Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 56
56 Representation of Targets on Views system. However, users cannot manipulate the mix of work to see how performance changes (MDT expressed interest in This improvement allows users to specify performance this capability during the field testing exercise). Such a capa- targets and have these target values indicated on the graphs bility is possible to implement but would require develop- in the budget and allocation views. ment of a variant of the current tool, with a different input data structure. Normalized Performance Measures 7.3 IMPROVEMENTS TO ASSETMANAGER PT This improvement allows users the option to specify min- imum acceptable and target values for each of the perfor- Improvements to AssetManager PT are divided into those mance indicators, which define a new type of performance that could be implemented within the existing tool to enhance measure, called "normalized," for display in the system. This its core functionality and those that involve porting the tool normalized performance measure transforms an indicator to from a spreadsheet to a different software platform with an a 0-1 scale, using a consistent formula based on the minimum improved user interface, which can more easily be updated acceptable and target values that were specified. The user can over time. The research team recommends that the func- view multiple normalized measures and develop a resource tional enhancements be considered in conjunction with a allocation strategy that, first, addresses areas where the min- port of the tool. imum acceptable performance values are not being met and, then, addresses targets. New Functionality Performance Measure Transformations The following functional capabilities would be enhance- This improvement adds the capability to do simple trans- ments to those that were implemented in the prototype system: formations on performance indicators, e.g., dividing the indi- cator by 100. · Analysis of subsets of the project list--This capability would allow the user to define a filter condition for pro- gram analysis (e.g., develop a program scenario for an Handling of "Float"-Type Indicators individual district); · Auto-aggregation for baseline measures and indica- Currently, graph scales are calculated automatically and tors--This capability would enable the system to calcu- the user cannot easily interpolate between the values shown late aggregate statistics based on entries for individual on the axes. This improvement would allow users to specify geographic/network category combinations; standard intervals to show on graphs for float-type indicators. · Accommodation of annual budget constraints--This capability would extend the tool to include budget con- straints by year and to allow for project costs to be dis- Cross-Scenario Comparisons tributed across several years. The tool currently only This improvement would add the capability to compare allows for a single budget constraint for the entire pro- results across different NT scenario files. gram period (which may consist of several years); · Accommodation of "plug" program items--This capa- bility would improve the PT tool's ability to handle Representation of Work Type "plug" line items not tied to particular locations; and · Accommodation of multiple sets of budget categories-- AssetManager NT works with the total investment level This capability would allow any given project to be in for an asset; the investment level typically is composed of multiple categories and what-if analysis to be performed several types of work on an asset. For example, an invest- using any set of categories. ment level for pavement may consist of a mix of expendi- tures for resurfacing, patching, rehabilitation, and full-depth reconstruction work. AssetManager NT does not currently New Platform support decision-making about the best mix of work for a given asset type because the assumption was made in this The decision to implement AssetManager PT initially as project that such decisions are best left to individual asset a spreadsheet application was a good one: the spreadsheet management systems. Users can now include output-type platform facilitated the process of testing, allowed the tool performance indicators in their AssetManager NT input files to evolve substantially throughout the course of the project to allow the amount of work by type to be viewed within the as new functionalities were suggested, and provided many