvardsen, D. F., & Forsund, F. R. (2003). International benchmarking of electricity distribution utilities. Resource and Energy Economics, 25, 353–371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Emrouznejad, A., & Marra, M. (2014). Ordered weighting averaged operators: 1988–2014: A citation based literature. International Journal of Intelligent Systems, 29, 994–1014.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forsund, F. R., & Kittelsen, S. A. C. (1998). Productivity development of Norwegian electricity distribution utilities. Resource and Energy Economics, 20, 207–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giannakis, D., Jamasb, T., & Pollitt, M. (2005). Benchmarking and incentive regulation of quality of service: An application to the UK electricity distribution networks. Energy Policy, 33, 2256–2271.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goto, M., & Tsutsui, M. (1998). Comparison of productive and cost effciencies among Japanese and US electric utilities. International Journal of Management Science, 26(2), 177–194.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hess, B., & Cullman, A. (2007). Efficiency analysis of East and West German electricity distribution companies—Do the “Ossis” really beat the “Wessis”? Utilities Policy, 15, 206–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jahanshahloo, G. R., Hosseinzadeh, L. F., Jafari, Y., & Maddahi, R. (2011). Selecting symmetric weights as a secondary goal in DEA cross efficiency evaluation. Applied Mathematical Modelling, 35, 544–549.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jamasb, T., & Pollitt, M. (2003). International benchmarking and regulation: An application to European electricity distribution utilities. Energy Policy, 31, 1609–1622.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Korhonen, P. J., & Syrjanen, M. J. (2003). Evaluation of cost efficiency in Finnish electricity distribution. Annals of Operations Research, 121, 105–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lam, K. F. (2010). In the determination weight sets to compute cross efficiency ratios in DEA. Journal of Operational Research Society, 61, 134–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liang, L., Wu, J., Cook, W. D., & Zhu, J. (2008a). Alternative secondary goals in DEA cross efficiency evaluation. International Journal of Production Economics, 113(2), 1025–1030.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liang, L., Wu, J., Cook, W. D., & Zhu, J. (2008b). The DEA game cross efficiency model and its nash equilibrium. Operations Research, 56(5), 1278–1288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lim, S. (2012). Minimax and maximin formulations cross efficiency in DEA. Computers and Industrial Engineering, 62(3), 726–731.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lim, S., Oh, K. W., & Zhu, J. (2014). Use of DEA cross efficiency evaluation in portfolio selection: An application to Korean stock market. European Journal of Operational Research, 236, 361–368.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ma, C., Liu, D., Zhou, Z., Zhao, W., & Liu, W. (2014). Game cross efficiency for systems with two-stage structures. Journal of Applied Mathematics. Article ID 747596.

  • Oukil, A., & Amin, G. R. (2015). Maximum appreciative cross-efficiency in DEA: A new ranking method. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 81, 14–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oral, M., Amin, G. R., & Oukil, A. (2015). Cross-efficiency in DEA: A maximum resonated appreciative model. Measurement, 63, 159–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Örkcü, H. H., & Bal, H. (2011). Goal programming approaches for data envelopment analysis cross efficiency evaluation. Applied Mathematics and Computation, 218, 346–356.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Örkcü, H. H., & Bal, H. (2012). A new approach to cross efficiency in data envelopment analysis and performance evaluation of Turkey cities. Gazi University Journal of Science, 25(1), 107–117.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pahwa, A., Feng, X., & Lubkeman, D. (2002). Performance evaluation of electric distribution utilities based on data envelopment analysis. IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, 17, 400–405.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pombo, C., & Taborda, R. (2006). Performance and efficiency in Colombia’s power distribution system: Effects of the 1994 reform. Energy Economics, 28, 339–369.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ramón, N., Ruiz, J. L., & Sirvent, I. (2010). On the choice of weights profiles in cross efficiency evaluations. European Journal of Operational Research, 207(3), 1564–1572.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ruiz, J. L. (2013). Cross efficiency evaluation with directional distance functions. European Journal of Operational Research, 228(1), 181–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sexton, T. R., Silkman, R. H., & Hogan, A. J. (1986). Data envelopment analysis: Critique and extension. In R. H. Silkman (Ed.), Measuring efficiency: An assessment of data envelopment analysis (Vol. 32, pp. 73–105). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sherman, H. D. (1984). Data envelopment analysis as a new managerial audit metholology—test and evaluation auditing. Journal of Practice and Theory, 4, 35–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Souza, M. V., Diallo, M., Souza, R. C., & Baidya, T. K. (2010). The cost efficiency of the Brazilian electricity distribution utilities: A comparison of Bayesian SFA and DEA models. Hindawi Publishing Corporation Mathematical Problems in Engineering Volume. Article ID 593059.

  • Thanassoulis, E. (1993). A comparison of regression analysis and data envelopment analysis as alternative methods for performance aassessments. Journal of Operational Research Society, 44, 1129–1144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Troutt, M. D., Ehie, I. C., & Brandyberry, A. A. (2007). Maximally productive input–output units. European Journal of Operational Research, 178, 359–373.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, Y. M., & Chin, K. S. (2010a). A neutral DEA model for cross efficiency evaluation and its extension. Expert System with Applications, 37(5), 3666–3675.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, Y. M., & Chin, K. S. (2010b). Some alternative models for DEA cross efficiency evaluation. International Journal of Production Economics, 128, 332–338.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, Y. M., & Chin, K. S. (2011). The use of OWA operator weights for cross efficiency aggregation. Omega, 39, 493–503.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, Y. M., Chin, K. S., & Luo, Y. (2011a). Cross efficiency evaluation based on ideal and anti-ideal decision making units. Expert System with Applications, 38, 10312–10319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, Y. M., Chin, K. S., & Peng, J. (2011b). Weight determination in the cross efficiency evaluation. Computers and Industrial Engineering, 61(3), 497–502.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu, J., Liang, L., & Yang, F. (2009a). Achievement and benchmarking of countries at the Summer Olympics using cross efficiency evaluation method. European Journal of Operational Research, 197, 722–730.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu, J., Liang, L., & Chen, Y. (2009b). DEA game cross efficiency approach to Olympic rankings. Omega, 37, 909–918.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu, J., Liang, L., & Yang, F. (2009c). Determination of the weights for the ultimate cross efficiency using Shapley value in cooperative game. Expert Systems with Applications, 36, 872–876.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu, J., Liang, L., Yang, F., & Yan, H. (2009d). Bargaining game model in the evaluation of decision making units. Expert Systems with Applications, 36, 4357–4362.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu, J., Liang, L., Zha, Y., & Yang, F. (2009e). Determination of cross efficiency under the principle of rank priority in cross evaluation. Expert Systems with Applications, 36, 4826–4829.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu, D. (2009). Performance evaluation: An integrated method using data envelopment analysis and fuzzy preference relations. European Journal of Operational Research, 194, 227–235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu, J., Sun, J., Liang, L., & Zha, Y. (2011). Determination of weights for ultimate cross efficiency using Shannon entropy. Expert Systems with Applications, 38, 5162–5165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu, J., Sun, J., & Liang, L. (2012). Cross efficiency evaluation method based on weight-balanced data envelopment analysis model. Computers and Industrial Engineering, 63, 513–519.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yadav, V. K., Padhy, N. P., & Gupta, H. O. (2011). Performance evaluation and improvement directions for an Indian electric utility. Energy Policy, 39, 7112–7120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yager, R. R. (1988). On ordered weighted averaging aggregation operators in multicriteria decision making. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 18(1), 183–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yu, M. M., Ting, S. C., & Chen, M. C. (2010). Evaluating the cross efficiency of information sharing in supply chains. Expert System with Applications, 37(4), 2891–2897.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yunos, J. M., & Hawdon, D. (1997). The efficiency of the National Electricity Board in Malaysia: An intercountry comparison using DEA. Energy Economics, 19, 255–269.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, Y., & Bartels, B. (1998). The effect of sample size on the mean efficiency in DEA with an application to electricity distribution in Australia, Sweden and New Zealand. Journal of Journal of Productivity Analysis, 9, 187–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Statistics, Faculty of Sciences, Gazi University, 06500, Teknikokullar, Ankara, Turkey

    H. Hasan Örkcü & Hasan Bal

  2. Department of Statistics, Faculty of Art & Science, Usak University, İzmir road 7th km, Uşak, Turkey

    Mehmet Güray Ünsal

Authors
  1. H. Hasan Örkcü
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mehmet Güray Ünsal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Hasan Bal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to H. Hasan Örkcü.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Örkcü, H.H., Ünsal, M.G. & Bal, H. A modification of a mixed integer linear programming (MILP) model to avoid the computational complexity. Ann Oper Res 235, 599–623 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-015-1916-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-015-1916-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy