臺灣人文及社會科學引文索引資料庫系統

:::

詳目顯示

回上一頁
第 1 筆 / 總合 1 筆   第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁
/1頁
題名：妥協權重資料包絡分析模式之求解與應用
作者：洪僖黛
作者(外文)：Hsi-Tai Hung
校院名稱：國立成功大學
系所名稱：工業與資訊管理學系碩博士班
指導教授：高強
學位類別：博士
出版日期：2004
主題關鍵詞：資料包絡分析法；共同權重；妥協規劃；多目標規劃；多準則決策；multiple criteria decision making；Data envelopment analysis；multiple objective programming；common weights；compromise programming
原始連結：連回原系統網址new window
相關次數：
  • 被引用次數被引用次數:期刊(0) 博士論文(0) 專書(0) 專書論文(0)
  • 排除自我引用排除自我引用:0
  • 共同引用共同引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:2
　　資料包絡分析法主要應用於衡量一群利用多項投入因子以生產多項產出之決策單位的相對效率，在進行效率評估時，由於每個決策單位可以選擇對其最有利之權重，往往會有數個決策單位之效率值皆為1，因此在本質上，資料包絡分析法將所有的決策單位區分為有效率與無效率二類。然而當資料包絡分析法應用於進行決策單位之排序或替選方案之評估時，容易產生數個決策單位或替選方案皆為最佳之情況。為了提高資料包絡分析法之區別能力，在資料包絡分析法中使用共同權重的目的，在於使全體參與評估的決策單位能在相同的基準下進行比較與排序。
　　本研究基於資料包絡分析法之架構，提出求解共同權重資料包絡分析模式的方法，同時說明利用此方法產生之共同權重所具備的性質。由於基本資料包絡分析模式計算而得之效率值，是接受評估的決策單位在現有的產出與投入水準下所能達到之最佳效率，為決定資料包絡分析法中適用於全體接受評估決策單位所使用之共同權重，本研究以決策單位之最佳效率值為基礎，利用多目標規劃法中妥協決策的概念，在滿足資料包絡分析法對於共同權重的要求條件下，決定一組產出項目與投入因子之妥協權重，而使得全體接受評估的決策單位能在相同的基準下進行比較與排序。並且由於資料包絡分析法可用於決定權重之特性，本研究亦將所提出之方法加以修改，使其適用於求解多準則決策問題中評估屬性之權重。
　　最後本研究應用提出之求解妥協權重的方法於台灣林區效率評估問題，以及大學圖書館之績效評估與製造業管理指標之建立等二個多準則決策問題。在應用實例中，除了說明如何應用本研究之妥協權重模式外，並比較以不同方法決定權重之差異。
　Data envelopment analysis (DEA) has been widely applied to measure the relative efficiency of a group of homogeneous decision making units (DMUs) with multiple inputs and multiple outputs. A characteristic of DEA is to allow individual decision making units to select the factor weights which are the most advantageous for them in calculating their efficiency scores. The DEA method essentially classifies all DMUs into two groups, viz., efficient and inefficient. As a considerable number of DMUs are usually categorized as efficient, the approach of common weights in DEA is utilized to improve the discrimination power of DEA.
　For comparing the DMUs based on a common base, this study proposes a compromise solution approach for generating common weights under the DEA framework. Moreover, some properties of the compromise solutions are explained. The efficiency scores calculated from the standard DEA model are regarded as the ideal solution for the DMUs to achieve. A common set of weights which produces the vector of efficiency scores for the DMUs closest to the ideal solution is sought. Since the DEA method can be viewed as a weighting method, the proposed compromise solution approach is modified in order to generate the weights in the multiple criteria decision making (MCDM) problem.
　To illustrate the idea of the compromise solution approach, three examples, the efficiency measurement of forest districts, the comparison of university libraries, and the construction of the composite management indices for industrial firms, are utilized. The first is an efficiency evaluation problem in the DEA context, whereas, the other two belong to the MCDM area. As a comparison, other weighting approaches are also used to generate the common weights for the examples in order to understand the differences and characteristics of different approaches.
1. Adler, N., Friedman, L., and Sinuany-Stern, Z., Review of ranking methods in the data envelopment analysis context, European Journal of Operational Research 140, pp. 249-265 (2002).
2. Aigner, D.J. and Chu, S.F., On estimating the industry production function, American Economic Review 58, pp. 826-839 (1968).
3. Amrine, H.T., Ritchey, J.A., Moodie, C.L., and Kmec, J.F., Manufacturing organization and management 6th edn, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J. (1993).
4. Andersen, P. and Petersen, N.C., A procedure for ranking efficient units in data envelopment analysis, Management Science 39, pp. 1261-1264 (1993).
5. Armstrong, J.S. and Schultz, R.L., Principles involving marketing policies: an empirical assessment, Marketing Letters 4, pp. 253-265 (1993).
6. Association of College and Research Libraries, Standards for college libraries, 1995 ed., College & Research Libraries News, April, pp.245-257 (1995).
7. Association of Research Libraries, Holdings of university research libraries in US and Canada, The Chronicle of Higher Education, September 1, pp.29 (1995).
8. Banker, R.D., Charnes, A., and Cooper, W.W., Some models for estimating technical and scale efficiencies in data envelopment analysis, Management Science 30, pp. 1078-1092 (1984).
9. Bardhan, I., Bowlin, W.F., Cooper, W.W., and Sueyoshi, T., Models for efficiency dominance in data envelopment analysis. Part 1: additive models and MED measures. Journal of the Operations Research Society of Japan 39, pp. 322-332 (1996).
10. Becker, B. and Gerhart, B., The impact of human resource management on organizational performance: progress and prospects, Academy of Management Journal 39, pp. 779-801 (1996).
11. Belton, V. and Vickers, S.P., Demystifying DEA-a visual interactive approach based on multiple criteria analysis, Journal of the Operational Research Society 44, pp. 883-896 (1993).
12. Brooksbank, R.W., Successful marketing practices: a literature review and checklist for marketing practitioners, European Journal of Marketing 25, pp. 20-29 (1991).
13. Caporaletti, L.E., Dulá, J.N., and Womer, N.K., Performance evaluation based on multiple attributes with nonparametric frontiers, Omega 27, pp. 637-645 (1999).
14. Chankong, V. and Haimes, Y.Y., Multiobjective Decision Making: Theory and Methodology, Elsevier Science Publishing Company, Inc., New York (1983).
15. Charnes, A., Cooper, W.W., and Rhodes, E., Measuring efficiency of decision making units, European Journal of Operational Research 2, pp. 429-444 (1978).
16. Charnes, A., Cooper, W.W., Seiford, L.M., and Stutz, J., A multiplicative model for efficiency analysis, Socio-Economic Planning Sciences 16, pp. 223-234 (1982).
17. Charnes, A. and Cooper, W.W., The non-Arcimedean CCR ratio for efficiency analysis: A rejoinder to Boyd and Färe, European Journal of Operational Research 15, pp. 333-334 (1984).
18. Charnes, A., Cooper, W.W., Golany, B., and Seiford, L.M., Foundations of data envelopment analysis for Pareto-Koopmans efficient empirical production function, Journal of Econometrics 30, pp. 91-107 (1985).
19. Charnes, A., Cooper, W.W., Huang, Z.M., and Sun, D.B., Polyhedral cone-ratio DEA models with an illustrative application to large commercial banks, European Journal of Operational Research 46, pp. 73-91 (1990).
20. Charnes, A., Cooper, W.W., Lewin, A.Y., and Seiford, L.M., Data Envelopment Analysis: Theory, Methodology and Applications, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Norwell (1994).
21. Chen, T.Y., A measurement of the resource utilization efficiency of university libraries, International Journal of Production Economics 53, pp. 71-84 (1997).
22. Cotta-Schønberger, M. and Line, M.B., Evaluation of academic libraries with special reference to the Copenhagen-Business-School-Library, Journal of Librarianship and Information Science 26, pp. 55-69 (1994).
23. Coviello, N.E., Brodie, R.J., and Munro, H.J., An investigation of marketing practice by firm size, Journal of Business Venturing 15, pp. 523-545 (2000).
24. Daniel, W.W., Applied Nonparametric Statistics, Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston (1978).
25. De Meyer, A. and Ferdows, K., Influence of manufacturing improvement programmes on performance, International Journal of Operations & Production Management 10, pp. 120-131 (1990).
26. Delaney, J.T. and Huselid, M.A., The impact of human resource management practices on perceptions of organizational performance, Academy of Management Journal 39, pp. 949-969 (1996).
27. Despotis, D.K., Improving the discriminating power of DEA: focus on globally efficient units, Journal of the Operational Research Society 53, pp. 314-323 (2002).
28. Diakoulaki, D., Mavrotas, G., and Papayannakis, L., A multicriteria approach for evaluating the performance of industrial firms, Omega 20, pp. 467-474 (1992).
29. Doyle, J. and Green, R., Data envelopment analysis and multiple criteria decision making, Omega 21, pp. 713-715 (1993).
30. Doyle, J. and Green, R., Efficiency and cross-efficiency in DEA: derivations, meanings and uses, Journal of the Operational Research Society 45, pp. 567-578 (1994).
31. Doyle, J., Multiattribute choice for the lazy decision maker: let the alternatives decide, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Process 62, pp. 87-100 (1995).
32. Dunn, M., Birley, S., and Norburn, D., The marketing concept and the smaller firm, Marketing Intelligence & Planning 4, pp. 3-11 (1986).
33. Dyson, R.G. and Thanassoulis, E., Reducing weight flexibility in data envelopment analysis, Journal of the Operational Research Society 39, pp. 563-576 (1988).
34. Dyson, R.G., Allen, R., Camanho, A.S., Podinovski, V.V., and Sarrico, C.S., Pitfalls and protocols in DEA, European Journal of Operational Research 132, pp. 245-259 (2001).
35. Friedman, L. and Sinuany-Stern, Z., Scaling units via the canonical correlation analysis in the DEA context, European Journal of Operational Research 100, pp. 629-637 (1997).
36. Gitman, L.J., Principles of Managerial Finance 5th edn, Harper & Row Publishers, New York (1988).
37. Gitman, L.J. and Maxwell, C.E., Financial activities of major U. S. firms: survey and analysis of Fortune’s 1000, Financial Management, Winter, pp. 57-65 (1985).
38. Green, R. and Doyle, J., Improving discernment in DEA using profiling: a comment, Omega 24, pp. 365-366 (1995).
39. Guest, D.E., Human resource management and performance: a review and research agenda, The International Journal of Human Resource Management 8, pp. 263-276 (1997).
40. Hajkowicz, S.A., McDonald, G.T., and Smith, P.N., An evaluation of multiple objective decision support weighting techniques in natural resources management, Journal of Environment Planning and Management 43, pp. 505-518 (2000).
41. Halme, M., Joro, T., Korhonen, P., Salo, S., and Wallenius, J, A value efficiency approach to incorporating preference information in data envelopment analysis, Management Science 45, pp. 103-115 (1999).
42. Halme, M. and Korhonen, P., Restricting weights in value efficiency analysis, European Journal of Operational Research 126, pp. 175-188 (2000).
43. Hendrickson, K., Standards for university libraries: evaluation of performance, College Research Libraries News 50, pp. 679-691 (1989).
44. Ittner, C.D. and Larcker, D.F., The performance effects of process management techniques, Management Science 43, pp. 522-534 (1997).
45. Kania, A.M., Academic library standards performance measures, College Research Libraries 49, pp. 16-23 (1988).
46. Kao, C., Kuo, S., Chen, L.H., and Wang, T.Y., Improving productivity via technology and management, International Journal of Systems Science 27, pp. 315-322 (1996).
47. Kao, C., Lin, Y., Liang, L.C., and Lo, S.C., Ranking university libraries: the Taiwan case, Libri 48, pp. 212-223 (1998).
48. Kao, C. and Lin, Y., Comparing university libraries of different university sizes, Libri 49, pp. 150-158 (1999).
49. Kao, C. and Lin, Y., Empirical standards for university libraries in Taiwan, Libri 51, pp. 17-26 (2001).
50. Kao, C. and Yang, Y.C., Reorganization of forest districts via efficiency measurement, European Journal of Operational Research 58, pp. 356-362 (1992).
51. Kao, C., Wang, T.Y., Kuo, S., Chen, L.H., and Horng, S.D., Production pattern of machinery firms: viewpoints of technology and management, International Journal of Production Research 33, pp. 3207-3215 (1995).
52. Keeney, R.L. and Raiffa, H., Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Trade-offs, Wiley, New York (1976).
53. Kotler, P., Marketing Management 8th edn, Prentice- Hall, Upper Saddle River, N.J. (1994).
54. Krajewski, J. and Ritzman, B., Operations Management: Strategy and Analysis 5th edn, Addison-Wesley, Reading, Mass. (1999).
55. Li, X. and Reeves, G.R., A multiple criteria approach to data envelopment analysis, European Journal of Operational Research 115, pp. 507-517 (1999).
56. Lin, C.Y.Y., Human resource management in Taiwan: a future perspective, The International Journal of Human Resource Management 8, pp. 29-43 (1997).
57. Lines, L., Performance measurement in academic libraries: a university perspective, British Journal of Academic Librarianship 4, pp. 111-120 (1989).
58. Lynch, B.P., Standards for university libraries, IFLA Journal 13, pp. 120-125 (1987).
59. Neter, J., Wasserman, W., and Whitmore, G.A., Applied Statistics 4th edn, Allyn and Bacon, Boston (1993).
60. Noe, R.A., Holleubed, J.R., Gerhart, B., and Wright, P.M., Human Resources Management: Gaining a Competitive Advantage 2nd edn, Irwin, Chicago (1997).
61. Petty, J.W., Keown, A.J., Scott, D.F., and Martin, J.D., Basic Financial Management 6th edn, Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, N.J. (1993).
62. Pfeffer, J., Seven practices of successful organizations, California Management Review 40, pp. 96-124 (1998).
63. Pöyhönen, M. and Hämäläinen, R.P., On the convergence of multiattribute weighting methods, European Journal of Operational Research 129, pp. 569-585 (2001).
64. Retzlaff-Roberts, D.L., Relating discriminant analysis and DEA to one another, Computers and Operations Research 4, pp. 311-322 (1996).
65. Roll, T., Cook, W.D., and Golany, B., Controlling factor weights in data envelopment analysis, IIE Transactions 23, pp. 2-9 (1991).
66. Roll, Y. and Golany, B., Alternate methods of treating factor weights in DEA, Omega 21, pp. 99-109 (1993).
67. Sarkis, J., A comparative analysis of DEA as a discrete alternative multiple criteria decision tool, European Journal of Operational Research 123, pp. 543-557 (2000).
68. Seiford, L.M., Data envelopment analysis: the evolution of the state of the art (1978-1995), The Journal of Productivity Analysis 7, pp. 99-137 (1996).
69. Shy, Y.H., Working Capital Management of Manufacturing Firms, Master Thesis, Department of Business Management, National Cheng Chi University, Taiwan, R.O.C. (1992).
70. Sinuany-Stern, Z., Mehrez, A., and Barboy, A., Academic departments efficiency in DEA, Computers and Operations Research 21, pp. 543-556 (1994).
71. Sinuany-Stern, Z. and Friedman, L., DEA and the discriminant analysis of ratios for ranking units, European Journal of Operational Research 111, pp. 470-478 (1998).
72. Sinuany-Stern, Z., Mehrez, A., and Hadad, Y, An AHP/DEA methodology for ranking decision making units, International Transactions in Operational Research 7, pp. 109-124 (2000).
73. Stevenson, W.J., Production/Operations Management 6th edn, Irwin, Boston (1999).
74. Stewart, T.J., A critical survey on the status of multiple criteria decision making theory and practice, Omega 20, pp. 569-586 (1992).
75. Stewart, T.J., Data envelopment analysis and multiple criteria decision making: a response, Omega 22, pp. 205-206 (1994).
76. Stewart, T.J., Relationships between data envelopment analysis and multicriteria decision analysis, Journal of the Operational Research Society 47, pp. 654-665 (1996).
77. Sueyoshi, T., DEA-discriminant analysis in the view of goal programming, European Journal of Operational Research 115, pp. 564-582 (1999).
78. Sueyoshi, T., Extended DEA-discriminant analysis, European Journal of Operational Research 131, pp. 324-351 (2001).
79. Thanassoulis, E., Boussofiance, A., and Dyson, R.G., Exploring output quality targets in the provision of perinatal care in England using DEA, European Journal of Operational Research 60, pp. 588-608 (1995).
80. Thomas, D.L., Greffe, R., and Grant, K.C., Application of data envelopment analysis to management audits of electric distribution utilities, Public Utility Commission of Texas, Austin, TX (1986).
81. Thompson, R.G., Langemeier, L.N., Lee, C., Lee, E., and Thrall, R.M., The role of multiplier bounds in efficiency analysis with application to Kansas firms, Journal of Econometrics 46, pp. 93-108 (1990).
82. Torgersen, A.M., Forsund, F.R., and Kittelsen, S.A.C., Slack-adjusted efficiency measures and ranking of efficient units, The Journal of Productivity Analysis 7, pp. 379-398 (1996).
83. Van House, N.A., Output measures in libraries, Library Trends 38, pp. 268-279 (1989).
84. Weston, J.F., Besley, S., and Brigham, E.F., Essentials of Managerial Finance 11th edn, The Dryden Press, Fort Worth. (1996).
85. Wierzbicki, A., The use of reference objectives in multiobjective optimization. In: Fandel, G. and Gal, T. (Eds.). Multiple Objective Decision Making, Theory and Application. Springer-Verlag, New York (1980).
86. Wierzbicki, A., On the completeness and constructiveness of parametric characterizations to vector optimization problems. OR Spektrum 8, pp. 73-87 (1986).
87. Wong, Y.H.B. and Beasley, J.E., Restricting weight flexibility in data envelopment analysis, Journal of the Operational Research Society 41, pp. 829-835 (1990).
88. Yu, P.L., A class of solutions for group decision problems, Management Science 19, pp. 936-946 (1973).
89. Freimer, M. and Yu, P.L., Some new results on compromise solutions for group decision problems, Management Science 22, pp. 688-693 (1976).
90. Yu, P.L., Multiple-Criteria Decision Making, Concepts, Techniques, and Extensions, Plenum Press, New York (1985).
91. Zeleny, M., Multiple Criteria Decision Making, McGraw-Hill, New York (1982).
 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
QR Code
QRCODE

臺灣人文及社會科學引文索引資料庫

目前上線人數：1037（臺灣：1009，外國：28） ／ 本年度總使用人次：1972506 ／ 訪客人次（自102年09月）：67784022
國家圖書館著作權聲明 Copyright © 2013 All rights reserved.
本館地址: 100201臺北市中山南路20號． 本館地圖及交通資訊．
總機：(02)23619132．最佳瀏覽解析度為1024x768以上