Click for next page ( 16

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 15
15 C H A P T E R 2 Background Research The objective of the SHRP 2 C02 effort was to develop a com- Framework Development Principles prehensive performance measurement framework that would To ensure that the performance measurement framework met support collaborative decision making. To produce the frame- the objectives of the SHRP 2 effort, a set of framework devel- work, the research team took both a broad look at perfor- opment principles was adopted. The criteria used included: mance measurement and management and a more focused look at the application of specific performance measures in practice. The supporting research for the SHRP 2 effort was The framework needs to help identify performance meas- as follows: ures for use at several levels from initial planning and analysis to program development and into environmental assessment. Development of the overall performance measurement The relevant project development stages to which the frame- framework, based on the broad application of performance work applies should be consistent with those identified by management at transportation agencies in the United the SHRP 2 C01 collaborative decision-making project States; (Figure 2.1). A review of the literature on performance measurement, The framework should help establish the specific issues or with a focus on `nontraditional' areas such as the environ- factors to be considered at various project development ment, community, and economics; stages. These categories will vary from one transportation Interviews with transportation agencies to determine the agency to another, but the framework should help agen- extent to which they are using performance measures in var- cies identify what the appropriate categories are for their ious areas identified in the literature; and consideration. Targeted case studies to identify performance measures and applications at specific transportation and other agencies. Existing Performance Measure Frameworks Numerous state DOTs, as well as other transportation and Each of these efforts is described in this section. nontransportation agencies, have developed performance measure frameworks that help shape their programs. As part of the early framework development, several of these existing Performance Measurement frameworks were reviewed. Framework Two examples of existing frameworks were particularly rel- Many research efforts build a framework or organizational evant for the SHRP 2 C02 effort. Figure 2.2 presents an exam- structure deductively, after conducting the research. Because ple from the Florida Department of Transportation that clearly the SHRP 2 C02 project covers such a wide range of efforts identifies how performance measures are intended to work undertaken by state DOTs, it was useful to develop a frame- through multiple layers and products of an organization. The work up front to help organize the research itself. measures are tied to specific levels of generality (from policy This section reports on the efforts to develop the initial to project) and tied to specific products (long-range plan, short- framework, which was used as a straw man and modified as range plan, projects, etc.). However, the framework does not appropriate based on research findings. specify how various issues and concerns are intended to be

OCR for page 15
16 Six Core Processes Systems Planning Subprocesses (examples) Influencing Pre-program studies Processes (examples) Air Quality Conformity Conservation Programming good Planning Financial Constraint Key decision points Environmental take place along this KDP process Review Design KDP KDP Permitting Source: ICF International, Inc., 2007. Figure 2.1. SHRP 2 C01 core processes. incorporated in this process, which is a key component of the allocations. These allocations usually fall within broad cate- SHRP 2 C02 research. gories such as: 1) system preservation; 2) system management A second example comes from a white paper written for the and operations; and 3) system capacity expansion. This latter 2nd TRB Conference on Performance Measurement on devel- investment category, capacity expansion, is the focus of the oping a performance-based program development and deliv- current framework. ery process (Figure 2.3). This approach, commonly referred One point of this framework is that the issues addressed and to as Performance Management, uses performance measures measures used at various stages in the process may change as and targets to link agency goals/objectives to specific resource an agency moves from generalized needs to specific projects. Outcome 20 yr. Plan/ Outcomes FTP Policy-Level 5/10-yr. FDOT Plan/ Objectives System-Level Short-Range Component FDOT Program/ Program-Level Budget Link Program and Resource Plan Planned Projects DOT Work Program Project-Level Output Source: Florida Department of Transportation, 2007. Figure 2.2. Florida performance measures framework.