Oral, MuhittinOukil, A.Malouin, J.-L.Kettani, O.2015-10-232015-10-232014-030038-0121http://hdl.handle.net/10679/960https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seps.2013.08.003Due to copyright restrictions, the access to the full text of this article is only available via subscription.Data envelopment analysis (DEA) is in fact more than just being an instrument for measuring the relative efficiencies of a group of decision making units (DMU). DEA models are also means of expressing appreciative democratic voices of DMUs. This paper proposes a methodology for allocating premium points to a group of professors using three models sequentially: (1) a DEA model for appreciative academic self-evaluation, (2) a DEA model for appreciative academic cross-evaluation, and (3) a Non-DEA model for academic rating of professors for the purpose of premium allocations. The premium results, called DEA results, are then compared with the premium points “nurtured” by the Dean, called N bonus points. After comparing DEA results and N bonus points, the Dean reassessed his initial bonus points and provided new ones – called DEA-N decisions. The experience indicates that judgmental decisions (Dean's evaluations) can be enhanced by making use of formal models (DEA and Non-DEA models). Moreover, the appreciative and democratic voices of professors are virtually embedded in the DEA models.enginfo:eu-repo/semantics/restrictedAccessArticle481202800036564630000510.1016/j.seps.2013.08.003DEAAppreciative democratic voiceSelf and cross-efficiencyFaculty evaluationAcademic performanceJudgmental decision2-s2.0-84893722029