Using DEA and AHP for Multiplicative Aggregation of Hierarchical Indicators

Mohammad Sadegh Pakkar

doi:10.4236/ajor.2015.55026

Home > Journals > Physics & Mathematics > AJOR

AJOR> Vol.5 No.5, September 2015

Share This Article:

Open Access

Using DEA and AHP for Multiplicative Aggregation of Hierarchical Indicators

Abstract Full-Text HTML

Download as PDF (Size:494KB) PP. 327-336

DOI: 10.4236/ajor.2015.55026 2,321 Downloads 2,758 Views Citations

Author(s) Leave a comment

Mohammad Sadegh Pakkar

Affiliation(s)

Faculty of Management, Laurentian University, Sudbury, Canada.

ABSTRACT

The author [Pakkar, M.S. (2014) Using Data Envelopment Analysis and Analytic Hierarchy Process to Construct Composite Indicators. Journal of Applied Operational Research, 6(3), 174-187.] recently proposed a multiplicative approach using Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) and Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) to reflect the priority weights of indicators in constructing composite indicators (CIs). Nonetheless, this approach is limited to the situations with a single level hierarchy which might not satisfy the needs of a multiple level hierarchy. Therefore, the current paper extends this approach to the situations in which the indicators of similar characteristics can be grouped into sub-categories and further linked into categories to form a three-level hierarchical structure. An illustrative example of road safety performance for a set of European countries highlights the usefulness of the proposed “extended approach”.

KEYWORDS

Data Envelopment Analysis, Analytic Hierarchy Process, Composite Indicators, Multiplicative Aggregation, Hierarchical Structures

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Cite this paper

Pakkar, M.S (2015) Using DEA and AHP for Multiplicative Aggregation of Hierarchical Indicators. American Journal of Operations Research, 5, 327-336. doi: 10.4236/ajor.2015.55026.

References

[1]	Pakkar, M.S. (2014) Using Data Envelopment Analysis and Analytic Hierarchy Process to Construct Composite Indicators. Journal of Applied Operational Research, 6, 174-187.

[2]	Zhou, P., Ang, B.W. and Zhou, D.Q. (2010) Weighting and Aggregation in Composite Indicator Construction: A Multiplicative Optimization Approach. Social Indicators Research, 96, 169-181. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11205-009-9472-3

[3]	Shen, Y., Hermans, E., Brijs, T. and Wets, G. (2013) Data Envelopment Analysis for Composite Indicators: A Multiple Layer Model. Social Indicators Research, 114, 739-756. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11205-012-0171-0

[4]	OECD (2008) Handbook on Constructing Composite Indicators: Methodology and User Guide. OECD Publishing.

[5]	Charnes, A., Cooper, W.W., Seiford, L. and Stutz, J. (1982) A Multiplicative Model for Efficiency Analysis. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 16, 223-224. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0038-0121(82)90029-5

[6]	Hashimoto, A. and Wu, D.A. (2004) A DEA-Compromise Programming Model for Comprehensive Ranking. Journal of the Operation Research Society of Japan, 47, 73-81.

[7]	Saaty, T.S. (1980) The Analytic Hierarchy Process. McGraw-Hill, New York.

[8]	Podinovski, V.V. (2004) Suitability and Redundancy of Non-Homogeneous Weight Restrictions for Measuring the Relative Efficiency in DEA. European Journal of Operational Research, 154, 380-395. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(03)00176-0

[9]	Bax, C., Wesemann, P., Gitelman, V., Shen, Y., Goldenbeld, C., Hermans, E., Doveh, E., Hakkert, S., Wegman, F. and Aarts, L. (2012) Developing a Road Safety Index. Deliverable 4.9 of the EC FP7 Project DaCoTA.