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 16
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.
