This article proposes a new method of project performance evaluation, by which project performance data can be better understood. This article combines principal component analysis (PCA) and data envelopment analysis (DEA) to enhance the efficiency of decision-making units more accurately. The data used was based on energy projects promoted by the Bureau of Energy at the Ministry of Economic Affairs in Taiwan. The results of this article show that by combining PCA and DEA in evaluating the performance of energy projects, there was an improved evaluation of projects over simply using DEA data alone.
AdlerN., & GolanyB. (2001). Evaluation of deregulated airline networks using data envelopment analysis combined with principal component analysis with an application to Western Europe. European Journal of Operational Research, 132(2), 18–31.
2.
AdlerN., & GolanyB. (2002). Including principal component weights to improve discrimination in data envelopment analysis. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 53(9), 985–991.
3.
AdlerN., & YazhemskyE. (2010). Improving discrimination in data envelopment analysis: PCA-DEA or variable reduction. European Journal of Operational Research, 202(1), 273–284.
4.
Al-HarbiK. M. (2001). Application of the AHP in project management. International Journal of Project Management, 19(1), 19–27.
5.
AndersonR. I., FishM., XiaY., & MichelloF. (1999). Measuring efficiency in the hotel industry: A stochastic frontier approach. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 18(1), 45–57.
6.
AndersonR. I., FokR., & ScottJ. (2000). Hotel industry efficiency: An advanced linear programming examination. American Business Review, 18(1), 40–48.
7.
AvkiranN. K., & RowlandsT. (2008). How to better identify the true managerial performance: State of the art using DEA. Omega, 36(2), 317–324.
8.
BankerR., CharnesA., & CooperW. W. (1984). Some models for estimating technical and scale inefficiencies in data envelopment analysis. Management Science, 30(9), 1078–1092.
9.
BarclayC., & Osei-BrysonK. M. (2009). Toward a more practical approach to evaluating programs: The multi-objective realization approach. Project Management Journal, 40(4), 74–93.
10.
BardhanI. R., KrishnanV. V., & LinS. (2007). Project performance and the enabling role of information technology: An exploratory study on the role of alignment. Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, 9(4), 579–595.
11.
BarrosC. P., & AlvesC. (2004). An empirical analysis of productivity growth in a Portuguese retail chain using Malmquist productivity index. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Service, 11(5), 269–278.
12.
BrownA., & AdamsJ. (2000). Measuring the effect of project management on construction outputs: A new approach. International Journal of Project Management, 18(5), 327–335.
13.
Bureau of Energy (BOE). (2009). Taiwan Energy Projects Statistical Report 2008. Bureau of Energy, Ministry of Economic Affairs, Taiwan, R.O.C.
14.
CaoQ., & HoffmanJ. J. (2011). A case study approach for developing a project performance evaluation system. International Journal of Project Management, 29(2), 155–164.
15.
ChangP. T., & LeeJ. H. (2012). A fuzzy DEA and knapsack formulation integrated model for project selection. Computers & Operations Research, 39(1), 112–125.
16.
CharnesA., CooperW. W., & RhodesE. (1978). Measuring the efficiency of decision making units. European Journal of Operational Research, 2(6), 429–444.
17.
ChenC. F. (2007). Applying the stochastic frontier approach to measure hotel managerial efficiency in Taiwan. Tourism Management, 28(3), 696–702.
18.
ChenS. J., & HwangC. L. (1992). Fuzzy multiple attribute decision making: Methods and applications.Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag.
19.
ChengE.W. L., ChiangY. H., & TangB. S. (2007). Alternative approach to credit scoring by DEA: Evaluating borrowers with respect to PFI projects. Building and Environment, 42(4), 1752–1760.
20.
ChiesaV., FrattiniF., LazzarottiV., & ManziniR. (2007). Measuring performance in new product development projects: A case study in the aerospace industry. Project Management Journal, 38(4), 45–59.
21.
ConfortoE. C., & AmaralD. C. (2010). Evaluating an agile method for planning and controlling innovative projects. Project Management Journal, 41(2), 73–80.
22.
CullinaneK., WangT. F., SongD. W., & JiP. (2006). The technical efficiency of container ports: Comparing data envelopment analysis and stochastic frontier analysis. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 40(4), 354–374.
23.
DysonR., AllenR., CamanhoA. S., PodinovskiV.V., SarricoC. S., & ShaleE. A. (2001). Pitfalls and protocols in DEA. European Journal of Operational Research, 132(2), 245–259.
24.
EneaM., & PiazzaT. (2004). Project selection by constrained fuzzy AHP. Fuzzy Optimization and Decision Making, 3(1), 39–62.
25.
ErtuğrulI., & KarakaşoğluN. (2008). Performance evaluation of Turkish cement firms with fuzzy analytic hierarchy process and TOPSIS methods. Expert Systems with Applications, 36(1), 702–715.
26.
FarrellM. J. (1957). The measurement of productive efficiency. Journal of Royal Statistical Society A, 120(3), 253–281.
27.
FuH.-P., ChuK.-K., ChaoP., LeeH.-H., & LiaoY.-C. (2011). Using fuzzy AHP and VIKOR for benchmarking analysis in the hotel industry. The Service Industries Journal, 31(14), 2373–2389.
28.
GhoshS., & JintanapakanontJ. (2004). Identifying and assessing the critical risk factors in an underground rail project in Thailand: A factor analysis approach. International Journal of Project Management, 22(8), 633–643.
29.
HattoriT. (2002). Relative performance of U.S. and Japanese electricity distribution: An application of stochastic frontier analysis. Journal of Productivity Analysis, 18(3), 269–284.
30.
JohnsonR. A., & WichernD. W. (2007). Applied multivariate statistical analysis.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
31.
JolliffeI. T. (2002). Principal component analysis (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Springer Verlag.
32.
KumbhakarS. C., & LovellC. A. K. (2000). Stochastic frontier analysis.New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
33.
NormanM., & StokerB. (1991). Data envelopment analysis, the assessment of performance.Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
34.
NunamakerT. R. (1985). Using data envelopment analysis to measure the efficiency of non-profit organization: A critical evaluation. Managerial and Decision Economics, 26(1), 50–58.
35.
OpricovicS. (1998). Multicriteria optimization of civil engineering systems.Belgrade, Serbia: Faculty of Civil Engineering.
36.
RosackerK. M., & OlsonD. L. (2008). An empirical assessment of IT project selection and evaluation methods in state government. Project Management Journal, 39(1), 49–58.
37.
SaatyT. L. (1980). The analytic hierarchy process.New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
38.
SamalM., KárnyM., BenaliH., BackfriederW., Todd-PokropekA., & BergmannH. (1999). Experimental comparison of data transformation procedures for analysis of principal components. Physics in Medicine and Biology, 44(11), 2821–2834.
39.
San CristóbalJ. R. (2011). Multi-criteria decision-making in the selection of a renewable energy project in Spain: The Vikor method. Renewable Energy, 36(2), 498–502.
40.
SeçmeN.Y., BayrakdaroğluA., & KahramanC. (2009). Fuzzy performance evaluation in Turkish banking sector using analytic hierarchy process and TOPSIS. Expert Systems with Applications, 36(9), 11699–11709.
41.
VitnerG., RozenesS., & SpraggettS. (2006). Using data envelope analysis to compare project efficiency in a multi-project environment. International Journal of Project Management, 24(4), 323–329.
YangH., & PollittM. (2009). Incorporating both undesirable outputs and uncontrollable variables into DEA: The performance of Chinese coal-fired power plants. European Journal of Operational Research, 197(3), 1095–1105.
44.
YurdakulM., & İÇY. T. (2005). Development of a performance measurement model for manufacturing companies using the AHP and TOPSIS approaches. International Journal of Production Research, 43(21), 4609–4641.
