A novel best worst method robust data envelopment analysis: Incorporating decision makers’ preferences in an uncertain environment

IF 3.7 4区 管理学 Q2 OPERATIONS RESEARCH & MANAGEMENT SCIENCE
Hashem Omrani , Mahsa Valipour , Ali Emrouznejad
{"title":"A novel best worst method robust data envelopment analysis: Incorporating decision makers’ preferences in an uncertain environment","authors":"Hashem Omrani ,&nbsp;Mahsa Valipour ,&nbsp;Ali Emrouznejad","doi":"10.1016/j.orp.2021.100184","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) has been widely applied in measuring the efficiency of Decision-Making Units (DMUs). The conventional DEA has three major drawbacks: a) it does not consider Decision Makers’ (DMs) preferences in the evaluation process, b) DMUs in this model are flexible in weighting the criteria to reach the maximum possible efficiency, and c) it ignores the uncertainty in data. However, in many real-world applications, data are uncertain as well as imprecise and managers want to impose their opinions in decision-making procedure. To address these problems, this paper develops a novel multi-objective Best Worst Method (BWM)-Robust DEA (RDEA) for incorporating DMs’ preferences into DEA model in an uncertain environment. The proposed model tries to provide a new efficiency score which is more reliable and compatible with real problems by taking the advantages of the BWM to apply experts’ opinions and RDEA to model the uncertainty This bi-objective BWM-RDEA model is solved utilizing amin-max technique and so as to illustrate its usefulness, this model is implemented for assessing Iranian airlines.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":38055,"journal":{"name":"Operations Research Perspectives","volume":"8 ","pages":"Article 100184"},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.orp.2021.100184","citationCount":"14","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Operations Research Perspectives","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214716021000075","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"OPERATIONS RESEARCH & MANAGEMENT SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 14

Abstract

Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) has been widely applied in measuring the efficiency of Decision-Making Units (DMUs). The conventional DEA has three major drawbacks: a) it does not consider Decision Makers’ (DMs) preferences in the evaluation process, b) DMUs in this model are flexible in weighting the criteria to reach the maximum possible efficiency, and c) it ignores the uncertainty in data. However, in many real-world applications, data are uncertain as well as imprecise and managers want to impose their opinions in decision-making procedure. To address these problems, this paper develops a novel multi-objective Best Worst Method (BWM)-Robust DEA (RDEA) for incorporating DMs’ preferences into DEA model in an uncertain environment. The proposed model tries to provide a new efficiency score which is more reliable and compatible with real problems by taking the advantages of the BWM to apply experts’ opinions and RDEA to model the uncertainty This bi-objective BWM-RDEA model is solved utilizing amin-max technique and so as to illustrate its usefulness, this model is implemented for assessing Iranian airlines.

一种新颖的最佳最坏方法稳健数据包络分析:在不确定环境中纳入决策者的偏好
数据包络分析(DEA)被广泛应用于决策单元效率的测度。传统的DEA有三个主要的缺点:a)它没有考虑决策者在评估过程中的偏好,b)该模型中的决策者在加权标准方面具有灵活性,以达到最大可能的效率,c)它忽略了数据的不确定性。然而,在许多实际应用中,数据是不确定和不精确的,管理者希望在决策过程中强加他们的意见。为了解决这些问题,本文提出了一种新的多目标最优最坏方法——鲁棒DEA (RDEA),将不确定环境下决策者的偏好纳入DEA模型。该模型利用BWM将专家意见和RDEA对不确定性进行建模的优势,试图提供一个更可靠、更符合实际问题的新效率评分。利用最大胺值技术对BWM-RDEA双目标模型进行求解,并将该模型应用于伊朗航空公司的评估中,以说明其有效性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Operations Research Perspectives
Operations Research Perspectives Mathematics-Statistics and Probability
CiteScore
6.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
36
审稿时长
27 days
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信