Improving envelopment in Data Envelopment Analysis under variable returns to scale

In a Data Envelopment Analysis model, some of the weights used to compute the efficiency of a unit can have zero or negligible value despite of the importance of the corresponding input or output. This paper offers an approach to preventing inputs and outputs from being ignored in the DEA assessment under the multiple input and output VRS environment, building on an approach introduced in Allen and Thanassoulis (2004) for single input multiple output CRS cases. The proposed method is based on the idea of introducing unobserved DMUs created by adjusting input and output levels of certain observed relatively efficient DMUs, in a manner which reflects a combination of technical information and the decision maker's value judgements. In contrast to many alternative techniques used to constrain weights and/or improve envelopment in DEA, this approach allows one to impose local information on production trade-offs, which are in line with the general VRS technology. The suggested procedure is illustrated using real data. © 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Multi-level visualisation using Gaussian process latent variable models

Projection of a high-dimensional dataset onto a two-dimensional space is a useful tool to visualise structures and relationships in the dataset. However, a single two-dimensional visualisation may not display all the intrinsic structure. Therefore, hierarchical/multi-level visualisation methods have been used to extract more detailed understanding of the data. Here we propose a multi-level Gaussian process latent variable model (MLGPLVM). MLGPLVM works by segmenting data (with e.g. K-means, Gaussian mixture model or interactive clustering) in the visualisation space and then fitting a visualisation model to each subset. To measure the quality of multi-level visualisation (with respect to parent and child models), metrics such as trustworthiness, continuity, mean relative rank errors, visualisation distance distortion and the negative log-likelihood per point are used. We evaluate the MLGPLVM approach on the ‘Oil Flow’ dataset and a dataset of protein electrostatic potentials for the ‘Major Histocompatibility Complex (MHC) class I’ of humans. In both cases, visual observation and the quantitative quality measures have shown better visualisation at lower levels.

Material and efficient cause interpretations of the formative model:resolving misunderstandings and clarifying conceptual language

This paper presents a causal explanation of formative variables that unpacks and clarifies the generally accepted idea that formative indicators are ‘causes’ of the focal formative variable. In doing this, we explore the recent paper by Diamantopoulos and Temme (AMS Review, 3(3), 160-171, 2013) and show that the latter misunderstand the stance of Lee, Cadogan, and Chamberlain (AMS Review, 3(1), 3-17, 2013; see also Cadogan, Lee, and Chamberlain, AMS Review, 3(1), 38-49, 2013). By drawing on the multiple ways that one can interpret the idea of causality within the MIMIC model, we then demonstrate how the continued defense of the MIMIC model as a tool to validate formative indicators and to identify formative variables in structural models is misguided. We also present unambiguous recommendations on how formative variables can be modelled in lieu of the formative MIMIC model.

Analysis of extended range variable gain hybrid Raman-EDFAs in systems using Nyquist-WDM 100/200G PM-QPSK/16QAM

We use the GN-model to assess Nyquist-WDM 100/200Gbit/s PM-QPSK/16QAM signal reach on low loss, large core area fibre using extended range, variable gain hybrid Raman-EDFAs. 5000/1500km transmission is possible over a wide range of amplifier spans. © OSA 2014.

Sharing of value in business relationships:a theoretical model

This paper explores the sharing of value in business transactions. Although there is an increased usage of the terminology of value in marketing (such concepts as value based selling and pricing), as well as in purchasing (value-based purchasing), the definition of the term is still vague. In order to better understand the definition of value, the author’s argue that it is important to understand the sharing of value, in general and the element of power for the sharing of value in particular. The aim of this paper is to add to this debate and this requires us to critique the current models. The key process that the analysis of power will help to explain is the division of the available revenue stream flowing up the chain from the buyer's customers. If the buyer and supplier do not cooperate, then power will be key in the sharing of that money flow. If buyers and suppliers fully cooperate, they may be able to reduce their costs and/or increase the quality of the sales offering the buyer makes to their customer.

The MIMIC model and formative variables:problems and solutions

The use of the multiple indicators, multiple causes model to operationalize formative variables (the formative MIMIC model) is advocated in the methodological literature. Yet, contrary to popular belief, the formative MIMIC model does not provide a valid method of integrating formative variables into empirical studies and we recommend discarding it from formative models. Our arguments rest on the following observations. First, much formative variable literature appears to conceptualize a causal structure between the formative variable and its indicators which can be tested or estimated. We demonstrate that this assumption is illogical, that a formative variable is simply a researcher-defined composite of sub-dimensions, and that such tests and estimates are unnecessary. Second, despite this, researchers often use the formative MIMIC model as a means to include formative variables in their models and to estimate the magnitude of linkages between formative variables and their indicators. However, the formative MIMIC model cannot provide this information since it is simply a model in which a common factor is predicted by some exogenous variables—the model does not integrate within it a formative variable. Empirical results from such studies need reassessing, since their interpretation may lead to inaccurate theoretical insights and the development of untested recommendations to managers. Finally, the use of the formative MIMIC model can foster fuzzy conceptualizations of variables, particularly since it can erroneously encourage the view that a single focal variable is measured with formative and reflective indicators. We explain these interlinked arguments in more detail and provide a set of recommendations for researchers to consider when dealing with formative variables.