一种兼顾效率与效果的决策单元投入产出绩效评价方法

doi:10.16381/j.cnki.issn1003-207x.2021.0455

Abstract

Abstract:

On the basis of distinguishing the concepts of efficiency and performance， an input-output performance evaluation method is proposed that can reflect both input-output efficiency and the input-output effectiveness of decision-making unit （DMU）. Unlike the technical efficiency evaluation of DMUs， this method considers both the implementation of frontier technology and the achievement of the input-output goals of DMUs. On the basis of categorizing the influencing factors of input-output performance into technical factor， input allocation factor， and input scale factor， a performance-based comprehensive efficiency model， a performance-based technical efficiency model， and a performance-based input allocation efficiency model for DMUs are constructed. The solutions of these models provide the input-output performance values of the DMU， the contributions of various influencing factors in the formation process of the input-output performance of the DMU， and the performance improvement goals of the DMU based on different influencing factors， thus providing sufficient information for the DMU to choose performance improvement paths under the constraints of the actual environment.

Key words: data envelopment analysis （DEA）, input-output performance, common weight, performance improvement, influencing factors

CLC Number:

Xiao-lei WANG,Ren MU,Li ZHOU, et al. An Evaluation Method of Input-output Performance of Decision Making Units Considering Efficiency and Effect[J]. Chinese Journal of Management Science, 2023, 31(10): 128-135.

Figures/Tables 5

决策单元	投入1	投入2	产出	$x o$	$θ C C R$	排序1	$θ C E$	排序2	$θ B C C$	$θ T E$	$θ A E$	$θ S E$
DMU1	2	3	5	2.6	0.833	6	0.641	8	1	1	0.741	0.865
DMU2	3	2	6	2.4	1	1	0.833	3	1	1	1	0.833
DMU3	2.5	2.5	5	2.5	0.667	9	0.667	7	0.909	0.909	0.863	0.85
DMU4	2	4	6	3.2	1	1	0.625	9	1	1	0.667	0.938
DMU5	3	3	6.5	3	0.722	8	0.722	6	0.848	0.848	0.929	0.917
DMU6	3	3.5	6	3.3	0.667	9	0.606	10	0.706	0.706	0.907	0.947
DMU7	3.5	3	7	3.2	0.778	7	0.729	5	0.778	0.778	1	0.938
DMU8	4	4	12	4	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1
DMU9	5	5	13	5	0.867	5	0.867	2	1	1	0.992	0.874
DMU10	7	5	14	5.8	0.933	4	0.805	4	1	1	1	0.805

决策单元	$(x o, y o)$			$(x o (T), y o (T))$			$(x o (A), y o (A))$			$(x o (C), y o (C))$
决策单元	投入1	投入2	产出	投入1	投入2	产出	投入1	投入2	产出	$(x o (C), y o (C))$
DMU1	2	3	5	2	3	5	3.125	2.25	6.75	DMU8
DMU2	3	2	6	3	2	6	3	2	6	DMU8
DMU3	2.5	2.5	5	2.5	2.5	5.5	3.063	2.125	6.375	DMU8
DMU4	2	4	6	2	4	6	3.5	3	9	DMU8
DMU5	3	3	6.5	3	3	7.667	3.375	2.75	8.25	DMU8
DMU6	3	3.5	6	3	3.5	8.5	3.563	3.125	9.375	DMU8
DMU7	3.5	3	7	3.5	3	9	3.5	3	9	DMU8
DMU8	4	4	12	4	4	12	4	4	12	DMU8
DMU9	5	5	13	5	5	13	5.667	4.556	13.111	DMU8
DMU10	7	5	14	7	5	14	7	5	14	DMU8

医院	医生		护士		技术人员		管理人员		门诊病人		住院病人
医院	$x 1$	$c 1$	$x 2$	$c 2$	$x 3$	$c 3$	$x 4$	$c 4$	$y 1$	$p 1$	$y 2$	$p 2$
H1	995	1432	6205	346	1375	377	2629	287	4127	1713	1678	5311
H2	917	1418	5898	320	1379	377	2040	287	3721	1932	1277	5411
H3	3178	935	10049	323	3615	398	3511	391	2706	2893	2051	7223
H4	813	1181	5833	390	1124	388	1730	340	2176	1124	1538	3454
H5	1236	1280	8639	240	2486	308	4990	238	5220	1850	2042	5636
H6	1146	1124	7610	322	1600	399	3589	326	3517	1487	1856	4768
H7	705	1032	5600	283	1557	310	3623	221	2352	1234	2060	3777
H8	2871	827	11524	327	2880	403	2452	341	1755	2321	1664	8305
H9	1098	1195	8998	318	1730	410	2823	305	4412	1639	2334	4384
H10	2032	674	9383	324	2421	307	4454	269	5386	1735	2080	5485
H11	1414	1318	10468	342	2140	387	3649	322	5735	1524	2691	4464
H12	1967	1105	11260	339	2759	377	3178	324	6079	2240	2804	5903
H13	1851	925	9880	316	2335	304	4570	247	5893	2021	2495	5440
H14	3100	979	15649	311	5487	319	2940	374	5248	1757	3692	4896
H15	5016	723	18010	339	4008	404	3567	326	7800	2191	4582	5629
H16	1924	1205	12682	360	2490	404	2975	325	6040	1787	3396	5009

医院	$θ C C R$	$θ C E$	$θ B C C$	$θ T E$	$θ A E$	$θ S E$	$y 1 (T)$	$y 2 (T)$	$x 1 (A)$	$x 2 (A)$	$x 3 (A)$	$x 4 (A)$	$y 1 (A)$	$y 2 (A)$
H1	1.000	1.000	1.000	1.000	1.000	1.000	4127	1678	995	6205	1375	2629	4127	1678
H2	1.000	0.900	1.000	1.000	0.960	0.937	3721	1277	899	6008	1242	2153	3095	1604
H3	0.690	0.469	0.696	0.656	0.785	0.911	5526	2636	2459	13604	2753	3077	6345	3601
H4	1.000	0.871	1.000	1.000	1.000	0.871	2176	1538	813	5833	1124	1730	2176	1538
H5	1.000	0.826	1.000	0.960	0.882	0.976	4560	2434	1559	10135	2052	2839	5288	2720
H6	0.881	0.805	0.884	0.857	0.952	0.987	4478	2034	1252	7995	1683	2725	4656	2153
H7	1.000	0.949	1.000	1.000	0.968	0.980	2352	2060	963	6139	1330	2469	3779	1653
H8	0.556	0.374	0.600	0.533	0.751	0.934	4386	2734	2229	13208	2640	3033	6214	3513
H9	1.000	0.971	1.000	1.000	0.986	0.984	4412	2334	1310	8399	1753	2746	4775	2260
H10	0.863	0.749	0.953	0.909	0.849	0.970	5654	2385	1781	11683	2318	2922	5745	3131
H11	0.996	0.967	1.000	1.000	0.993	0.974	5735	2691	1622	10577	2128	2863	5418	2838
H12	1.000	0.896	1.000	0.987	0.937	0.967	5729	2994	1855	12204	2408	2949	5899	3269
H13	0.916	0.862	1.000	1.000	0.888	0.971	5893	2495	1777	11657	2314	2920	5737	3124
H14	1.000	0.689	1.000	0.996	0.846	0.817	5895	3486	3720	15777	3372	3319	7062	4085
H15	1.000	0.753	1.000	1.000	1.000	0.753	7800	4582	5016	18010	4008	3567	7800	4582
H16	1.000	0.968	1.000	1.000	1.000	0.968	6040	3396	1924	12682	2490	2975	6040	3396

References 26

1	Emrouznejad A， Yang Guoliang. A survey and analysis of the first 40 years of scholarly literature in DEA： 1978-2016 ［J］. Siocio- Economic Planning Sciences， 2018， 61： 4-8.
2	Ruiz J L， Sirvent I. Performance evaluation through DEA benchmarking adjusted to goals［J］. Omega， 2019， 87（9）： 150-157.
3	Cook W D， Ramón N， Ruiz J L， et al. DEA-based benchmarking for performance evaluation in pay-for-performance incentive plans［J］. Omega， 2019， 84：45-54.
4	Allevi E， Basso A， Bonenti F， et al. Measuring the environmental performance of green SRI funds： a DEA approach ［J］. Energy Economics， 2019， 79： 32-44.
5	Gilbert T F. Human competence： engineering worthy performance［M］. New York， NY： McGraw-Hill， 1978.
6	Krapfl J E. A review of gilbert's human competence： engineering worthy performance［J］. The Behavior Analyst， 1982， 5（2）： 199-204.
7	Dyson R G， Allen R， Camanho A S， et al. Pitfalls and protocols in DEA ［J］. European Journal of Operational Research， 2001，132（2）： 245-259.
8	Davoodi A， Rezai H Z. Common set of weights in data envelopment analysis： a linear programming problem ［J］. Central European Journal of Operations Research， 2012， 20（2）： 355-365.
9	Pedraja-Chaparro F， Salinas-Jimenez J， Smith P. On the role of weight restrictions in data envelopment analysis ［J］. Journal of Productivity Analysis， 1997， 8：215-230.
10	Podinovski V V. Optimal weights in DEA models with weight restrictions ［J］. European Journal of Operational Research， 2016， 254（3）：916-924.
11	Liu F H F， Peng H H. Ranking of units on the DEA frontier with common weights ［J］. Computers & Operations Research， 2008， 35（5）： 1624-1637.
12	杨锋，杨深深，梁樑，等. 基于公共权重DEA模型的决策单元排序研究［J］.系统工程学报， 2011， 26（4）： 551-557
	Yang Feng， Yang Shenshen， Liang Liang， et al. Ranking decision making units using common-weight DEA model［J］. Journal of systems engineering， 2011， 26 （4）： 551-557.
13	Sun Jiasen， Wu Jie， Guo Dong. Performance ranking of units considering ideal and anti-ideal DMU with common weights［J］. Applied Mathematical Modeling， 2013， 37（9）： 6301-6310.
14	Dong Yanling， Chen Ya， Li Yongjun. Efficiency ranking with common set of weights based on data envelopment analysis and satisfaction degree［J］. International Journal of Information and Decision Science， 2014（4）：354-368.
15	Wu Jie， Chu Junfei， Zhu Qingyuan， et al. Determining common weights in data envelopment analysis based on the satisfaction degree［J］. Journal of the Operational Research Society， 2016， 67（12）： 1446-1458.
16	Ruiz J L， Sirvent I. Common benchmarking and ranking of units with DEA［J］. Omega， 2016， 65： 1-9.
17	Carrillo M， Jorge J M. A multi-objective DEA approach to ranking alternatives［J］. Expert Systems With Applications， 2016， 50： 130-139.
18	郭亚军. 综合评价理论、方法及应用［M］. 北京：科学出版社， 2007.
	Guo Yajun. Theory， method and application of comprehensive evaluation ［M］. Beijing： Science Press， 2007.
19	杜栋，庞庆华，吴炎. 现代综合评价方法与案例精选（第三版）［M］. 北京：清华大学出版社， 2015.
	Du Dong， Pang Qinghua， Wu Yan. Modern comprehensive evaluation methods and case selection （Third Edition）［M］. Beijing： Tsinghua University Press， 2015.
20	Charnes A， Cooper W W， Rhodes E. Measuring the efficiency of decision making units ［J］. European Journal of Operational Research， 1978（2）： 429-444.
21	Banker R D， Charnes A， Cooper W W. Some models for estimating technical and scale inefficiency in data envelopment analysis ［J］. Management Science， 1984， 30（9）： 1078-1092.
22	Tone K. On returns to scale under weight restrictions in data envelopment analysis［J］. Journal of Productivity Analysis， 2001， 16（1）： 31-47.
23	Banker R D， Cooper W W， Thrall R M， et al. Returns to scale in different DEA models［J］. European Journal of Operational Research， 2004， 154（2）：345-362.
24	Solemani-damaneh M. On the basic definition of returns to scale［J］， Operations Research Letters， 2012， 40（2）： 144-147.
25	杨国梁. DEA模型与规模收益研究综述［J］.中国管理科学， 2015， 23（S2）： 64-71.
	Yang Guoliang. Review of returns to scale in DEA model［J］. Chinese Journal of Management Science， 2015， 23（S2）： 64-71.
26	Liu J S， Lu L Y Y， Lu Wenmin， et al. A survey of DEA applications ［J］. Omega， 2013， 41： 893-902.

[1]	Shuya Yan, Guotao Yang, Xun Liang, Zhenyu Guan, Ziyan Liu. Comprehensive Efficiency Evaluation of China’s Economic Development Quality Based on Parallel Two-stage Network DEA Model [J]. Chinese Journal of Management Science, 2025, 33(7): 139-150.
[2]	Jusheng Liu,Zhiping Qiu,Changrui Yu. Spatiotemporal Differences and Influencing Factors of Attention to Doctor-patient Disputes in China [J]. Chinese Journal of Management Science, 2024, 32(8): 322-334.
[3]	Qian-zhi DAI,Xiao-chi XU,Xi-yang LEI,Qian ZHAO. Cost Compensation Method for Incentives Based on Dynamic Non-cooperative Game and Super-efficiency DEA [J]. Chinese Journal of Management Science, 2023, 31(12): 185-192.
[4]	ZHONG Li, AI Xing-zheng, DING Xue-feng. The Pricing and Incentive Contract Design with the Product Performance Improvement of “Hardware/software” Platform [J]. Chinese Journal of Management Science, 2022, 30(11): 343-351.
[5]	PENG Jia-chao, YI Ming, FU Li-na. Re-testing the Total Factor Productivity of China's Agriculture——Analysis of Agricultural Intermediate Consumables Based on Provincial Panel Data [J]. Chinese Journal of Management Science, 2021, 29(6): 223-237.
[6]	WANG Nan, CHEN Xiang-xiang, QI Yun-li, WANG Li-ya. The Research on Influence Factors of User Innovation Community Idea Adoption Based on Elaboration Likelihood Model [J]. Chinese Journal of Management Science, 2020, 28(3): 213-222.
[7]	WANG Qia. On-Demand Extra Resource Allocation [J]. Chinese Journal of Management Science, 2019, 27(6): 206-216.
[8]	LIU Wen-li, WANG Ying-ming, LV Shu-long. Ranking Decision Making Units Based on Cross-efficiency and Cooperative Game [J]. Chinese Journal of Management Science, 2018, 26(4): 163-170.
[9]	FAN De-cheng, DU Ming-yue. Research on Technological Innovation Resource Allocation Efficiency and Its Influencing Factors in High-end Equipment Manufacturing Industries——Based on the Empirical Analysis of the Two-stage StoNED-Tobit Model [J]. Chinese Journal of Management Science, 2018, 26(1): 13-24.
[10]	CHENG Da-jian, XUE Sheng-jia. Ranking of Interval Efficiencies Based on New Computational Method for Cross Efficiency [J]. Chinese Journal of Management Science, 2017, 25(7): 191-196.
[11]	DU Tao, RAN Lun, LI Jin-lin, CAO Xue-li. Multi Criteria Decision Making Based on Efficiency Measurement and Empirical Study: DEA-TOPSIS Integrated Method [J]. Chinese Journal of Management Science, 2017, 25(7): 153-162.
[12]	FENG Chen-peng, WANG Hui-ling, BI Gong-bing. Non-radial ZSG-DEA Model with Multiple Undesirable Outputs An Empirical Study for Regional Environmental Efficiencies in China [J]. Chinese Journal of Management Science, 2017, 25(10): 42-51.
[13]	DONG Jin-quan, QIU Cheng-cheng, MA Zhan-xin, LIU Jun-hua, ZHENG Zhi-hua. Estimation of Quasi-concave Production Function Based on the Division of Input Possibility Set [J]. Chinese Journal of Management Science, 2015, 23(3): 32-41.
[14]	LEI Xi-yang, DAI Qian-zhi, LI Yong-jun, XIE Qi-wei, LIANG Liang. DEA-based Resource Allocation Method with Considering the System Consisted of Parallel Structure [J]. Chinese Journal of Management Science, 2015, 23(1): 50-55.
[15]	DU Juan, HUO Jia-zhen. DEA-based Evaluation on City Innovation in China [J]. Chinese Journal of Management Science, 2014, 22(6): 85-93.

An Evaluation Method of Input-output Performance of Decision Making Units Considering Efficiency and Effect

RichHTML

PDF (PC)

Knowledge

Abstract

Cite this article

share this article

Figures/Tables 5

References 26

Related Articles 15

Metrics

Comments

Recommended 0