Data Envelopment Analysis: From Normative to Descriptive Performance Evaluation

Table Of Contents

• Cover
• Title
• Copyright
• About the author
• About the book
• This eBook can be cited
• Acknowledgments
• Table of contents
• List of figures
• List of tables
• Abbreviations
• Symbols
• 1. Introduction
• 1.1 Motivation
• 1.2 DEA as a performance evaluation tool
• 1.2.1 Normative DEA and value judgment
• 1.2.2 Descriptive DEA, heuristics and biases
• 1.3 Structure of the thesis
• Part A: DEA as a tool for decision making
• 2. DEA from a normative perspective: efficiency and balance scores
• 2.1 DEA methodology as an instrument for relative performance measurement
• 2.1.1 Relative performance measurement
• 2.1.2 DEA methodology
• 2.2 Endogenous weight determination as a main characteristic of DEA
• 2.2.1 Managerial problems resulting from flexible weights
• 2.2.2 Value judgment in DEA
• 2.3 BDEA: relative balance as a complementary measure
• 2.3.1 Motivation for dealing with weight asymmetry
• 2.3.2 The balance score βo
• 2.3.3 Numerical example
• 2.3.4 Managerial implications of BDEA
• 2.3.5 Relative balance of DMUs: summary, criticism and further research
• 3. Managerial decision making
• 3.1 A brief history of research on managerial decision making
• 3.2 Choice
• 3.2.1 Normative and descriptive choice models
• 3.2.2 Heuristics for choice tasks
• 3.3 Judgment: estimation and classification
• 3.3.1 Brunswik’s lens model for judgment
• 3.3.2 Heuristics for estimation and classification tasks
• 3.4 Probabilistic judgment
• 3.4.1 Normative method: Bayesian inference
• 3.4.2 Heuristics for probabilistic judgment
• 3.5 Enhanced descriptive research on decision making
• 3.5.1 Emotions and mood
• 3.5.2 Social preferences and fairness perception
• 4. Efficiency, balance, and biases: DEA from a descriptive perspective
• 4.1 Behavioral research in management accounting
• 4.2 Behavioral research in operations management and operations research
• 4.2.1 Behavioral operations management
• 4.2.2 Behavioral operations research
• 4.3 Biases in performance evaluation tasks
• 4.3.1 Review of taxonomies of biases
• 4.3.2 Taxonomy of biases for performance evaluation
• 4.4 Efficiency, balance and biases
• 4.4.1 Descriptive research in performance evaluation
• 4.4.2 DEA-based behavioral performance evaluation
• Part B: Experimental studies
• 5. DEA scores as performance markers and the halo effect
• 5.1 Theoretical background
• 5.1.1 Performance markers in choice tasks
• 5.1.2 Relative performance evaluation and the halo effect
• 5.2 Hypotheses and predictions
• 5.3 Method
• 5.3.1 Participants and design
• 5.3.2 Case materials
• 5.3.3 Procedure
• 5.4 Results
• 5.4.1 The role of DEA scores as a performance marker
• 5.4.2 Bonus for non-financial performance: a self-generated anchor
• 5.4.3 Supplemental analysis
• 5.5 Discussion
• 6. The decoy effect in relative performance evaluation and the debiasing role of DEA
• 6.1 The decoy effect in choice tasks
• 6.2 Hypotheses and predictions
• 6.3 Method
• 6.3.1 Participants and design
• 6.3.2 Case materials
• 6.3.3 Procedure
• 6.4 Results
• 6.4.1 The decoy effect in a performance evaluation context
• 6.4.2 Using DEA as a debiasing mechanism
• 6.4.3 Supplemental analysis
• 6.5 Discussion
• 7. Summary and future research
• References
• Appendixes
• A) DEA publications in accounting journals
• B) Most productive BAR authors (1962–2012)
• C) Behavioral papers in OM and multidisciplinary journals
• D) Students as surrogates for managers
• E) Vignette Halo effect
• F) Vignette Decoy effect