DEA 모형의 변별력 평가에 관한 연구

국문 초록 (Abstract)

본 연구에서는 변동계수를 이용하여 DEA 모형의 변별력 평가에 적용할 수 있는 새로운 평가기준을 제시하였다. 변별력 평가를 위해 기존 연구에서 제시한 중요도와 본 연구에서 제안한 변동계수를 이용하여 변별력을 분석하였다. 다양한 DEA 모형들 중 변별력 평가를 위해 CCR-DEA, BCC-DEA, entropy, bootstrap, super efficiency, cross efficiency DEA 모형을 선정하고 실증분석을 실시하였다. 모형들의 순위상관관계를 파악하기 위해서 CCR 모형과 BCC 모형의 효율성 값과 entropy, bootstrap, super efficiency, cross efficiency 모형의 효율성 값들 간에 순위상관분석을 실시하였다.
본 연구를 통해 도출된 연구결과를 요약하면 다음과 같다. 첫째, 중요도와 변동계수를 이용한 모형들의 변별력 순위가 동일한 것으로 분석되어 변동계수를 DEA 모형의 변별력 평가기준으로 이용할 수 있다는 것이다. 둘째, 본 연구의 실증분석 결과에 따르면 4개 모형 중 super efficiency 모형이 변별력이 가장 높은 것으로 분석되었다. 셋째, CCR 모형과 순위상관관계가 가장 높은 모형은 super efficiency 모형으로 나타났고, BCC 모형과 순위상관관계가 가장 높은 모형도 super efficiency 모형으로 분석되었다.

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

This study presented the new evaluation index which can evaluate the discrimination of DEA models. To evaluate the discrimination of DEA models, data were analyzed using importance index as suggested in previous study and the coefficient of variation as suggested in this study for the discrimination evaluation. This study selected the CCR-DEA, BCC-DEA, entropy, bootstrap, super efficiency, and cross efficiency DEA model for the discrimination evaluation and accomplished empirical analysis. In order to grasp the rank correlation of the models, this study implemented the rank correlation analysis between the efficiency of CCR model and BCC model and entropy, bootstrap, super efficiency, and efficiency of the cross efficiency model. The obtained results of this study are as follows.
First, the discrimination rank of models using the importance index and the coefficient of variation was shown to be identical. Therefore, the coefficient of variation can be used the discrimination evaluation index of DEA model. Second, the discrimination of the super efficiency model was found to be the highest rank among 4 models according to the analysis of this present study. Third, the highest rank correlation with CCR model was the super efficiency model. In addition, the super efficiency model was found to be the highest rank correlation with BCC model.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• 요약
• Abstract
• Ⅰ. 서론
• Ⅱ. 이론적 배경
• Ⅲ. 변별력 평가지수 및 연구모형
• Ⅳ. 실증분석
• Ⅴ. 결론
• 참고문헌

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 박만희, "효율성과 생산성 분석" 한국학술정보 2008

2 유금록, "공공부문의 효율성과 영향요인 분석: 도시개발공사를 중심으로" 한국행정학회 42 (42): 79-109, 2008

3 R. D. Banker, "Some Models for Estimating Technical and Scale Efficiencies in Data Envelopment Analysis" 30 : 1078-1092, 1984

4 M. Soleimani-damaneh, "Shannon’s entropy for combining the efficiency results of different DEA models : method and application" 36 : 5146-5150, 2009

5 J. A. Fitzsimmons, "Service Management for Competitive Advantage" McGrow-Hill Inc 1994

6 L. Simar, "Sensitivity analysis of Efficiency Scores : How to bootstrap in nonparametric Frontier Models" 44 : 49-61, 1998

7 N. Alder, "Review of ranking methods in the data envelopment analysis context" 140 : 249-265, 2002

8 Q. Xie, "Increasing the Discriminatory Power of DEA Using Shannon’s Entropy" 16 (16): 1571-1585, 2014

9 W. Shen, "Increasing discrimination of DEA evaluation by utilizing distances to anti-efficient frontiers" 75 : 163-173, 2016

10 N. Alder, "Improving discrimination in data envelopment analysis : PCA–DEA or variable reduction" 202 : 273-284, 2010

11 A. Charnes, "Evaluating Program and Managerial Efficiency : An Application of Data Envelopment Analysis to Program Follow Through" 27 (27): 668-697, 1981

12 Y. Wang, "Discriminating DEA efficient candidates by considering their least relative total scores" 206 : 209-215, 2007

13 W. Cook, "Data Envelopment Analysis, A Handbook of Models and Methods" Springer 23-32, 2015

14 T. Sexton, "Data Envelopment Analysis : Critique and Extensions" 32 : 73-105, 1986

15 J. Ruiz, "Common benchmarking and ranking of units with DEA" 65 : 1-9, 2016

16 A. Boussofinance, "Applied Data Envelopment Analysis" 52 : 1-15, 1991

17 M. Bagherikahvarin, "A ranking method based on DEA and PROMETHEE II(a rank based on DEA & PR. II)" 89 : 333-342, 2016

18 W. Cook, "A modified super-efficiency DEA model for infeasibility" 60 : 276-281, 2009