4.7 Article

Performance evaluation of participating nations at the 2012 London Summer Olympics by a two-stage data envelopment analysis

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF OPERATIONAL RESEARCH
卷 243, 期 3, 页码 964-973

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejor.2014.12.032

关键词

Data envelopment analysis; Two-stage process; Performance evaluation; Heuristic search procedure

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [71271196]
  2. National Science Foundation of China [71225002]
  3. Science Funds for Creative Research Groups of the National Natural Science Foundation of China
  4. University of Science and Technology of China [71121061, WK2040160008]
  5. Fund for International Cooperation and Exchange of the National Natural Science Foundation of China [71110107024]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study measures the performance of participating nations at the Olympics, considering the quest for medals as a two-stage Olympic process. The first stage is characterized as athlete preparation (AP) and the second stage as athlete competition (AC). We extend the relational model from the constant returns to scale framework to the variable returns to scale version. The efficiency of each participating nation in the entire two-stage Olympic process is calculated as a product of the efficiencies of both stages, and a heuristic search is applied to the extended relational model. The efficiency of each stage can be obtained and directions for improving the performance of participating nations in the two-stage Olympic process can be identified. An empirical study of the 2012 London Summer Olympic Games reveals that the efficiency of the AP stage is higher than that of the AC stage for the majority of participants. In addition, a plot of the relationship between these three efficiencies shows that the efficiency of the entire two-stage Olympic process is more significantly related to that of the AC stage than that of the AP stage. (C) 2014 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