Abstract
Public distribution system (PDS) is the lifeline of food security in India which involves provisioning of foodgrains. To manage this supply chain more efficiently, an effective performance management system is a pre-requisite. This paper utilises the performance objectives-productivity approach to formalise a performance measurement methodology for the PDS supply chain of foodgrains at state level. Here, the actual values of the performance measures are compared with the objectivated values to arrive at the productivity index which indicates the degree of performance of PDS and its various components. In this model the optimal values of the “objectivated output” can be obtained either by solving a goal programming model or through benchmarking in the multi attribute utility theory framework. As fast movement of foodgrains is vital to reduce the degree of perishability due to losses during transit and storage, this multi-dimensional performance measurement system also rates the losses of foodgrains during various stages of freight transportation with a view to minimise the same. The primary aim in applying this method is to arrive at a benchmarking technique to assess if such supply chain is working effectively and efficiently which is akin to auditing the system. By using the given approach some standardisation could be brought into arrive at the authentic performance level of the PDS.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Tarozzi, A.: The Indian public distribution system as provider of food security: evidence from child nutrition in Andhra Pradesh. Eur. Econ. Rev. 49, 1305–1330 (2005)
Government of India.: Mid Term Appraisal of 11th Five-Year Plan 2007–12. Planning Commission (2011)
Government of India.: Report of the Expert Committee on National Food Security Bill (2011)
Association for Protection of Civil Rights.: Public Distribution System in India: A Brief Overview, Preliminary Document, Version 0.0 (2011)
Bohtan, A., Vrat, P., Vij, A.K.: Supply chain of the Indian public distribution system: a new paradigm. J. Adv. Manag. Res. 14(1), 110–123 (2017)
Rajkumar, P.: Service quality measurement of the public distribution system in the food grains supply chain. Int. J. Bus. Perform. Supply Chain Model. 5(2), 131–147 (2013)
Bhagwat, R.O., Raut, D.N.: The performance evaluation of public distribution system using exploratory factor analysis. J. Harm. Res. Eng. 4(3), 76–83 (2016)
Vrat, P., Sardana, G.D.: Concept of productivity: a plea for reappraisal. Udyog Pragati VIII(1), 16–24 (1984)
Sardana, G.D., Vrat, P.: An MBO based mathematical model for measuring plant productivity. In: Proceedings, All India Seminar on Productivity Maximisation in Industries, Institution of Engineers (India), Calcutta (1983)
Sardana, G.D., Vrat, P.: Performance objective-productivity (PO-P): a conceptual framework and mathematical model for productivity management. Productivity XXIV(3), 299–307 (1983)
Sardana, G.D., Vrat, P.: Models of productivity measurement- survey and critical appraisal. In: Reading Material, APO Seminar on Productivity Measurement and Analysis. National Productivity Council, New Delhi (1984)
Sardana, G.D., Vrat, P.: Models of productivity measurement-survey and critical appraisal. Productivity XXV(3), 271–289 (1984)
Neely, A., Gregory, M., Platts, K.: Performance measurement system design—a literature review and research agenda. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 15(4), 80–116 (1995)
Tangen, S.: An overview of frequently used performance measures. Work Study 52(7), 347–354 (2003)
Osborne, D., Gaebler, E.: Reinventing Government—How the Entrepreneurial Spirit is Transforming the Public Sector. Addison Wesley, Reading, MA (1992)
Propper, C., Wilson, D.: The use and usefulness of performance measures in the public sector. CMPO Working Paper Series No. 03/073. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.148.448&rep=rep1&type=pdf Accessed 21 Dec 2017
Osbourne, S., Bovaird, T., Martin, S., Tricker, M., Waterson, P.: Performance management and accountability in complex public programmes. Financ. Account. Manag. 11, 19–37 (1995)
Sharifi, S., Bovaird, T.: The financial management initiative in the UK public sector—the symbolic role of performance reporting. Int. J. Public Adm. 18, 467–490 (1995)
Pidd, M.: Measuring the Performance of Public Services-Principle and Practices. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2012)
Kendrik, J.W., Creamer, D.: Measuring Company Productivity. Handbook with Case Studies. National Conference Board, New York (1965)
Ramsay, M.R.: Overall productivity measurement. In: Paper presented at World Productivity Conference. Indian Institution of Industrial Engineering, Bombay (1973)
Mali, P.: Improving Total Productivity-MBO Strategies for Business, Government and Not-For-Profit Organisations. Wiley, New York (1978)
Johnson, R.A., Kast, F.E., Rosenzweig, J.E.: The Theory and Management of System. Mc Graw Hill Kogakusha Ltd, Tokyo (1963)
Scharf, A.D.: Productivity and problem solving—don’t collect data first. In: Proceedings of Annual Conference. Institute of Industrial Engineers, Chicago (1984)
Kennerley, M., Neely, A.: A framework of the factors affecting the evolution of performance measurement systems. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 22(11), 1222–1245 (2002)
Ambekar, S., Kapoor, R., Mehta, P.: Structural mapping of public distribution system using multi-agent systems. Bus. Process Manag. J. 21(5), 1066–1090 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1108/BPMJ-09-2014-0081
Swaminathan, M.: Consumer food subsidies in India: proposals for reform. J. Peasant Stud. 27(3), 92–114 (2000)
Ramaswami, B.: Efficiency and equity of food market interventions. Econ. Polit. Wkly. 37(123), 1129–1135 (2002)
Mane, P.: Targeting the poor or poor targeting: a case for strengthening the public distribution system of India. J. Asian Afr. Stud. 41(4), 299–317 (2006)
Kattumuri, R.: Food security and the targeted public distribution system in India. Asia Research Centre Working Paper No. 38. http://www.lse.ac.uk/asiaResearchCentre/_files/ARCWP38-Kattumuri.pdf. Accessed 21 Dec 2017
Nagavarapuy, S., Sekhriz, S.: Who is targeted by India’s targeted public distribution system? Working paper. Stanford University. http://www.stanford.edu/group/SITE/archive/SITE_2011/2011_segment_2/2011_segment_2_papers/nagavarapu.pdf. Accessed 22 Dec 2017
Nagavarapuy, S., Sekhriz, S.: Informal monitoring mechanisms in public service delivery: evidence from the public distribution system in India. Working paper. Virginia University. http://people.virginia.edu/~ss5mj/UP_TPDS.pdf.Accessed 23 Dec 2017
Murthy, R.V., Ramanayya, T.V.: Procurement policy for Food Corporation of India modifications and implications. IIM Bangalore Research Paper No. 250. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2147608. Accessed 23 Dec 2017
Jha, S., Ramaswami, B.: The percolation of public expenditure: food subsidies and the poor in India and the Philippines. Paper presented at NCAER-NBER: India Policy Forum, New Delhi, India (2011)
Khera, R.: India’s public distribution system: utilisation and impact. J. Dev. Stud. 47(7), 1038–1060 (2011)
Basu, K.: India’s foodgrain policy: an economic theory perspective. Econ. Polit. Wkly. 46(5), 37–46 (2011)
Thaller, C., Moraitakis, N., Rogers, H., Sigge, D., Clausen, U., Pfohl, H.C., Hartmann, E, Hellingrath, B.: Analysis of the logistics research in India—White Paper. http://web.iitd.ac.in/~ravi1/4a_White%20Paper%20Logistics%20Research%20in%20India%20%282%29.pdf (2012). Accessed 23 Dec 2017
Shah, J.: Supply Chain Management-Text and Cases. Pearson Education Ltd, London (2009). ISBN 978-81-317-1517-8
Sink, D.S., Tuttle, T.C.: Planning and measurement of your organization of the future. Industrial Engineering and Management Press, Norcross (1989)
Keegan, D.P., Eiler, R.G., Jones, C.R.: Are your performance measures obsolete? Manag. Account. 71, 45–50 (1989)
Kennerley, M., Neely, A.: Measuring performance in a changing business environment. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 23(2), 213–229 (2003)
Dixon, J.R., Nanni, A.J., Vollmann, T.E.: The New Performance Challenge—Measuring Operations for World-Class Competition. Dow Jones-Irwin, Homewood (1990)
Ghalayini, A.M., Noble, J.S.: The changing basis of performance measurement. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 16(8), 63–80 (1996)
De Toni, A., Tonicha, S.: Manufacturing flexibility—a literature review. Int. J. Prod. Res. 36(6), 1587–1617 (1997)
Kaplan, R.S., Norton, D.P.: The balanced scorecard—measures that drive performance. Harv. Bus. Rev. 70(1), 71–79 (1992)
Atkinson, A., Waterhouse, J., Wells, R.: A stakeholder approach to strategic performance measurement. Sloan Manag. Rev. 38(3), 5 (1997)
Lindner, C.: Supply chain performance measurement—a research of occurring problems and challenges. Jönköping International Business School, Jönköping University. http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:221082/FULLTEXT01.pdf. Accessed 22 Dec 2017
European Foundation for Quality Management (EFQM).: An overview of the EFQM excellence model. http://www.efqm.org/sites/default/files/overview_efqm_2013_v1.pdf. Accessed 10 Dec 2017
Ahmed, A.H.: Virtual integrated performance measurement. Int. J. Qual. Reliab. Manag. 19(4), 414–441 (2002)
Supply Chain Operation Research (SCOR).: https://www.scor.com/en. Accessed 13 Dec 2017
Vrat, P.: Materials Management—An Integrated Systems Approach. Springer, New Delhi (2014)
Allard, R., Keal, J.E., Mount, W., Samuel, P.J., Smith, G.R., Swanack, A.R.: Productivity Measurement—A Symposium for the Seventies. Institute of Personal Management, London (1971)
Bititci, U.S., Carrie, A.S., McDevitt, L.: Integrated performance measurement systems: a development guide. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 17(5), 522–534 (1997)
Vrat, P., Sardana, G.D., Sahay, B.S.: Productivity Measurement for Business Excellence. Narosa Publishing House, New Delhi (2009)
Aramyan, L.H., Lansink, A.G.O., Van Der Vorst, J.G., Van Kooten, O.: Performance measurement in agri-food supply chains—a case study. Supply Chain Manag. Int. J. 12(4), 304–315 (2007)
Jha, S., Ramaswami, B.: How can food subsidies work better? Answers from India and the Philippines. ADB Economics Working Paper Series. 221 (2010)
Ahluwalia, D.: Public distribution of food in India. Food Policy 8(1), 33–54 (1993)
Ramaswami, B., Balakrishnan, P.: Food prices and the efficiency of public intervention: the case of the public distribution system in India. Food Policy 27(5), 419–436 (2002)
Jha, R., Bhattacharyya, S., Gaiha, R.: Social safety nets and nutrient deprivation—an analysis of the National Rural Employment Guarantee Program and the Public Distribution System in India. J. Asian Econ. 22(2), 189–201 (2011)
Coates, J.: Build it back better: deconstructing food security for improved measurement and action. Glob. Food Secur. 2(3), 188–194 (2013)
Cummings Jr., R., Rashid, S., Gulati, A.: Grain price stabilisation experiences in Asia: What have we learned? Food Policy 31(4), 302–312 (2006)
Parfitt, J., Barthel, M., Macnaughton, S.: Food waste within food supply chains: quantification and potential for change to 2050. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Biol. Sci. 365, 3065–3081 (2010)
Cavinato, J.L.: Total cost value model for supply chain competitiveness. J. Bus. Logis. 13(2), 285–291 (1992)
Stewart, G.: Supply chain performance benchmarking study reveals keys to supply chain excellence. Logist. Inf. Manag. 8(2), 38–44 (1995)
Naim, M.M.: The book that changed the world. Manuf. Eng. 76, 13–16 (1997)
Benjamin, R., Wigand, R.: Electronic markets and virtual value chains on the information superhighway. Sloan Manag. Rev. 36(2), 62–72 (1997)
Novich, N.: Distribution strategy: Are you thinking small enough? Sloan Manag. Rev. 32(1), 71–77 (1990)
Thomas, D.J., Griffin, P.M.: Coordinated supply chain management. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 94(3), 1–15 (1996)
Lee, H.L., Billington, C.: Managing supply chain inventory: pitfalls and opportunities. Sloan Manag. Rev. 33, 65–73 (1992)
Van Hoek, R.I., Harrison, A., Christopher, M.: Measuring agile capabilities in the supply chain. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 21(1/2), 126–147 (2001)
Slack, N., Chambers, S., Johnston, R.: Operations Management, 3rd edn. Pearson Education, London (2001)
PDS Portal of India.: https://pdsportal.nic.in/main.aspx. Accessed 24 Dec 2017
Farmer’s Portal.: http://farmer.gov.in/. Accessed 22 Dec 2017
Commission for Agricultural Costs & Practises.: http://cacp.dacnet.nic.in/. Accessed 23 Dec 2017
Directorate of Economics and Statistics.: http://eands.dacnet.nic.in/. Accessed 24 Dec 2017
Charnes, A., Cooper, W.W.: Goal programming and multiple objective optimizations. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 1, 39–71 (1977)
Kumar, S.: Report of the high-level committee on reorienting the role and restructuring of Food Corporation of India. Government of India, Planning Commission report (2015)
Treasury, H.M.: Cabinet Office, National Audit Office, Audit Commission, Office for National Statistics.: Choosing the Right FABRIC—A Framework for Performance Information. London: TSO; 2001. https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/fabric.pdf. Accessed 13 Sept 2018
El Turabi, A., Hallsworth, M., Ling, T., Grant, J.: A novel performance monitoring framework for health research systems-experiences of the National Institute for Health Research in England. Health Res. Policy Syst. 9, 13 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1186/1478-4505-9-13
Government of Australia, Performance Unit, Cabinet Services, Department of the Premier and Cabinet.: Performance Management Framework: Measuring, Monitoring and Reporting Performance—Reference Guide (2017). https://www.forgov.qld.gov.au/sites/default/files/measuring-monitoring-reporting-performance.pdf Accessed 13 Sep 18
Acknowledgement
The authors wish to put on record their deep appreciation for the anonymous reviewers for their constructive criticism and relevant suggestions which has led to the improvement in the quality and content of this paper.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendix
Appendix
Sub system | Weightage factor of sub-system | Key performance areas | Weightage factor of KPA | Performance objectives | Weightage factor of PO (wf) | Proposed measures/units | Objectivated value (OV) | Actual Value (AV) | Performance of PO (AV/OV) | Contributory value = (AV/OV) * wf | PI of KPA | PI of sub system | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Calculation of PI: Procurement sub-system | |||||||||||||
Procurement | 0.06 | Purchase management | 0.06 | Procurement ex central pool | 0.07 | More lifting is better | Foodgrains lifted (offtake) by state versus allotment by centre (ratio) | 1.00 | 0.87 | 0.870 | 0.061 | 0.454 | 0.720 |
Decentralised procurement for central pool | 0.2 | Lesser incidental cost the better | MSP amount paid to farmers ÷ Procurement Incidental cost (ratio) | 6.66 | 5.00 | 0.751 | 0.150 | ||||||
Decentralised procurement for State pool | 0.73 | More qty purchased the better | Quantity purchased ÷ Total production of that foodgrain (ratio) | 0.30 | 0.10 | 0.333 | 0.243 | ||||||
Farmer satisfaction | 0.67 | Timely payments | 0.49 | Lesser the better | Number of days, in which farmers received the payment after selling their produce (reciprocal of No of days) | 0.14 | 0.10 | 0.714 | 0.350 | 0.732 | |||
Appropriate MSP | 0.29 | More MSP is better | MSP ÷ Cost of production (ratio) | 1.25 | 1.10 | 0.880 | 0.255 | ||||||
Bonus by state to farmers | 0.13 | More Bonus is better | Additional Bonus given to the farmers by the state ÷ MSP (ratio) | 0.05 | 0.03 | 0.600 | 0.078 | ||||||
Awarness of farmers | 0.06 | More the better | Percentage of local farmers aware about MSP and other procurement issues (%age) | 80.00 | 33.00 | 0.413 | 0.025 | ||||||
Distance travelled by farmers to sell produce | 0.03 | Lesser the better | Average distance travelled by farmers to the nearest purchase centre (reciprocal of Kms) | 0.05 | 0.04 | 0.800 | 0.024 | ||||||
Quality management | 0.08 | Foodgrain meeting quality parameters procured | 1 | More the better | Intangible (Scale 1–5) | 4.00 | 3.00 | 0.750 | 0.750 | 0.750 | |||
Optimal use of ICT | 0.19 | Realtime information of foodgrains offered and purchased from farmers. | 1 | More the better | Intangible (Scale 1–5) | 4.00 | 3.00 | 0.750 | 0.750 | 0.750 | |||
Calculation OF PI: Transportation sub-system | |||||||||||||
Transportation | 0.29 | Transport management | 0.3 | Transportation cost index | 0.67 | Lower transportation cost is better | Cost of Procurement ÷ Cost of transportation (ratio) | 30.00 | 26.00 | 0.867 | 0.581 | 0.845 | 0.631 |
Multiple handling | 0.33 | Lesser the better | No of times foodgrains are handled from state procurement centre/State FCI Godown to beneficiaries (reciprocal of Numbers) | 0.25 | 0.20 | 0.800 | 0.264 | ||||||
Transit losses | 0.55 | Loss due to theft, leakages and damages | 1 | Lesser loss is better | Total quantity transported ÷ Quantity of loss (ratio) | 9000.00 | 5200.00 | 0.578 | 0.578 | 0.578 | |||
Use of technology | 0.1 | Use of manual labour | 0.07 | Lesser manual handling better | Total quantity handled ÷ Quantity handled by manual means (ratio) | 5.00 | 1.25 | 0.250 | 0.018 | 0.225 | |||
Use of labour saving devices | 0.75 | More device handling better | Quantity handled by using labour saving devices ÷ Total quantity handled (ratio) | 0.80 | 0.20 | 0.250 | 0.188 | ||||||
Tagging | 0.18 | More tag shift is better | Quantity tagged and moved ÷ Total quantity transported (ratio) | 0.90 | 0.10 | 0.111 | 0.020 | ||||||
Optimal use of ICT | 0.05 | Real time information on status of movement of foodgrains | 1 | More is better | Intangible (Scale 1–5) | 4.00 | 3.00 | 0.750 | 0.750 | 0.750 | |||
Calculation of PI: Storage sub-system | |||||||||||||
Storage | 0.1 | Storage infrastructure | 0.25 | Proper scientific storage depending on foodgrain | 0.59 | More sci space is better | Scientific storage space ÷ Total Requirement of space (ratio) | 0.90 | 0.65 | 0.722 | 0.426 | 0.726 | 0.505 |
Storage in open/CAP | 0.04 | Less open is better | Total quantity stored ÷ Quantity of foodgrains stored in open/CAP (ratio) | 10.00 | 2.85 | 0.285 | 0.011 | ||||||
Capacity utilisation by state | 0.1 | More utilise is better | Capacity utilised ÷ Capacity available (ratio) | 0.75 | 0.60 | 0.800 | 0.080 | ||||||
Contingency storage depot | 0.04 | Less is better | Average distance between two depots (reciprocal of KMs) | 0.05 | 0.03 | 0.600 | 0.024 | ||||||
Nos of depots for dependant FPS | 0.23 | More depots is better | Average No of feeding depots for every 50 FPS (Nos) | 1.00 | 0.80 | 0.800 | 0.184 | ||||||
Storage losses | 0.53 | Loss due to shortage/poor quality/damage | 1 | Less loss is better | Total Stock held ÷ Quantity of loss (ratio) | 50.00 | 20.00 | 0.400 | 0.400 | 0.400 | |||
Inventory management | 0.13 | Inventory carrying burden | 0.14 | Less the better | Average Stock held ÷ total holding capacity (ratio) | 0.90 | 0.80 | 0.889 | 0.124 | 0.554 | |||
Good housekeeping index | 0.86 | More the better | Intangible (Scale 1–5) | 4.00 | 2.00 | 0.500 | 0.430 | ||||||
Use of technology | 0.03 | Use of manual labour | 0.12 | Lesser manual mov is better | Total quantity moved ÷ Quantity moved by manual means (ratio) | 10.00 | 1.11 | 0.111 | 0.013 | 0.111 | |||
Use of labour saving devices | 0.88 | More device mov is better | Quantity moved by using labour saving devices ÷ Total quantity moved (ratio) | 0.90 | 0.10 | 0.111 | 0.098 | ||||||
Optimal use of ICT | 0.06 | Real time information on availability of stock at all places/depots | 1 | More is better | Intangible (Scale 1–5) | 5.00 | 3.00 | 0.600 | 0.600 | 0.600 | |||
Calculation of PI: Distribution sub-system | |||||||||||||
Distribution | 0.55 | Quantum of Distribution | 0.07 | Quantum of foodgrains distributed at State level | 0.75 | more distr is better | Quantity distributed ÷ Quantity in stock (ratio) | 0.90 | 0.80 | 0.889 | 0.667 | 0.833 | 0.501 |
Accurate sack/bag measurement | 0.25 | Less improper wt sack better | Total sacks handled ÷ Sacks not weighing 50 Kg (ratio) | 10.00 | 6.66 | 0.666 | 0.167 | ||||||
Use of Technology | 0.04 | Use of manual labour | 0.13 | Lesser manual mov is better | Total quantity shifted ÷ Quantity shifted by manual means (ratio) | 2.00 | 1.05 | 0.525 | 0.068 | 0.155 | |||
Use of Labour saving devices | 0.87 | More device mov is better | Quantity moved by using labour saving devices ÷ Total quantity moved (ratio) | 0.50 | 0.05 | 0.100 | 0.087 | ||||||
Distribution Losses | 0.16 | Leakage of food grains | 0.75 | less not taken is better | Total Quantity distributed by states ÷ Quantity not taken by beneficiaries (ratio) | 10.00 | 2.50 | 0.250 | 0.188 | 0.229 | |||
Diversion of foodgrains | 0.25 | less to mkt is better | Total offtake by FPS ÷ Quantity of food grains finding way to open Market (ratio) | 20.00 | 3.33 | 0.167 | 0.042 | ||||||
Optimal use of ICT | 0.03 | Realtime information of stock position in FPS | 0.25 | More is better | Intangible (Scale 1–5) | 4.00 | 3.00 | 0.750 | 0.188 | 0.488 | |||
Use of unique identity of beneficiary | 0.75 | More is better | Intangible (Scale 1–5) | 5.00 | 2.00 | 0.400 | 0.300 | ||||||
Management of Fair Price Shops (FPS) | 0.22 | Ease of accessibility of FPS to beneficiaries | 0.04 | More is better | No of FPS in a district (Nos) | 1000.00 | 800.00 | 0.800 | 0.032 | 0.604 | |||
Stock out period | 0.27 | less return is better | No of beneficiary visits per month ÷ No of times beneficiary had to be returned due to no stock (ratio) | 10.00 | 5.00 | 0.500 | 0.135 | ||||||
Stock balance at month end | 0.08 | less stock held better | Total Stock allowed ÷ Stock held at month end (ratio) | 10.00 | 4.00 | 0.400 | 0.032 | ||||||
Handling capability of FPS | 0.04 | Less the better | No of FPS for every 1000 Cardholders attached (Nos) | 1.00 | 0.50 | 0.500 | 0.020 | ||||||
Availability period of FPS to beneficiaries | 0.12 | More the better | Days FPS is open to beneficiaries in a month (Nos) | 25.00 | 22.00 | 0.880 | 0.106 | ||||||
Audit & Checks | 0.02 | More the better | Average No of times inspection by State govt officials in a month (Nos) | 1.00 | 0.50 | 0.500 | 0.010 | ||||||
Financial viability of FPS | 0.3 | More the better | Earning ÷ capital invested (ratio) | 1.10 | 0.75 | 0.682 | 0.205 | ||||||
Image of FPS in eyes of People | 0.13 | More the better | Intangible (Scale 1–5) | 4.00 | 2.00 | 0.500 | 0.065 | ||||||
Beneficiary Satisfaction | 0.48 | Inclusion errors | 0.01 | less wrongly incl better | Total number of included households ÷ Nos wrongly included (ratio) | 20.00 | 10.00 | 0.500 | 0.005 | 0.526 | |||
Exclusion errors | 0.32 | less wrongly incl better | Total number of BPL households ÷ Nos wrongly excluded (ratio) | 20.00 | 10.00 | 0.500 | 0.160 | ||||||
Maintaining real time database | 0.02 | More is better | Intangible (Scale 1–5) | 4.00 | 3.00 | 0.750 | 0.015 | ||||||
Annual review of beneficiaries data | 0.01 | More is better | No of times carried out in one year (Nos) | 0.50 | 0.20 | 0.400 | 0.004 | ||||||
Number of drawls allowed per month | 0.14 | More is better | Number of drawl instalments per month (Nos) | 20.00 | 5.00 | 0.250 | 0.035 | ||||||
Grievances | 0.05 | Less is better | Total beneficiaries ÷ Number of complaints (ratio) | 100.00 | 20.00 | 0.200 | 0.010 | ||||||
Timely settlement of Grievances | 0.06 | Less is better | Average number of days taken to redress the grievance (reciprocal of number of days) | 0.20 | 0.07 | 0.350 | 0.021 | ||||||
Information transparency | 0.02 | More is better | Number of FPS having Public display of stocks i.e. transparency ÷ Total FPS in the State (ratio) | 0.95 | 0.90 | 0.947 | 0.019 | ||||||
Distance traveled to the FPS beneficiary | 0.04 | Less is better | Average distance that a beneficiary has to travel to FPS (reciprocal of KMs) | 0.33 | 0.20 | 0.606 | 0.024 | ||||||
Average monthly offtake by a beneficiary | 0.09 | More is better | Total offtake by a beneficiary ÷ Total authorisation (ratio) | 1.00 | 0.75 | 0.750 | 0.068 | ||||||
Income gain to the beneficiary | 0.15 | More mkt price is better | Local market price ÷ PDS issue price (ratio) | 10.00 | 8.00 | 0.800 | 0.120 | ||||||
Awarness of authorisation, cost etc. | 0.09 | More is better | (Intangible (Scale 1–5) | 4.00 | 2.00 | 0.500 | 0.045 | ||||||
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Bohtan, A., Mathiyazhagan, K. & Vrat, P. Modeling the public distribution system: a PO-P approach. OPSEARCH 56, 1024–1066 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12597-019-00384-1
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12597-019-00384-1