American Institute of Mathematical Sciences

Advanced
March  2020, 16(2): 633-651. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2018171

A new method for ranking decision making units using common set of weights: A developed criterion

Gholam Hassan Shirdel , and  Somayeh Ramezani-Tarkhorani

Department of Mathematics, Faculty of Sciences, University of Qom, Alghadir Bld., Postal code:3716146611, Qom, Iran

* Corresponding author: Gholam Hassan Shirdel

Received  December 2016 Revised  June 2017 Published  March 2020 Early access  October 2018

In this paper we have developed a new model by altering Liu and Peng's approach [20] toward ranking method using CSW. In fact, we have adopted a new criterion which is stronger in terms of maximizing efficiencies. After showing advantages of our model theoretically and illustrating it geometrically, two examples demonstrated how the proposed method is practically more capable.

Keywords: Data envelopment analysis, ranking, common set of weights, linear programming, efficiency.
Mathematics Subject Classification: Primary: 90C05, 90C29; Secondary: 90B50.
Citation: Gholam Hassan Shirdel, Somayeh Ramezani-Tarkhorani. A new method for ranking decision making units using common set of weights: A developed criterion. Journal of Industrial and Management Optimization, 2020, 16 (2) : 633-651. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2018171
References:
[1]

N. Adler, L. Friedman and Z. Sinuany-Stern, Review of ranking methods in the data envelopment analysis context, Eur J Oper Res, 140 (2002), 249-265.  doi: 10.1016/S0377-2217(02)00068-1.

[2]

N. Aghayi, M. Tavana and M. A. Raayatpanah, Robust efficiency measurement with common set of weights under varying degrees of conservatism and data uncertainty, Eur J. Ind Eng, 10 (2016), 385-405.  doi: 10.1504/EJIE.2016.076386.

[3]

A. Aldamak and S. Zolfaghari, Review of efficiency ranking methods in data envelopment analysis, Meas, 106 (2017), 161-172.  doi: 10.1016/j.measurement.2017.04.028.

[4]

R. D. Banker, A. Charnes and W. W. Cooper, Some models for estimating technical and scale inefficiencies in data envelopment analysis, Manage Sci, 30 (1984), 1031-1142.  doi: 10.1287/mnsc.30.9.1078.

[5]

A. Charnes, W. W. Cooper and E. Rhodes, Measuring the efficiency of DMUs, Eur J Oper Res, 2 (1978), 429-444.  doi: 10.1016/0377-2217(78)90138-8.

[6]

C. I. Chiang, M. J. Hwang and Y. H. Liu, Determining a common set of weights in a DEA problem using a separation vector, Math and Comput Model, 54 (2002), 2464-2470.  doi: 10.1016/j.mcm.2011.06.002.

[7]

C. I. Chiang and G. H. Tzeng, A new efficiency measure for DEA: Efficiency achievement measure established on fuzzy multiple objectives programming, J Manage, 17 (2000), 369-388. 

[8]

W. D. Cook, Y. Roll and A. Kazakov, A DEA model for measuring the relative efficiency of highway maintenance patrols, Inform Syst Oper Res, 28 (1990), 113-124. 

[9]

D. K. Despotis, Improving the discriminating power of DEA: Focus on globally efficient units, J Oper Res Soc, 53 (2002), 314-323.  doi: 10.1057/palgrave.jors.2601253.

[10]

J. A. Ganley and S. A. Cubbin, Public Sector Efficiency Measurement: Applications of Data Envelopment Analysis, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1992.

[11]

A. Hatami Marbini, M. Tavana, P. J. Agrell, F. Hosseinzadeh Lotfi and Z. Ghelej Beigi, A common-weights DEA model for centralized resource reduction and target setting, Comput Ind Eng, 79 (2015), 195-203. 

[12]

F. Hosseinzadeh Lotfi, M. Rostamy-Malkhlifeh, G. R. Jahanshahloo, Z. Moghaddas, M. Khodabakhshi and M. Vaez-Ghasemi, A review of ranking models in data envelopment analysis, J Appl Math., 2013 (2013), Article ID: 492421, 20 pages.

[13]

C. K. Hu, F. B. Liu and C. F. Hu, Efficiency measures in fuzzy data envelopment analysis with common weights, J Ind Manage Opt, 13 (2017), 237-249.  doi: 10.3934/jimo.2016014.

[14]

C. L. Hwang and A. S. M. Masud, Multiple Objective Decision Making: Methods and Applications, Springer, Berlin, 1979.

[15]

G. R. Jahanshahloo, F. Hosseinzadeh Lotfi, M. Khanmohammadi, M. Kazemimanesh and V. Rezaie, Ranking of units by positive ideal DMU with common weights, Expert Syst Appl, 37 (2010), 7483-7488.  doi: 10.1016/j.eswa.2010.04.011.

[16]

C. Kao and H. Hung, Data envelopment analysis with common weights: The comprise solution approach, J Oper Res Soc, 56 (2005), 1196-1203.  doi: 10.1057/palgrave.jors.2601924.

[17]

M. N. Kritikos, A full ranking methodology in data envelopment analysis based on a set of dummy decision making units, Expert Systems with Applications: An International Journal, 77 (2017), 211-225.  doi: 10.1016/j.eswa.2017.01.042.

[18]

F. Li, J. Song, A. Dolgui and L. Liang, Using common weights and efficiency invariance principles for resource allocation and target setting, International J Prod Res, 55 (2017), 4982-4997.  doi: 10.1080/00207543.2017.1287450.

[19]

R. Lin, Z. Chen and Z. Li, A new approach for allocating fixed costs among decision making units, J Ind Manag Optim, 12 (2016), 211-228.  doi: 10.3934/jimo.2016.12.211.

[20]

F. H. F. Liu and H. H. Peng, Ranking of units on the DEA frontier with common weights, Comput Oper Res, 35 (2008), 1624-1637.  doi: 10.1016/j.cor.2006.09.006.

[21]

S. Mehrabian, G. R. Jahanshahloo, M. R. Alirezaei and G. R. Amin, An assurance interval of the non-archimedean epsilon in DEA models, Eur J Oper Res, 48 (2000), 189-350.  doi: 10.1287/opre.48.2.344.12381.

[22]

J. X. Nan and D. F. Li, Linear programming technique for solving interval-valued constraint matrix games, J Ind Manag Optim Optimization, 10 (2014), 1059-1070.  doi: 10.3934/jimo.2014.10.1059.

[23]

J. Pourmahmoud and Z. Zeynali, A nonlinear model for common weights set identification in network Data Envelopment Analysis, Int J Ind Math, 38 (2016), 87-98. 

[24]

A. Rahman, S. Lee and T. C. Chung, Accurate multi-criteria decision making methodology for recommending machine learning algorithm, J Expert Syst Appl: An International Journal archive, 71 (2017), 257-278. 

[25]

S. Ramazani-Tarkhorani, M. Khodabakhshi, S. Mehrabian and F. Nuri-Bahmani, Ranking decision-making units using common weights in DEA, Appl Math Model, 38 (2014), 3890-3896.  doi: 10.1016/j.apm.2013.08.029.

[26]

Y. Roll, W. D. Cook and B. Golany, Controlling factor weighs in data envelopment analysis, IIE Trans, 23 (1991), 2-9. 

[27]

S. Saati, A. Hatami-Marbini, P. J. Agrell and M. Tavana, A common set of weight approach using an ideal decision making unit in data envelopment analysis, Journal of Industrial and Management Optimization, 8 (2012), 623-637.  doi: 10.3934/jimo.2012.8.623.

[28]

M. Salahi, N. Torabi and A. Amiri, An optimistic robust optimization approach to common set of weights in DEA, Meas, 93 (2016), 67-73.  doi: 10.1016/j.measurement.2016.06.049.

[29]

G. H. Shirdel, S. Ramezani-Tarkhorani and Z. Jafari, tA Method for Evaluating the Performance of Decision Making Units with Imprecise Data Using Common Set of Weights, Int J Appl Comput Math, 3 (2017), 411-423.  doi: 10.1007/s40819-016-0152-0.

[30]

J. Sun, J. Wu and D. Guo, Performance ranking of units considering ideal and anti-ideal DMU with common weights, Appl Math Model, 37 (2013), 6301-6310.  doi: 10.1016/j.apm.2013.01.010.

[31]

K. Tone, On returns to scale under weight restrictions in data envelopment analysis, J Prod Anal, 16 (2001), 31-47. 

[32]

Y. M. Wang, Y. Luo and Y. X. Lan, Common weights for fully ranking decision making units by regression analysis, Expert Syst Appl, 38 (2011), 9122-9128.  doi: 10.1016/j.eswa.2011.01.004.

show all references

References:
[1]

N. Adler, L. Friedman and Z. Sinuany-Stern, Review of ranking methods in the data envelopment analysis context, Eur J Oper Res, 140 (2002), 249-265.  doi: 10.1016/S0377-2217(02)00068-1.

[2]

N. Aghayi, M. Tavana and M. A. Raayatpanah, Robust efficiency measurement with common set of weights under varying degrees of conservatism and data uncertainty, Eur J. Ind Eng, 10 (2016), 385-405.  doi: 10.1504/EJIE.2016.076386.

[3]

A. Aldamak and S. Zolfaghari, Review of efficiency ranking methods in data envelopment analysis, Meas, 106 (2017), 161-172.  doi: 10.1016/j.measurement.2017.04.028.

[4]

R. D. Banker, A. Charnes and W. W. Cooper, Some models for estimating technical and scale inefficiencies in data envelopment analysis, Manage Sci, 30 (1984), 1031-1142.  doi: 10.1287/mnsc.30.9.1078.

[5]

A. Charnes, W. W. Cooper and E. Rhodes, Measuring the efficiency of DMUs, Eur J Oper Res, 2 (1978), 429-444.  doi: 10.1016/0377-2217(78)90138-8.

[6]

C. I. Chiang, M. J. Hwang and Y. H. Liu, Determining a common set of weights in a DEA problem using a separation vector, Math and Comput Model, 54 (2002), 2464-2470.  doi: 10.1016/j.mcm.2011.06.002.

[7]

C. I. Chiang and G. H. Tzeng, A new efficiency measure for DEA: Efficiency achievement measure established on fuzzy multiple objectives programming, J Manage, 17 (2000), 369-388. 

[8]

W. D. Cook, Y. Roll and A. Kazakov, A DEA model for measuring the relative efficiency of highway maintenance patrols, Inform Syst Oper Res, 28 (1990), 113-124. 

[9]

D. K. Despotis, Improving the discriminating power of DEA: Focus on globally efficient units, J Oper Res Soc, 53 (2002), 314-323.  doi: 10.1057/palgrave.jors.2601253.

[10]

J. A. Ganley and S. A. Cubbin, Public Sector Efficiency Measurement: Applications of Data Envelopment Analysis, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1992.

[11]

A. Hatami Marbini, M. Tavana, P. J. Agrell, F. Hosseinzadeh Lotfi and Z. Ghelej Beigi, A common-weights DEA model for centralized resource reduction and target setting, Comput Ind Eng, 79 (2015), 195-203. 

[12]

F. Hosseinzadeh Lotfi, M. Rostamy-Malkhlifeh, G. R. Jahanshahloo, Z. Moghaddas, M. Khodabakhshi and M. Vaez-Ghasemi, A review of ranking models in data envelopment analysis, J Appl Math., 2013 (2013), Article ID: 492421, 20 pages.

[13]

C. K. Hu, F. B. Liu and C. F. Hu, Efficiency measures in fuzzy data envelopment analysis with common weights, J Ind Manage Opt, 13 (2017), 237-249.  doi: 10.3934/jimo.2016014.

[14]

C. L. Hwang and A. S. M. Masud, Multiple Objective Decision Making: Methods and Applications, Springer, Berlin, 1979.

[15]

G. R. Jahanshahloo, F. Hosseinzadeh Lotfi, M. Khanmohammadi, M. Kazemimanesh and V. Rezaie, Ranking of units by positive ideal DMU with common weights, Expert Syst Appl, 37 (2010), 7483-7488.  doi: 10.1016/j.eswa.2010.04.011.

[16]

C. Kao and H. Hung, Data envelopment analysis with common weights: The comprise solution approach, J Oper Res Soc, 56 (2005), 1196-1203.  doi: 10.1057/palgrave.jors.2601924.

[17]

M. N. Kritikos, A full ranking methodology in data envelopment analysis based on a set of dummy decision making units, Expert Systems with Applications: An International Journal, 77 (2017), 211-225.  doi: 10.1016/j.eswa.2017.01.042.

[18]

F. Li, J. Song, A. Dolgui and L. Liang, Using common weights and efficiency invariance principles for resource allocation and target setting, International J Prod Res, 55 (2017), 4982-4997.  doi: 10.1080/00207543.2017.1287450.

[19]

R. Lin, Z. Chen and Z. Li, A new approach for allocating fixed costs among decision making units, J Ind Manag Optim, 12 (2016), 211-228.  doi: 10.3934/jimo.2016.12.211.

[20]

F. H. F. Liu and H. H. Peng, Ranking of units on the DEA frontier with common weights, Comput Oper Res, 35 (2008), 1624-1637.  doi: 10.1016/j.cor.2006.09.006.

[21]

S. Mehrabian, G. R. Jahanshahloo, M. R. Alirezaei and G. R. Amin, An assurance interval of the non-archimedean epsilon in DEA models, Eur J Oper Res, 48 (2000), 189-350.  doi: 10.1287/opre.48.2.344.12381.

[22]

J. X. Nan and D. F. Li, Linear programming technique for solving interval-valued constraint matrix games, J Ind Manag Optim Optimization, 10 (2014), 1059-1070.  doi: 10.3934/jimo.2014.10.1059.

[23]

J. Pourmahmoud and Z. Zeynali, A nonlinear model for common weights set identification in network Data Envelopment Analysis, Int J Ind Math, 38 (2016), 87-98. 

[24]

A. Rahman, S. Lee and T. C. Chung, Accurate multi-criteria decision making methodology for recommending machine learning algorithm, J Expert Syst Appl: An International Journal archive, 71 (2017), 257-278. 

[25]

S. Ramazani-Tarkhorani, M. Khodabakhshi, S. Mehrabian and F. Nuri-Bahmani, Ranking decision-making units using common weights in DEA, Appl Math Model, 38 (2014), 3890-3896.  doi: 10.1016/j.apm.2013.08.029.

[26]

Y. Roll, W. D. Cook and B. Golany, Controlling factor weighs in data envelopment analysis, IIE Trans, 23 (1991), 2-9. 

[27]

S. Saati, A. Hatami-Marbini, P. J. Agrell and M. Tavana, A common set of weight approach using an ideal decision making unit in data envelopment analysis, Journal of Industrial and Management Optimization, 8 (2012), 623-637.  doi: 10.3934/jimo.2012.8.623.

[28]

M. Salahi, N. Torabi and A. Amiri, An optimistic robust optimization approach to common set of weights in DEA, Meas, 93 (2016), 67-73.  doi: 10.1016/j.measurement.2016.06.049.

[29]

G. H. Shirdel, S. Ramezani-Tarkhorani and Z. Jafari, tA Method for Evaluating the Performance of Decision Making Units with Imprecise Data Using Common Set of Weights, Int J Appl Comput Math, 3 (2017), 411-423.  doi: 10.1007/s40819-016-0152-0.

[30]

J. Sun, J. Wu and D. Guo, Performance ranking of units considering ideal and anti-ideal DMU with common weights, Appl Math Model, 37 (2013), 6301-6310.  doi: 10.1016/j.apm.2013.01.010.

[31]

K. Tone, On returns to scale under weight restrictions in data envelopment analysis, J Prod Anal, 16 (2001), 31-47. 

[32]

Y. M. Wang, Y. Luo and Y. X. Lan, Common weights for fully ranking decision making units by regression analysis, Expert Syst Appl, 38 (2011), 9122-9128.  doi: 10.1016/j.eswa.2011.01.004.

Figure 1.  $0<y_P<x_P, \Delta_P = x_p-y_p ,m_p = {y_p \over x_p} , o<m_{p_1}<m_P<m_{p_2}$
Figure Options

Download full-size image

Download as PowerPoint slide

Figure 2.  The interior points of the area $OQ_1P$, $R_1$, have less amount of $\Delta$ than $P$ while slopes of crossing lines from the origin and these points are less than $m_P$
Figure Options

Download full-size image

Download as PowerPoint slide

Figure 3.  Slopes of crossing lines from the origin and the points located in the areas $R_1$ and $R_2$ are less than $m_P$
Figure Options

Download full-size image

Download as PowerPoint slide

Figure 4.  Range of slopes of the lines crossing the origin and the points located in $R_3$ is the same as that for the the points located in the area enclosed by the segments $OP$, $OQ_6$ and $Q_6P$.
Figure Options

Download full-size image

Download as PowerPoint slide

Figure 5.  Slope of the line crossing the origin and $P^{(U_1,V_1)}_o$ is maximum.
Figure Options

Download full-size image

Download as PowerPoint slide

Figure 6.  Two pairs of DMUs with the same efficiency scores.
Figure Options

Download full-size image

Download as PowerPoint slide

Table 1.  Input and Output data of DMUs
$DMU_j$ $x_{1j}$ $x_{2j}$ $x_{3j} $ $x_{4j}$ $y_{1j}$ $y_{2j} $
$DMU_1$99562051375262941271678
$DMU_2$91758981379204737211277
$DMU_3$3178100493615351127062051
$DMU_4$81358331124173021761538
$DMU_5$123686392486499052202042
$DMU_6 $114676101600358935171856
$DMU_7$70556001557362323522060
$DMU_8$2871115242880245217551664
$DMU_9$109889981730282344122334
$DMU_{10}$203293832421445453862080
$DMU_{11}$1414104682140364957352691
$DMU_{12}$1967112602759317860792804
$DMU_{13}$185198802335457058932495
$DMU_{14}$3100156495487294052483692
$DMU_{15}$5016180104008356778004852
$DMU_{16}$1924126822490297560403396
Table Options

Download as excel

$DMU_j$ $x_{1j}$ $x_{2j}$ $x_{3j} $ $x_{4j}$ $y_{1j}$ $y_{2j} $
$DMU_1$99562051375262941271678
$DMU_2$91758981379204737211277
$DMU_3$3178100493615351127062051
$DMU_4$81358331124173021761538
$DMU_5$123686392486499052202042
$DMU_6 $114676101600358935171856
$DMU_7$70556001557362323522060
$DMU_8$2871115242880245217551664
$DMU_9$109889981730282344122334
$DMU_{10}$203293832421445453862080
$DMU_{11}$1414104682140364957352691
$DMU_{12}$1967112602759317860792804
$DMU_{13}$185198802335457058932495
$DMU_{14}$3100156495487294052483692
$DMU_{15}$5016180104008356778004852
$DMU_{16}$1924126822490297560403396
Table 2.  The generated common set of weights
$v^*_1$ $v^*_2$ $v^*_3 $ $v^*_4$ $u^*_1$ $u^*_2 $
Our method0.0000010.1810810.0000010.1243920.1164660.578059
Liu and Peng's method [20]0.0000010.0000010.0000017.50E-078.70E- 070.000004
Table Options

Download as excel

$v^*_1$ $v^*_2$ $v^*_3 $ $v^*_4$ $u^*_1$ $u^*_2 $
Our method0.0000010.1810810.0000010.1243920.1164660.578059
Liu and Peng's method [20]0.0000010.0000010.0000017.50E-078.70E- 070.000004
Table 3.  The efficiencies
$DMU_j$ $E^*_j$CWA-EfficiencyCCR-Efficiency
$DMU_1$111
$DMU_2$0.8857610.8770071
$DMU_3$0.6651010.557160.690363
$DMU_4$0.898570.9114881
$DMU_5$0.8184360.8077231
$DMU_6$0.8125570.8239970.881091
$DMU_7$111
$DMU_8$0.487620.4404690.555791
$DMU_9$0.9406760.9689861
$DMU_{10}$0.8120470.7748540.863042
$DMU_{11}$0.946380.9632530.996068
$DMU_{12}$0.9566930.9205911
$DMU_{13}$0.902880.8842990.915511
$DMU_{14}$0.8580840.751161
$DMU_{15}$0.9600840.8674781
$DMU_{16}$111
Table Options

Download as excel

$DMU_j$ $E^*_j$CWA-EfficiencyCCR-Efficiency
$DMU_1$111
$DMU_2$0.8857610.8770071
$DMU_3$0.6651010.557160.690363
$DMU_4$0.898570.9114881
$DMU_5$0.8184360.8077231
$DMU_6$0.8125570.8239970.881091
$DMU_7$111
$DMU_8$0.487620.4404690.555791
$DMU_9$0.9406760.9689861
$DMU_{10}$0.8120470.7748540.863042
$DMU_{11}$0.946380.9632530.996068
$DMU_{12}$0.9566930.9205911
$DMU_{13}$0.902880.8842990.915511
$DMU_{14}$0.8580840.751161
$DMU_{15}$0.9600840.8674781
$DMU_{16}$111
Table 4.  The average of the efficiencies in each method and their ratio
Our methodLiu and Peng's method [20]The ratio
0.8715560.8467791.02926
Table Options

Download as excel

Our methodLiu and Peng's method [20]The ratio
0.8715560.8467791.02926
Table 5.  The ranking scores
$DMU_j$Our method: Input-oriented approachOur method: Output-oriented approachCWA-rankingCCR
$DMU_1$1321
$DMU_2$101091
$DMU_3$1515156
$DMU_4$9971
$DMU_5$1212121
$DMU_6$1313114
$DMU_7$2231
$DMU_8$1616167
$DMU_9$7741
$DMU_{10}$1414135
$DMU_{11}$6652
$DMU_{12}$5561
$DMU_{13}$8883
$DMU_{14}$1111141
$DMU_{15}$44101
$DMU_{16}$3111
Table Options

Download as excel

$DMU_j$Our method: Input-oriented approachOur method: Output-oriented approachCWA-rankingCCR
$DMU_1$1321
$DMU_2$101091
$DMU_3$1515156
$DMU_4$9971
$DMU_5$1212121
$DMU_6$1313114
$DMU_7$2231
$DMU_8$1616167
$DMU_9$7741
$DMU_{10}$1414135
$DMU_{11}$6652
$DMU_{12}$5561
$DMU_{13}$8883
$DMU_{14}$1111141
$DMU_{15}$44101
$DMU_{16}$3111
Table 6.  The averages of the obtained efficiencies and their ratio in each case
Size of the sampleOur methodCWA-EfficienciesThe ratio
60.9161280.9069611.010107
120.5390860.5390821.000006
250.6899370.1481764.656189
500.5507240.5533200.995309
1000.6392430.4716781.355254
2000.5823100.5807111.002753
Table Options

Download as excel

Size of the sampleOur methodCWA-EfficienciesThe ratio
60.9161280.9069611.010107
120.5390860.5390821.000006
250.6899370.1481764.656189
500.5507240.5533200.995309
1000.6392430.4716781.355254
2000.5823100.5807111.002753
[1]

Cheng-Kai Hu, Fung-Bao Liu, Cheng-Feng Hu. Efficiency measures in fuzzy data envelopment analysis with common weights. Journal of Industrial and Management Optimization, 2017, 13 (1) : 237-249. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2016014
[2]

Saber Saati, Adel Hatami-Marbini, Per J. Agrell, Madjid Tavana. A common set of weight approach using an ideal decision making unit in data envelopment analysis. Journal of Industrial and Management Optimization, 2012, 8 (3) : 623-637. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2012.8.623
[3]

Sedighe Asghariniya, Hamed Zhiani Rezai, Saeid Mehrabian. Resource allocation: A common set of weights model. Numerical Algebra, Control and Optimization, 2020, 10 (3) : 257-273. doi: 10.3934/naco.2020001
[4]

Habibe Zare Haghighi, Sajad Adeli, Farhad Hosseinzadeh Lotfi, Gholam Reza Jahanshahloo. Revenue congestion: An application of data envelopment analysis. Journal of Industrial and Management Optimization, 2016, 12 (4) : 1311-1322. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2016.12.1311
[5]

Pooja Bansal, Aparna Mehra. Integrated dynamic interval data envelopment analysis in the presence of integer and negative data. Journal of Industrial and Management Optimization, 2022, 18 (2) : 1339-1363. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2021023
[6]

Mahdi Mahdiloo, Abdollah Noorizadeh, Reza Farzipoor Saen. Developing a new data envelopment analysis model for customer value analysis. Journal of Industrial and Management Optimization, 2011, 7 (3) : 531-558. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2011.7.531
[7]

Runqin Hao, Guanwen Zhang, Dong Li, Jie Zhang. Data modeling analysis on removal efficiency of hexavalent chromium. Mathematical Foundations of Computing, 2019, 2 (3) : 203-213. doi: 10.3934/mfc.2019014
[8]

Mohammad Afzalinejad, Zahra Abbasi. A slacks-based model for dynamic data envelopment analysis. Journal of Industrial and Management Optimization, 2019, 15 (1) : 275-291. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2018043
[9]

Cheng-Kai Hu, Fung-Bao Liu, Hong-Ming Chen, Cheng-Feng Hu. Network data envelopment analysis with fuzzy non-discretionary factors. Journal of Industrial and Management Optimization, 2021, 17 (4) : 1795-1807. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2020046
[10]

Hasan Hosseini-Nasab, Vahid Ettehadi. Development of opened-network data envelopment analysis models under uncertainty. Journal of Industrial and Management Optimization, 2022  doi: 10.3934/jimo.2022027
[11]

Pooja Bansal. Sequential Malmquist-Luenberger productivity index for interval data envelopment analysis. Journal of Industrial and Management Optimization, 2022  doi: 10.3934/jimo.2022058
[12]

Zhenhua Peng, Zhongping Wan, Weizhi Xiong. Sensitivity analysis in set-valued optimization under strictly minimal efficiency. Evolution Equations and Control Theory, 2017, 6 (3) : 427-436. doi: 10.3934/eect.2017022
[13]

Ali Hadi, Saeid Mehrabian. A two-stage data envelopment analysis approach to solve extended transportation problem with non-homogenous costs. Numerical Algebra, Control and Optimization, 2022  doi: 10.3934/naco.2022006
[14]

Yihong Xu, Zhenhua Peng. Higher-order sensitivity analysis in set-valued optimization under Henig efficiency. Journal of Industrial and Management Optimization, 2017, 13 (1) : 313-327. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2016019
[15]

Ruotian Gao, Wenxun Xing. Robust sensitivity analysis for linear programming with ellipsoidal perturbation. Journal of Industrial and Management Optimization, 2020, 16 (4) : 2029-2044. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2019041
[16]

Kuei-Hu Chang. A novel risk ranking method based on the single valued neutrosophic set. Journal of Industrial and Management Optimization, 2022, 18 (3) : 2237-2253. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2021065
[17]

Behrouz Kheirfam, Kamal mirnia. Multi-parametric sensitivity analysis in piecewise linear fractional programming. Journal of Industrial and Management Optimization, 2008, 4 (2) : 343-351. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2008.4.343
[18]

Alireza Ghaffari Hadigheh, Tamás Terlaky. Generalized support set invariancy sensitivity analysis in linear optimization. Journal of Industrial and Management Optimization, 2006, 2 (1) : 1-18. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2006.2.1
[19]

Behrouz Kheirfam, Kamal mirnia. Comments on ''Generalized support set invariancy sensitivity analysis in linear optimization''. Journal of Industrial and Management Optimization, 2008, 4 (3) : 611-616. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2008.4.611
[20]

Angela Cadena, Adriana Marcucci, Juan F. Pérez, Hernando Durán, Hernando Mutis, Camilo Taútiva, Fernando Palacios. Efficiency analysis in electricity transmission utilities. Journal of Industrial and Management Optimization, 2009, 5 (2) : 253-274. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2009.5.253

2020 Impact Factor: 1.801

Tools

Metrics

  • PDF downloads (324)
  • HTML views (1316)
  • Cited by (0)

Other articles
by authors

[Back to Top]

Copyright © 2022 American Institute of Mathematical Sciences | Privacy Policy