Click for next page ( 37

The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine
500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001

Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement

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 36
36 CHAPTER 5 Performance Management This section describes the performance management measures in its annual performance progress report. Figure 5.1 approach recommended as part of the Interstate Asset Man- provides an example for this report, depicting traffic fatalities agement Framework, and identifies core and comprehensive per 100 million of vehicle miles traveled over time (2001 to performance measures for managing IHS assets. In this study, 2006). The figure also shows agency targets set for this measure "core" measures are performance measures that any IHS in support of the goal of improving travel safety in Oregon. owner agency should, in theory, be capable of capturing and The second basic use of performance measures is to help should appear in any Interstate Asset Management Plan. It is evaluate different options in the resource allocation process, recommended that IHS owners collect the additional "compre- such as for determining how to prioritize different invest- hensive" measures described here, pending time and resource ments and/or comparing the impact of different funding lev- limitations. els. Figure 5.2 is an example from the pilot performed for the Section 5.1 provides an overview of the role of performance current study. For a sample interstate corridor, the figure measures in asset management. Section 5.2 summarizes the shows predicted Pavement Quality Index (PQI) for different approach used to evaluate different potential measures for IHS annual budget levels. asset management. Section 5.3 details the recommended core The third basic approach for using performance measures and comprehensive performance measures. Section 5.4 identi- to support asset management is to use performance measures fies the most significant gaps related to defining a set of per- for monitoring progress to provide feedback on the effective- formance measures for characterizing the IHS assets. ness of a program, and/or provide information on trends over time. For example, Virginia DOT has established a web-based 5.1 Overview dashboard for tracking system conditions and performance. Figure 5.3 shows data on IHS pavement conditions from the Performance measurement, defined as "the use of statistical dashboard application. The dashboard provides details on evidence to determine progress toward specific defined organi- performance, safety, condition, and finance measures, as well zational objectives . . . ," (23) is a cornerstone of transportation as on customer satisfaction and project delivery. Measures are asset management. Performance management encompasses the summarized at a statewide level and broken down by system, development of a set of measures for characterizing the per- county, and district. formance of an organization, setting specific targets or goals for The motivations for establishing performance measures those measures, and monitoring the organization's progress in for asset management are well-understood. However, there meeting those goals. are no standard measures defined for managing IHS assets. In recent years, much attention in the transportation com- The remainder of this chapter describes the approach used to munity has been paid to adapting performance management evaluate different performance measures for inclusion in the concepts originally developed in the private sector for use in Interstate Asset Management Framework and presents a rec- improving transportation management. Defining performance ommended set of core and comprehensive measures. measures is a key step in implementing an asset management approach. Once performance measures are defined for an 5.2 Evaluation Approach organization, they help support asset management in three basic ways. First, performance measures can be used to quan- Given the importance of performance measures to asset tify policy goals and objectives in a practical way. For example, management, a critical activity undertaken as part of this study Oregon DOT translates agency goals into specific performance was to evaluate performance measures that can be used to

OCR for page 36
37 Source: Oregon Department of Transportation (24). Figure 5.1. Use of performance measures for quantifying goals. characterize IHS assets, and on the basis of the evaluation, ing a set of measures (4). Figure 2.4 provides a framework recommend a set of performance measures to include in the for establishing performance measures and targets for asset Interstate Asset Management Framework. A key resource in management. The approach to developing a set of perfor- structuring and performing the evaluation was NCHRP Report mance measures for use in reporting IHS conditions in an 551, which details a review of existing practices related to per- Interstate Asset Management Plan has been adapted from formance management, and provides guidance for establish- this framework. As indicated in Figure 5.4, identifying Figure 5.2. Use of performance measures for evaluating options.

OCR for page 36
38 Source: Virginia Department of Transportation (25 ). Figure 5.3. Use of performance measures for tracking progress. performance measures involves five basic steps. The following Step 2--Assess Needs is a description of the activities performed for each of these. The focus of this step was on defining how and why perfor- mance measures should be used for supporting the Interstate Step 1--Review Existing Measures Asset Management Framework described in Chapter 2. Defin- A review of the performance measurement literature was ing a set of performance measures is not an end in itself, but performed, as detailed in Appendix A. The review started with a means to support asset management using the approaches the materials compiled by the research team previously and described in Section 5.1: quantifying policy goals and objectives; summarized in NCHRP Report 551 (4). These materials were facilitating evaluation of options; and monitoring progress. In supplemented with more recent materials and examples of this step the research team considered what types of measures measures reported at a national level and/or measures of con- are needed for supporting asset management, and how well the dition or performance that can be calculated specifically for existing measures compiled in Step 1 provide this support. the IHS. Five basic categories of measures were established for sup- Based on the review, a master list was compiled of existing porting the Interstate Asset Management Framework. These IHS performance measures. The list included, but was not categories include: limited to: Preservation--Measures in this category characterize the Measures listed in Measuring Performance Among State physical condition of transportation assets; DOTs (26); Mobility--This category describes how well the transporta- Quality-of-service measures from the Guide to Effective Free- tion network is performing its basic function of support- way Performance Measurement (18), including measures in ing transport, and includes measures of throughput and the areas of Congestion, Reliability, Throughput, Customer congestion; Satisfaction, Safety, Ride Quality and Environment; Safety--This category includes measures of crashes and Interstate measures included in the FHWA C&P Report (27); fatalities, as well as other measures related to safety; Highway-related measures listed in the U.S. DOT Fiscal Year Environment--Measures in this category characterize the 2006 Performance and Accountability Report (28); and environmental impact of the IHS, and the degree to which Additional measures identified through the review. an IHS owner is meeting its environmental goals; and

OCR for page 36
39 Considering the underlying reasons for implementing asset Step 1: Review Existing Measures management for IHS assets, are there applications for which Perform literature review performance measures may be needed, but for which no Inventory existing measures measures are identified? Compile list of measures relevant for IHS Asset Management How well do the existing measures align with the available data described in Chapter 4? Note that the availability of data for calculating a measure, or lack thereof, is not in and of Step 2: Assess Needs itself an indication of whether a measure is needed to sup- port the Interstate Asset Management Framework. How- Evaluate needs for IHS performance measures ever, to the extent there are multiple measures that can be Establish performance measure categories used to characterize a single asset or objective, emphasis was Perform gap assessment placed on measures that could be calculated given available Supplement set of existing measures data. Organize measures by category To the extent there are issues in aligning measures and data, are there supplemental or alternative measures that can be more easily captured and/or that make better use of the Step 3: Define Selection Criteria available data? Feasibility Are additional categories needed to adequately classify per- Policy-sensitive formance measures that may be needed to support asset Supports long-term view management for the IHS? Can any of the categories be Useful for decision support consolidated? Useful across organization and beyond The result of this step was a supplemented list of perfor- mance measures, organized by category. Also, this step resulted Step 4: Apply Selection Criteria in identification of a number of gaps in the existing set of per- formance measures. These are discussed further in Section 5.4. Evaluate each measure Group measures by asset/objective Characterize variations between like measures Step 3--Define Selection Criteria Next the research team established a set of criteria for eval- Step 5: Finalize Set of Measures uating performance measures to be included in the Interstate Asset Management Framework. Criteria used for this step were Develop initial set adapted from NCHRP Report 551 and include: Peer review Develop recommended set Feasibility--It should be feasible to collect data for this per- Distinguish between core and comprehensive formance measure, and to quantify the performance mea- sure for the IHS. Ideally, the measure can be calculated from Figure 5.4. Performance measure Federally mandated data, or other data generally collected evaluation approach. for IHS assets, as discussed in Chapter 4. If the data require- ments extend beyond what is widely available for the IHS, Project Delivery--Measures in this category describe how this should be noted. well an agency is delivering projects compared to its capital Policy-Sensitive--It should be possible to relate the mea- plan. sure to an agency's stated policy objectives, and help quan- tify whether the outcome of a policy objective has been The existing measures identified in Step 1 were organized in achieved. This criterion tends to favor outcome measures the categories listed above. Next a gap analysis was performed that reflect outcomes achieved, versus output measures that to assess issues including: quantify the activities performed by an organization. Supports Long-Term, Strategic View--The measure Do the existing measures address all of the assets on the IHS? should facilitate long-term tracking. Ideally, it should be As discussed in Chapter 4, large amounts of data are available possible to make forecasts of the measure over time to sup- for pavements and bridges relative to other assets. However, port analyses of lifecycle costs and benefits and to review it is important that the framework address all IHS assets. past performance.