Measuring Efficiency of Railway Zones for Indian Railways: A DEA Approach

Adrij Chatterjee
Process Associate
Capgemini Technology Services India Ltd., India

Anupam Ghosh
Associate Professor
Indian Institute of Social Welfare & Business Management (IISWBM), India

Abstract

Indian Railways, divided into seventeen railway zones, is the world’s largest rail network
under single management. Measuring efficiency of the railway zones is important, since the
organization runs with public fund. The purpose of this paper is to: (a) estimate the
operational efficiency of sixteen Railway Zones, (b) estimate the inputs required to deliver a
desired level of output and vice versa (c) understand if a zone has to decrease or increase its
scale of Operations (a.k.a size) in order to minimize average total cost of operation, and (d)
identify benchmark zones whose operations can be replicated by other zones.

Key Words: Operational Efficiency, Indian Railways, Data Envelopment Analysis

JEL Classification: A1, C6

Topic: Logistics and Transportation Management

1
Introduction

Indian Railways (IR) has the world’s largest rail network under single management, carrying
8.107 billion passengers and over 1.108 billion tons of freight annually (Ministry of
Railways, 2015-16). To support this huge gamut of activities, the organization runs 7000
pairs of suburban local trains, and 4000 long distance express trains daily; with an
infrastructure of 121,407 kms of railway tracks, 7,349 rail stations, 7566 rail engines, 259987
rolling stock, and 1.54 million staff members (Ministry of Railways, 2015-16). The
organization has served and still serves as the backbone of industrial development and
physical infrastructure in the country. It is an arm of the government, meaning - the financial
authority and responsibilities of the organization lies with the Government of India.

For efficient operations and management, IR is divided into 17 zones. The zones have been
formed based on geographical, operational, and commercial viability. Measuring efficiency
of the railway zones is necessary, particularly since the organization runs on public money.

2
Efficiency of each zone should be measured given a common platform of income/
expenditure/ resource availability. Based on such measure, management decisions on
deployment and redeployment of resources, benchmarking etc. can be undertaken.

The purpose of this paper is to: (a) estimate the Operational efficiency of sixteen Railway
Zones in India, (b) estimate the inputs required to deliver a desired level of output and vice
versa, and (c) to understand if a zone has to decrease or increase its scale of Operations (a.k.a.
size) in order to minimize the average total cost of operation.

Indian Railways as an enabler to development of the nation

Overview

The sectoral contribution of India’s GDP in 1950-51, immediately after independence was:
Agriculture – 60%, Industry - 11% and Service 34.6 (Planning Commission, 2014). To
promote economic development, thrust was given to develop the railway system, as it was the
only way toward a speedy link between the length and breadth of the country.

Over the last 70 years, 11004 kms of new rail tracks, 52,241 kms of gauge conversion, 25881
kms of track electrification, and 7798 new rolling stock, alongwith total replacement of
earlier rolling stock has added to smooth functioning and agility of IR. In 2017, the fixed and
rolling stock base of IR stands at 114907 kms of railway tracks, 54,506 number of passenger
coaches, 2800 goods coaches, 11500 railway engines, 7500Stations and 1.308 Million staff
members (Planning Commission, 2014). This set-up is the largest in the world under single
management and has the least number of accidents with given level of technology.

Organization Structure

The apex body for management and control of operations of IR is the Railway Board. The
Railway Board inturn reports to the Railway Minister. As mentioned, for smooth operations,
IR is divided into zones. Each zone is headed by a General Manager (GM), who reports to the

3
Railway Board. Each zone is divided into Divisions headed by a Divisional Railway Manager
(DRM). The DRM reports to the GM of the zone. The reporting sequence is DRM to GM to
Rail Board. Presently, IR has seventeen zones, of which, one is the Metro Railway (Tube
Rail) zone.

Outputs and Inputs

IR earns its revenue from (a) passenger transport and (b) freight transport. The ratio of
revenue from passenger to freight transport is 40:60. Thus, the outputs of IR are (a)
passenger-km (PKM), and (b) net ton-km (NTKM). Revenue earned is a rupee multiplication
of the two outputs. To earn the output, the inputs used are: (i) capital (ii) wagons (iii) railway
tracks (iv) passenger coaches, (v) and number of employees. The other inputs like signalling
and other communication systems etc. are considered under the capital umbrella.

Literature Review

Several studies exist on performance evaluation for multiple business/service units under the
same management. The banking, hospital and transportation sector face the issue of multiple
outputs and multiple inputs and have extensively used data envelopment analysis (DEA) as a
methodology of study to evaluate the performance of different business units. Othman et al.
(2016) reviews relevant literature on application of DEA as a tool for measuring relative
efficiency in the banking sector. The efficiency of banks is measured through the ability of
the individual bank to maximise output given a certain level of input. An output-oriented
DEA Banker-Charnes-Cooper model with variable return to scale is prescribed. Titko et al.
(2014) applies DEA to study the performance of Latvian banks. Fourteen input-output
combinations are used to determine the efficiency of the bank branches. A linear
programming approach is used, the methodology being - a branch is more efficient than the
others if its output is more than the average of the output of all the bank branches. The model
however is tedious requiring calculation of efficiency of each branch individually. Stoub et

4
al. (2010) use DEA to investigate cost, technical and allocative efficiencies for Brazilian
banks during 2000–2007. The efficiency score is split into technical efficiency and scale
efficiency. Interestingly, the study found no evidence of differences in economic efficiency
due to type of activity and bank size (scale of operation). Hamid et al. (2016) use Directional
Distance Function (DDF) approach, an extension of DEA framework to handle a situation
when there is a joint production of both desirable and undesirable outputs, for e.g. a non-
performing loan. The concept is applied in domestic and foreign banks in Malaysia. Golany
and Storebeck (1999) performed a multiperiod DEA study of the efficiencies of selected
branches of a large US bank over six consecutive quarters during the early 90s.

In addition to efficiency, Du (2017) considers quality as a performance measure in the

healthcare sector. Using TOPSIS, a relative quality index is generated for consistent
comparison among 31 hospital units in China. The efficiency measures are then computed
using DEA. Caballer-Tarazona et al. (2010) use discriminant analysis as a first step to
determine the measures, and then DEA to measure the efficiency of 22 hospitals in Valencia
district of Spain. Annapoorni and Prakash (2016) use a principal component analysis-DEA
approach to determine efficiency of 31 primary health centres in India. Principal component
analysis plays an important role in the reduction of input output variables and helps in
identifying the efficient units and improves the discriminating power of DEA. Al-Shayea
(2011) measures the performance of departments of a King Khalid University Hospital
instead of separate decision making units. However, the method is debatable, as comparison
of inputs and outputs of the emergency department will be very different from any other
department. Chrikos and Sear (2000) compare DEA and stochastic frontier regression (SFR)
models for measuring efficiency of Florida hospitals. Analysing data using both the
methodologies yield different results, primarily due to statistical noise, how inputs and
outputs are defined, and data availability.

Zhao et al. (2011) use network-DEA approach to build in efficiency in designing seat
reservation system for railways. Radial and slack-based DEA models are used to design the
system, which is further validated using simulation techniques. It is seen that individual node

5
performance can drive network DEA performance. Bray et al. (2014), in trying to find the
system efficiency of a transportation system, point to the negatives of DEA methodology, in
that they are very sensitive to possible imprecision in the data set. Fuzzy set theory is used to
overcome the specification and precision problems. The method is applied to container ports
of the Mediterranean. Chu et al. (1992) opine that DEA is a more robust indicator of transit
performance than ratio analysis used in Irvine Performance Evaluation Method (IPEM), and
use DEA to measure the effectiveness of a transit agency relative to other agencies within the
same peer group. Hsu et al. (2013) use a combined Balanced Scorecard and DEA
methodology to evaluate the performance of a shipping line. The method helps focus on areas
of improvement and investments for any organization.

Nag (2013) opines that Indian Railways is the most efficient run railways when compared to
other large railways in the world. Using DEA, relative efficiency of IR and 14 other railways
is computed. Inputs like manpower, track length, freight cars, working expenses, passenger
coaches, and output of freight ton per km and passenger per km are considered.

The literature points to intricacies of measuring efficiency of operations in the public systems
domain. The literature also shows dearth of studies in the Indian context, though, in terms of
operations, the IR has the world’s largest network under single management.

Objectives

Given IRs vast geographical area of operation, and the number of freight and passenger
traffic that the organisation handles and operates, it is necessary to study the efficiency of the
railway zones. The purpose of this study is to:

(a) Measure the Operational Efficiency of Railways Zones of Indian Railways

(b) Compare the Operational Efficiency between different Railways Zones in India

6
Research methodology

As already mentioned, IR has 17 railway zones, of which one is city-based Metro Rail (tube
rail) zone. We consider the other 16 zones for the purpose of this study. They are: (i) Central
Railway (CR), (ii) Eastern Railway (ER), (iii) East Central Railway (ECR), (iv) East Coast
Railway (ECoR), (v) Northern Railway (NR), (vi) North Central Railway (NCR), (vii) North
Eastern Railway (NER), (viii) North Frontier Railway (NFR), (ix) North Western Railway
(NWR), (x) Southern Railway (SR), (xi) South Central Railway (SCR), (xii) South Eastern
Railway (SER), (xiii) South-East Central Railway (SECR), (xiv) South Western Railway
(SWR), (xv) Western Railway (WR), (xvi) West Central Railway (WCR). The Railway zones
are also alternatively termed as Decision Making Unit(s) (DMUs).

The purpose of this study is to measure the efficiency of the railway zones of IR. Efficiency
is ratio of Output to Input. IR generates revenue from (1) goods transport and (2) passenger
transport. These are the two outputs considered for the study. The unit for measurement for
goods transport is net ton per kilometer (NTPKM), and for passenger transport is passenger-
kilometer (PKM). We consider five inputs – (a) capital at charge (Rupees), (b) wagons
available (number), (c) kilometers of railway track (km), (d) coaches available (number), and
(e) number of employees.

A five-year time horizon is considered – 2011-12 to 2015-16. Such a timeline helps to

understand the efficiency and resource allocation tradeoffs and aids to more effective
managerial decision making.

Data is obtained from Indian Railway Year Books (Indian Railways Annual Statistical
Abstract, 2011-12 through 2015-16), report of the National Transport Policy Committee
(India Transport Report : Moving India to 2032) and other government resources. Such data
source renders authenticity to the data and gives credence to managerial decision making that
emanates from efficiency analysis.

7
For measuring efficiency of the railway zones, we use Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA), a
non-parametric programming technique that develops an efficiency frontier by optimizing the
weighted output/input ratio of each provider (Charnes et al., 1978). DEA identifies a
"frontier" which is characterized as an extreme point. It is assumed that if a firm (DMU) can
produce a certain level of output utilizing specific input levels, another firm of equal scale
should be capable of doing the same. If however, the firm is considered inefficient. As
already reviewed in literature, DEA is extensively used in measuring efficiency of units of
public systems like banking, healthcare, and transportation, as well as manufacturing
organizations.

Ishizaka and Nemery (2013) outline the following benefits of DEA: (i) by calculating an
efficiency score, it indicates if a firm (or SBU) is completely efficient or has capacity for
improvement, (ii) by setting target values for input and output, it calculates by how much
input must be decreased or output increased in order to become efficient, (iii) by identifying
the nature of returns to scale, it indicates if a firm has to decrease or increase its scale (or
size) in order to minimize the average total cost, (iv) by identifying a set of benchmarks, it
specifies which other firms’ processes need to be analyzed in order to improve its own
practices.

DEA models can be input oriented (where the firm, here – the railway zones) has control over
the inputs; or can be output oriented, meaning, the firm has control over the outputs. NTPKM
and PKM as output measures are exogenous variables which are dependent, directly or
indirectly, on industrial and economic growth. Thus, IR has little or no control over the
output. However, the inputs, viz. capital invested, number of wagons available, kilometers of
railway track, number of coaches available, and number of employees – all can be controlled
by IR. We thus, use the input oriented model. We also consider that the railway zones have
variable returns to scale (VRS) and thus adopt the VRS model. This is appropriate when
DMUs are not operating at an optimal scale. This is usually the case when DMUs face
imperfect competition, government regulations, etc. The VRS model calculates an efficiency
score called variable returns to scale technical efficiency (VRSTE).

8
We also identify, for each inefficient DMU, the closest efficient DMUs located on the
frontier. These efficient DMUs are called peers or benchmarks. If inefficient DMUs want to
improve their performance, they have to look into the best practices developed by their
respective peers.

Win4DEAP (Michel Deslierres, University of Moncton) software is used to examine the

efficiency of the zones and identify the peers or benchmark zones.

Analysis and discussions

The year-wise efficiency summary for all railway zones is presented from table 1 through
table 5. Table 6 presents a zonal comparison for all the railway zones for the years under
study.

TABLE I – EFFICIENCY SUMMARY FOR THE RAILWAY ZONES FOR YEAR: 2015 – 2016

Firm CR ER ECR ECo NR NER NCR NFR NWR SE SCR SER SECR SWR WR WCR Mean

Crste 1 0.46 0.61 1 0.53 1 0.75 0.21 0.70 0.60 0.80 0.72 1 0.53 1 1 0.74

Vrste 1 0.75 0.69 1 0.53 1 1 0.85 0.95 0.69 1 0.74 1 1 1 1 0.89

Scale 1 0.61 0.88 1 0.99 1 0.75 0.25 0.73 0.87 0.80 0.96 1 0.53 1 1 0.83
Crs Crs
Crs Irs Irs Crs Irs Crs Irs Irs Irs Irs Drs Irs Crs Irs

crste = technical efficiency from Constant Returns to Scale DEA

vrste = technical efficiency from Variable Returns to Scale DEA
scale = scale efficiency = crste/vrste
Crs= Constant Returns to Scale
Irs = Increasing Return to Scale

9
 TABLE II – EFFICIENCY SUMMARY FOR THE RAILWAY ZONES FOR YEAR: 2014 -2015

Firm CR ER ECR ECo NR NER NCR NFR NWR SE SCR SER SECR SWR WR WCR Mean

Crste 1.0 0.46 0.49 0.36 0.47 1.00 0.71 0.49 1.00 1.0 0.68 0.38 0.37 0.52 0.80 0.97 0.67

Vrste 1.00 0.75 0.66 0.97 0.48 1.00 1.00 0.94 1.00 1.0 0.71 0.75 1.00 1.00 0.83 1.00 0.88

Scale 1.00 0.62 0.74 0.37 0.99 1.00 0.71 0.51 1.00 1.0 0.96 0.51 0.37 0.52 0.96 0.97 0.77

Crs Irs Irs Irs Irs Crs Irs Irs Crs Crs Irs Irs Irs Irs Drs Irs

crste = technical efficiency from Constant Returns to Scale DEA

vrste = technical efficiency from Variable Returns to Scale DEA
scale = scale efficiency = crste/vrste
Crs= Constant Returns to Scale
Irs = Increasing Return to Scale
Drs= Decreasing Returns to Scale

TABLE III – EFFICIENCY SUMMARY FOR THE RAILWAY ZONES FOR YEAR: 2013 - 2014

Firm CR ER ECR ECo NR NER NCR NFR NWR SE SCR SER SECR SWR WR WCR Mean

Crste 0.49 0.25 0.56 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.31 0.63 0.36 0.71 0.69 1.0 0.48 1.00 1.00 0.72

Vrste 0.62 0.68 0.69 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.99 0.91 0.84 1.00 0.75 1.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.91

Scale 0.79 0.37 0.82 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.31 0.69 0.43 0.71 0.93 1.0 0.48 1.00 1.00 0.78

Irs Irs Irs Crs Crs Crs Crs Irs Irs Irs Drs Irs Crs Irs Crs Crs

crste = technical efficiency from Constant Returns to Scale DEA

vrste = technical efficiency from Variable Returns to Scale DEA
scale = scale efficiency = crste/vrste
Crs= Constant Returns to Scale
Irs = Increasing Return to Scale
Drs= Decreasing Returns to Scale

TABLE IV – EFFICIENCY SUMMARY FOR THE RAILWAY ZONES FOR YEAR: 2012 - 2013

Firm CR ER ECR ECo NR NER NCR NFR NWR SE SCR SER SECR SWR WR WCR Mean

Crste 1.0 0.50 0.60 1.00 0.49 1.00 0.64 0.17 0.42 0.58 0.73 0.58 1.00 0.49 0.94 1.00 0.70

Vrste 1.0 0.75 0.70 1.00 0.50 1.00 1.00 0.87 0.95 0.67 0.75 0.74 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.87

Scale 1.0 0.67 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.64 0.20 0.44 0.87 0.97 0.79 1.00 0.49 0.94 1.00 0.80

Crs Irs Irs Crs Irs Crs Irs Irs Irs Irs Irs Irs Crs Irs Drs Crs

10
crste = technical efficiency from Constant Returns to Scale DEA
vrste = technical efficiency from Variable Returns to Scale DEA
scale = scale efficiency = crste/vrste
Crs= Constant Returns to Scale
Irs = Increasing Return to Scale
Drs= Decreasing Returns to Scale

TABLE V – EFFICIENCY SUMMARY FOR THE RAILWAY ZONES FOR YEAR: 2011 - 2012

Firm CR ER ECR ECo NR NER NCR NFR NWR SE SCR SER SECR SWR WR WCR Mean

Crste 1.0 0.57 0.68 1.00 0.50 1.00 0.75 0.17 0.44 0.62 0.74 0.60 1.00 0.57 1.00 1.00 0.73

Vrste 1.0 0.75 0.75 1.00 0.51 1.00 1.00 0.87 0.92 0.67 0.75 0.74 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.87
Scale 1.0 0.76 0.90 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.75 0.19 0.48 0.91 0.98 0.81 1.00 0.57 1.00 1.00 0.83

Crs Irs Irs Crs Irs Crs Irs Irs Irs Irs Irs Irs Crs Irs Crs Crs

crste = technical efficiency from Constant Returns to Scale DEA

vrste = technical efficiency from Variable Returns to Scale DEA
scale = scale efficiency = crste/vrste
Crs= Constant Returns to Scale
Irs = Increasing Return to Scale
Drs= Decreasing Returns to Scale

TABLE VI- COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ZONAL EFFICIENCY FOR ALL ZONES FROM 2011-12 TO 2015-16

Firm CR ER ECR ECo NR NER NCR NFR NWR SE SCR SER SECR SWR WR WCR
2011-12 1 0.75 0.75 1.0 0.51 1 1 0.87 0.92 0.67 0.75 0.74 1 1 1.00 1
2012-13 1 0.75 0.70 1.0 0.50 1 1 0.87 0.95 0.67 0.75 0.74 1 1 1.00 1
2013-14 0.6 0.68 0.69 1.0 1.00 1 1 0.99 0.91 0.84 1.00 0.75 1 1 1.00 1
2014-15 1 0.75 0.66 0.97 0.48 1 1 0.94 1.00 1.00 0.71 0.75 1 1 0.83 1
2015-16 1 0.75 0.69 1.0 0.54 1 1 0.85 0.96 0.69 1.00 0.75 1 1 1.00 1

Interpretation of table I (Year 2015-16) shows that on an average, the efficiency score of the
Railway Zones (Variable Returns to Scale Technical Efficiency) shows that a better internal
organization of the Railway zone will help to reduce input consumption (Capital, Employee,

11
Railway Track, Wagons, Coaches ) by (100 – 89) by 11%. This is represented by Mean of the
last column. For Central Railway (CR), the VRSTE is 0.75. This means that the same level of
output can be generated by CR with 25% (1-0.75) less inputs. Zones face constant (crs), or
increasing (irs) or decreasing (drs) returns to scale. Crs (constant returns to scale) implies that
the average input consumption is minimized for the zone and does not vary with the output.
Irs implies that the average consumption of inputs decline with the increase in output. Drs
indicate that the average consumption of inputs rises with the rise in output. The Crs zones
serve as the benchmark for other inefficient zones, implying that the Irs and Drs zones can
emulate the practices of the Crs zones for improving their efficiency.

The results of all other zones can be interpreted in similar manner.

Table VI (comparative analysis of all zones) shows that North Eastern Railway, North
Central Railway, South East Central Railway, South Western Railway, and West Central
Railway have always been efficient with constant returns to scale. This is followed by
Western Railway and Central Railway. Northern Railway is the least efficient. However, it
has to be kept in mind that NR runs through difficult geographical terrain, and connectivity is
the main requirement for the region than the output.

Conclusion and directions for future research

Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) is a technique that allows each Railway Zone to value its
Freight and Passenger traffic outputs in best possible way while evaluating themselves in
relation to other zones. This paper studied the efficiency of 16 railway zone of Indian
Railways for a period of 5 years from 2011-12 to 2015-16. The results show that out of the 16
railway zones, 7 are efficient. The study can be extended to measuring efficiency of
divisional railways, which will then bring out the root cause of inefficiency.

12
References

Annapoorni, D., Prakash, V. (2016). Measuring the Performance Efficiency of Hospitals:

PCA – DEA Combined Model Approach, Indian Journal of Science & Technology, 9(spl
issue 1), 1-8.

Bray, S., Caggiani, L., Dell’Orco, M. & Ottomanelli, M. (2014). Measuring Transport
Systems Efficiency under Uncertainty by Fuzzy Sets Theory based Data Envelopment
Analysis; Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 111, 770-779.

Chirikos, TN., Sear, AM., (2000). Measuring Hospital Efficiency: A Comparison of Two
Approaches, Health Services Research; 34(6), 1389-1406.

Chu, X., Gordon J., Bruce, F., Lamar, W. (1992). Measuring Transit Performance Using Data
Envelopment Analysis; Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 26(3), 223-
230.

Du, T. (2017). Performance Measurement of Healthcare Service and Association Discussion

between Quality and Efficiency: Evidence from 31 Provinces of Mainland China,
Sustainability, 10(74), 1-19

Golany, B. & Storbeck, J.E. (1999). Data Envelopment Analysis of the Operational
Efficiency of Bank Branches INTERFACES, 29(3). 14-26

Hamid, N., Ramli, NA., & Hussin, SAS. (2016). Efficiency Measurement of the Banking
Sector in the Presence of Non-Performing Loan. 2nd International Conference and Workshop
on Mathematical Analysis, (ICWOMA2016), 020001-1-8.

Hsu, Y-C., Chung, C-C., Lee, H-S., & Sherman, D. (2013). Evaluating and Managing Tramp
Shipping Lines Performances: A New Methodology Combining Balanced Scorecard and
Network DEA; INFOR, 51(3), 130–141.

13
Ishizaka, A., Nemery, P. (2013). Data Envelopment Analysis in ‘Multi-Criteria Decision
Analysis’, John Wiley & Sons Ltd., New York; 235-273

Ministry of Railways. (2015-16). Indian Railways Annual Statistical Abstract, Ministry of

Railways, India. Relevant pages.

Ministry of Railways. (2014-15). Indian Railways Annual Statistical Abstract, Ministry of

Railways, India. Relevant pages.

Ministry of Railways. (2013-14). Indian Railways Annual Statistical Abstract, Ministry of

Railways, India. Relevant pages.

Ministry of Railways. (2012-13). Indian Railways Annual Statistical Abstract, Ministry of

Railways, India. Relevant pages.

Ministry of Railways. (2011-12). Indian Railways Annual Statistical Abstract, Ministry of

Railways, India. Relevant pages.

Mohammed, A., Shayea, A. (2011). Measuring Hospital’s Units Efficiency: A Data

Envelopment Analysis Approach, International Journal of Engineering & Technology, 11(6),
7-14.

Othman, FM., Mohd-Zamil, NA., Abdul, R. Zaleha, S. & Vakilbashi, AM. (2016). Data
Envelopment Analysis: A Tool of Measuring Efficiency in Banking Sector International
Journal of Economics and Financial Issues, 6(3), 911-916.

Planning Commission. (2014). Report of the National Transport Development Policy

Committee, India Transport Report: Moving India to 2032. Relevant pages.

Staub, R., Souza, G., & Tabak, B. (2010). Evolution of Bank Efficiency in Brazil: A DEA
Approach. European Journal of Operational Research, 202(1), 204-213.

14
Tarazona, IM., Clemente, M., Consuelo I., David, V., & Martínez, B. (2010). A Model to
Measure the Efficiency of Hospital Performance, Mathematical and Computer Modelling;
52(7–8), 1095-1102.

Titko, J., Stankevičienė, J., & Lāce, N. (2014). Measuring Bank Efficiency: DEA
Application. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 20(4), 739-757.

Zhao , Y., Triantis, K., Murray-Tuite, P., & Edara, P. (2011). Performance Measurement of A
Transportation Network with a Downtown Space Reservation System: A Network-DEA
Approach, Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 47(6),
1140-1159.

15
About the Authors:

Adrij Chatterjee is Process Associate at Capgemini Technology Services India Ltd., India. He
is presently pursuing his PhD from University of Calcutta. He has a Masters Degree with
Accounting specialization and M.Phil. in Management from University of Calcutta. His
research interests lie in the area of Project Management, Efficiency Analysis, and Operations
Management.

Anupam Ghosh is Associate Professor at Indian Institute of Social Welfare & Business
Management (IISWBM), India. He has Masters Degrees with specialisations in accounting,
transportation and logistics, marketing and econometrics. His PhD is in the domain of
information sharing in supply chains. He was a Visiting Scholar to Bentley University, MA,
USA. His primary area of research is supply chain operations, and supply chain analytics.

16