Data envelopment analysis (DEA) is widely used to evaluate the performance of a group of homogeneous decision making units (DMUs). Considering the uncertainty, interval DEA has been introduced to fit into more situations. In this paper, an interval efficiency method based on slacks-based measure is proposed to solve the uncertain problems in DEA. Firstly, the maximum and minimum efficiency values of the evaluated DMU are calculated by the furthest and closest distance from the evaluated DMU to the projection points on the Pareto-efficient frontier, respectively. Then, the AHP method is used for the full ranking of DMUs. The paper uses the pairwise comparison relationship between each pair of DMUs to construct the interval multiplicative preference relations (IMPRs) matrix. If the matrix does not meet the consistency condition, a method to obtain consistency IMPRs is introduced. According to the consistency judgment matrix, the full ranking of DMUs can be obtained. Finally, we apply our method to the performance evaluation of 12 tourist hotels in Taipei in 2019.
CharnesA., CooperW.W. and RhodesE., Measuring the efficiency of decision making units, European Journal of Operational Research2 (1978), 429–444.
2.
BankerR.D., CharnesA. and CooperW.W., Some models for estimating technical and scale inefficiencies in data envelopment analysis, Management Science30 (1984), 1078–1092.
3.
SeifordL.M. and ZhuJ., Infeasibility of super-efficiency data envelopment analysis models, INFOR: Information Systems and Operational Research37 (1999), 174–187.
4.
LozanoS. and VillaG., Data envelopment analysis of integer-valued inputs and outputs, Computers & Operations Research33 (2006), 3004–3014.
5.
Charnes,
CooperW.W.,
GolanyB. and SeifordL., et al., Foundations of Data Envelopment Analysis for Pareto-Koopmans Efficient Empirical Productions Functions, Texas Univ at Austin Center for Cybernetic Studies, 1985.
6.
Hashimoto, A ranked voting system using a DEA/AR exclusion model: A note, European Journal of Operational Research97 (1997), 600–604.
7.
DoyleJ. and GreenR., Efficiency and cross-efficiency in DEA: Derivations, meanings and uses, Journal of the Operational Research Society45 (1994), 567–578.
8.
GhasemiN., NajafiE., LotfiF.H. and SobhaniF.M., Assessing the performance of organizations with the hierarchical structure using data envelopment analysis: An efficiency analysis of Farhangian University, Measurement156 (2020), 107609.
9.
FukuyamaH. and MatousekR., Nerlovian revenue inefficiency in a bank production context: evidence from Shinkin banks, European Journal of Operational Research271 (2018), 317–330.
10.
ZhouX., XuZ., ChaiJ., YaoL., et al., Efficiency evaluation for banking systems under uncertainty: A multi-period three-stage DEA model, Omega85 (2019), 68–82.
11.
JiangT., ZhangY. and JinQ., Sustainability efficiency assessment of listed companies in China: a super-efficiency SBM-DEA model considering undesirable output, Environmental Science and Pollution Research (2021), 1–17.
12.
WangX. and WangY., Interval enhanced Russell measure with undesirable outputs based on data envelopment analysis: An efficiency measurement of industry in China, Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems (2021), 1–13.
13.
BadiezadehT., SaenR.F. and SamavatiT., Assessing sustainability of supply chains by double frontier network DEA: A big data approach, Computers & Operations Research98 (2018), 284–290.
14.
OmraniH., AminiM. and AlizadehA., An integrated group best-worst method–Data envelopment analysis approach for evaluating road safety: A case of Iran, Measurement152 (2020), 107330.
15.
EntaniT., MaedaY. and TanakaH., Dual models of interval DEA and its extension to interval data, European Journal of Operational Research136 (2002), 32–45.
16.
Amirteimoori,
KordrostamiS. and
RezaitabarA.,
An improvement to the cost efficiency interval: A DEA-based approach, Applied Mathematics and Computation181 (2006), 775–781.
17.
AziziH., The interval efficiency based on the optimistic and pessimistic points of view, Applied Mathematical Modelling35 (2011), 2384–2393.
18.
AziziH., DEA efficiency analysis: A DEA approach with double frontiers, International Journal of Systems Science45 (2013), 2289–2300.
19.
DoyleJ. and GreenR., Efficiency and cross-efficiency in DEA: Derivations, meanings and uses, Journal of the Operational Research Society45 (1994), 567–578.
20.
LiuS.T., A DEA ranking method based on cross-efficiency intervals and signal-to-noise ratio, Annals of Operations Research261 (2018), 207–232.
21.
AnQ., MengF. and XiongB., Interval cross efficiency for fully ranking decision making units using DEA/AHP approach, Annals of Operations Research271 (2018), 297–317.
22.
YangF., AngS., XiaQ. and YangC., Ranking DMUs by using interval DEA cross efficiency matrix with acceptability analysis, European Journal of Operational Research223 (2012), 483–488.
23.
AngS., AnQ., YangM. and YangF., Ranking ranges, performance maverick and diversity for decision-making units with interval cross-efficiency matrix, International Journal of Systems Science: Operations & Logistics7 (2020), 46–59.
24.
ToneK., A slacks-based measure of efficiency in data envelopment analysis, European Journal of Operational Research130 (2001), 498–509.
25.
MirhedayatianS. and SaenR.F., A new approach for weight derivation using data envelopment analysis in the analytic hierarchy process, Journal of the Operational Research Society62 (2011), 1585–1595.
26.
DyerJ.S., Remarks on the analytic hierarchy process, Management Science36 (1990), 249–258.
27.
WinklerR.L., Decision modeling and rational choice: AHP and utility theory, Management Science36 (1990), 247–248.
28.
Sinuany-SternZ., MehrezA. and HadadY., An AHP/DEA methodology for ranking decision making units, International Transactions in Operational Research7 (2000), 109–124.
29.
AparicioJ., RuizJ.L. and SirventI., Closest targets and minimum distance to the Pareto-efficient frontier in DEA, Journal of Productivity Analysis28 (2007), 209–218.
30.
JinF., NiZ., LangariR. and ChenH., Consistency Improvement-Driven Decision-Making Methods with Probabilistic Multiplicative Preference Relations, Group Decision & Negotiation29 (2020).
31.
JinF., LiuJ., ZhouL. and MartínezL., Consensus-based linguistic distribution large-scale group decision making using statistical inference and regret theory, Group Decision and Negotiation (2021), 1–33.
32.
SaatyT.L. and VargasL.G., Uncertainty and rank order in the analytic hierarchy process, European Journal of Operational Research32 (1987), 107–117.
33.
SaatyT., The analytic hierarchy process (AHP) for decision making. in Kobe, Japan, 1980.
34.
MengF., ZengX. and LiZ., Research the priority methods of interval numbers complementary judgment matrix. in 2007 IEEE International Conference on Grey Systems and Intelligent Services. 2007. IEEE.
35.
AndersonR.I., FishM., XiaY. and MichelloF., Measuring efficiency in the hotel industry: A stochastic frontier approach, International Journal of Hospitality Management18 (1999), 45–57.
36.
HwangS.N. and ChangT.Y., Using data envelopment analysis to measure hotel managerial efficiency change in Taiwan, Tourism Management24 (2003), 357–369.
37.
WangF.C., HungW.T. and ShangJ.K., Measuring the cost efficiency of international tourist hotels in Taiwan, Tourism Economics12 (2006), 65–85.
38.
WuJ., TsaiH. and ZhouZ., Improving efficiency in international tourist hotels in Taipei using a non-radial DEA model, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management (2011).
39.
TsaurS.H., The operating efficiency of international tourist hotels in Taiwan, Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research6 (2001), 73–81.
40.
ChiangW., TsaiM. and WangL.S.-M., A DEA evaluation of Taipei hotels, Annals of Tourism Research31 (2004), 712–715.
41.
ChiangW., A hotel performance evaluation of Taipei international tourist hotels–using data envelopment analysis, Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research11 (2006), 29–42.
42.
EntaniT. and TanakaH., Improvement of efficiency intervals based on DEA by adjusting inputs and outputs, European Journal of Operational Research172 (2006), 1004–1017.
