The Fixed Weighting Nature of A Cross-Evaluation Model

By T. Anderson, K. Hollingsworth, L. Inman. 2002

241 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Selecting symmetric weights as a secondary goal in DEA cross-efficiency evaluation (2011, background): “There are two principal advantages of cross-evaluation: (1) it provides a unique ordering of the DMUs and (2) it eliminates unrealistic weight schemes without requiring the elicitation of weight restrictions from application area experts [4].”
Data envelopment analysis (DEA) - Thirty years on (2009, background): “It eliminates the need for incorporating additional weight restrictions on multipliers, thereby avoiding potentially unrealistic weighting schemes (Anderson et al., 2002). One can find many uses of cross efficiency for example, R&D project selection (Oral et al., 1991), preference voting (Doyle et a”
The DEA Game Cross-Efficiency Model and Its Nash Equilibrium (2008, methodology): “It can eliminate the need for incorporation of additional weight restrictions into DEA, thereby avoiding unrealistic DEA weighting schemes (see Anderson et al. 2002).”
Alternative secondary goals in DEA cross-efficiency evaluation (2008, background): “There are two principal advantages of cross evaluation: (1) it provides a unique ordering of the DMUs, and (2) it eliminates unrealistic weight schemes without requiring the elicitation of weight restrictions from application area experts (Anderson et al., 2002). Cross-efficiency evaluation has been”