4.7 Article

Incorporating preference information in a range directional composite indicator: The case of Portuguese public hospitals *

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF OPERATIONAL RESEARCH
卷 294, 期 2, 页码 633-650

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejor.2021.01.045

关键词

Data envelopment analysis; Directional distance function; Composite indicator; Undesirable outputs; Weight restrictions

资金

  1. [PTDC/EGE-OGE/30546/2017]
  2. [SFRH/BD/149283/2019]
  3. Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia [SFRH/BD/149283/2019] Funding Source: FCT

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Understanding the complexity and diversity of handling large amounts of data in complex systems is crucial for continuous improvement in institutions. Composite indicators serve as aggregators of key performance indicators reflecting multidimensional performance aspects, with some constructed using data envelopment analysis.
Grasping the intricacy and diversity of complex systems dealing with ever-growing amounts of data is essential to public and private institutions' continuous improvement. Composite indicators (CIs) emerge as aggregators of key performance indicators, providing a single measure that reflects those multidimensional performance aspects. One way to build such measures is based on the use of data envelopment analysis (DEA). Several DEA models can be used to generate CIs. Still, not many of them can deal concurrently with desirable and undesirable outputs, and incorporate the decision-making actors' preference information. Based on the directional 'Benefit-of-the-Doubt' model, we propose a novel approach consisting of the simultaneous use of weight restrictions and an artificial target reached via a range directional vector. The resulting CI assesses the Portuguese public hospitals' performance under two perspectives of hospital activity: users and providers. In the end, managerial and policy implications are withdrawn from the results of this study conducted in cooperation with the Portuguese Ministry of Health. (c) 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据