AASHTO EPD-2009 Effective Program Delivery in a Constrained Fiscal Environment (Revision 1)《在约束财政环境中有效实施方案.修改件1》.pdf

《AASHTO EPD-2009 Effective Program Delivery in a Constrained Fiscal Environment (Revision 1)《在约束财政环境中有效实施方案.修改件1》.pdf》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《AASHTO EPD-2009 Effective Program Delivery in a Constrained Fiscal Environment (Revision 1)《在约束财政环境中有效实施方案.修改件1》.pdf（50页珍藏版）》请在麦多课文档分享上搜索。

1、EFFECTIVE PROGRAM DELIVERY IN ACONSTRAINEDFISCAL ENVIRONMENTi-ii- Copyright 2009, by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. All Rights Reserved. Printed in the United States of America. This book, or parts thereof, may not be reproduced in any form without written pe

2、rmission of the publishers. 2009 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.-iii- Acknowledgements This study was requested by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AAS

3、HTO), and conducted as part of National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Project 20-24. The NCHRP is supported by annual voluntary contributions from the state Departments of Transportation (DOTs). Project 20-24 is intended to fund studies of interest to the leadership of AASHTO and its

4、member DOTs. The report was prepared by TransTech Management, Inc. The work was guided by a task group which included Calvin Leggett, North Carolina DOT; Amy Arnis, Washington State DOT; John Basilica, Louisiana DOTD; Tim Bjorneberg, South Dakota DOT; Martin L. Mastroianni, Missouri DOT; Brian J. St

5、rizki, New Jersey DOT; Jenifer Wishart, International Finance Corporation; Mark J. Wolfgram, Wisconsin DOT, and Jack Basso, AASHTO. The project manager was Chris Hedges, NCHRP Senior Program Officer. Report prepared by Tamar Henkin, TransTech Management, Inc. Disclaimer The opinions and conclusions

6、expressed or implied are those of the research agency that performed the research and are not necessarily those of the Transportation Research Board or its sponsors. The information contained in this document was taken directly from the submission of the author(s). This document is not a report of t

7、he Transportation Research Board or of the National Research Council. 2009 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.-iv- Executive Committee 20082009 Voting Members Officers: President: Allen Biehler,

8、 Pennsylvania Vice President: Larry L. “Butch” Brown, Sr., Mississippi Secretary-Treasurer: Carlos Braceras, Utah Regional Representatives: REGION I: Carolann Wicks, Delaware, One-Year Term Joseph Marie, Connecticut, Two-Year Term REGION II: Larry L. “Butch” Brown, Mississippi, One-Year Term Dan Flo

9、wers, Arkansas, Two-Year Term REGION III: Kirk T. Steudle, Michigan, One-Year Term Nancy J. Richardson, Iowa, Two-Year Term REGION IV: Rhonda G. Faught, New Mexico, One-Year Term Will Kempton, California, Two-Year Term Nonvoting Members Immediate Past President: Pete K. Rahn, Missouri AASHTO Executi

10、ve Director: John Horsley, Washington, DC 2009 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.-v- Standing Committee on Finance and Administration Will Kempton, Chair Nancy J. Richardson, Vice Chair J. Mich

11、ael Patterson, Secretary Jack Basso Jr., Liaison Joung Lee, Liaison State Member Alabama, C. Lamar McDavid Alaska, Nancy J. Slagle Arizona, John A. Bogert, John E. McGee, Rakesh Tripathi Arkansas, Scott E. Bennett California, Ken De Crescenzo, Kevin E. Hanley P.E. Colorado, Heather Copp Connecticut,

12、 Gerald F. Dobek Delaware, Kathy S. English District of Columbia, Carol Kissal, Eric Stults Florida, William F. Thorp Georgia, Kate Pfirman Hawaii, Geral Dang Idaho, Dave Tolman Illinois, Ann L. Schneider Indiana, Bernard Seel Kansas, Joe Erskine Kentucky, Tammy S. Branhan Louisiana, Michael Bridges

13、 P.E. Maine, Karen S. Doyle, Gregory G. Nadeau Maryland. Betty Conners, Beverley Swaim-Staley Massachusetts, Vacant Michigan, Leon E. Hank CPA Minnesota, Kevin Z. Gray Mississippi, Brenda Znachko Missouri, Roberta Broeker Montana, Larry Flynn Nebraska, Stephen D. Maraman Nevada, Rudy Malfabon New Ha

14、mpshire, Vacant New Jersey, Candie L. Brown, Steven B. Hanson New Mexico, Gary Girn New York, Michael Novakowski North Carolina, Mark L. Foster State Member North Dakota, Shannon L. Sauer Ohio, Paul F. Staley M.A. Oklahoma, Gary Ridley Oregon, Les Brodie, Lorna Youngs Pennsylvania, Vacant Puerto Ric

15、o, Vacant Rhode Island, Vacant South Carolina, Debra R. Rountree South Dakota, Kellie Beck Tennessee, Randy Lovett Texas, James M. Bass Utah, Charles F. Larsen Vermont, Thomas A. Daniel Virginia, Reta Busher CPA, Gregory A. Whirley Sr. Washington, Bill Ford West Virginia, Danny L. Ellis Wisconsin, B

16、eth F. Nachreiner Wyoming, Kevin Hibbard U.S. DOT Member FHWA Joseph Dailey Associate MemberBridge, Port, and Toll N.Y. State Bridge Authority, John R. Sewell Associate MemberInternational Alberta, Larry James Saskatchewan, Les Bell Associate MemberRegional Metro. Trans. Commission, Steve Heminger 2

17、009 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.-vi- 2009 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.-vii

18、- Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction: Purpose of the Study 1 1.1 BackgroundProblem Statement. 1 1.2 Phase 1 Objectives and Report Structure . 2 1.3 Phase 1 Methodology . 3 2.0 Forces of Change in Program Delivery Management 5 2.1 Introduction/Overview 5 2.2 Symptoms of Need for Change and for New To

19、ols and Techniques. 5 2.3 Forces of Change 9 2.4 SummaryCombined Impacts of Forces of Change 21 3.0 State of the Practice: Tools, Techniques, and Management Processes for Effective Program Delivery. 22 3.1 Introduction . 22 3.2 Identifying Priorities. 22 3.3 Obtaining Resources. 25 3.4 Delivering th

20、e Program 27 3.5 Managing Finances. 29 3.6 Summary. 32 4.0 Conclusions and Recommendations for Possible Further Study 39 4.1 Introduction . 39 4.2 Preliminary Recommended Topic Areas for Further Study . 39 2009 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. All rights res

21、erved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.-1- 1.0 Introduction: Purpose of the Study 1.1 BackgroundProblem Statement During the Interstate-building era, state department of transportation (DOT) program delivery functions were fairly straightforward. For the most part, state agencies worked

22、 with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to plan facilities, determine funding needs, and set construction schedules. Projects were developed and constructed on a pay-as-you-go basis; FHWA reimbursed states for 80 to 95 percent of project costs; budgeting focused on ensuring federal funding d

23、id not lapse; and large cash balances, cost overruns, or project delays while not uncommon were not considered a major problem. State DOT program delivery has become much more complex in recent years. Today, DOT managers face new challenges and requirements with respect to 1) delivering projects on

24、time and on budget, 2) distributing funding efficiently and equitably, 3) developing projects in a manner that protects the physical and social environment, 4) managing (and leveraging) resources as efficiently and effectively as possible, and 5) including other agencies, interest groups, and the pu

25、blic in project prioritization and funding decisions. With these new challenges, it is no great surprise that states are having difficulty programming, budgeting, and administering realistic, politically viable, and financially constrained transportation programs. Effective program delivery is achie

26、ved through the establishment of sound policies and procedures that address the management of projects throughout the project and program delivery process. It is a state of practice that transcends individual project phases and provides a continuum of sound management throughout the life of a projec

27、tand a transportation program. There is a wide variation, however, in the management approaches, systems, and tools being deployed by state departments of transportation. While some states are known for use of highly integrated approaches, many still rely on informal and fairly unstructured methods.

28、 There are a number of driving forces to the increasing importance of more systematic approaches to program delivery. These include forces, or influences, within each of four broad program function areas, as follows: Identifying PrioritiesWhile states have always faced constrained funding, the const

29、raints are even more profound today. States also are being held to a higher standard of accuracy in what they promise, requiring that they more carefully prioritize program needs and actions. Obtaining ResourcesNew revenue sources, finance mechanisms, and grant management techniques require more sop

30、histicated market analysis and greater knowledge of their flexibilities, restrictions, and long-term program implications. With the anticipated advent of new techniques, knowledge of these approaches will become even more critical. Delivering the Program (note: this functional area has been renamed

31、and expanded from “Redefining Roles” in original NCHRP project statement)To deliver larger programs 2009 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.-2- with smaller staffs, DOTs are turning more to outs

32、ourcing and other techniques that require development of human resource management systems beyond the traditional state agency program delivery approaches of the past. Also, many state DOTs are decentralizing or delegating project selection, project development, and project financial management resp

33、onsibilities, expanding the number of staff who require expertise in project prioritization techniques, innovative finance options, and financial management. Managing FinancesWith greater use of debt financing and greater project complexity, states require more sophisticated administrative programs

34、and new types of staff expertise to oversee both the cost management and funding aspects of program delivery. Together, the forces acting in each of these four functional areas contribute to the challenge of planning, programming, budgeting, and administering viable fiscally constrained programs. To

35、 date, there has been limited focused documentation of what states are doing to address these forces, including development of new tools, processes, and management approaches. Nor has there been comprehensive documentation of the gaps in current practice and associated tools. Therefore, there is a n

36、eed for a broad “50,000-foot view” of how the various pieces fit together, what is missing, and how best to address the identified gaps. 1.2 Objectives and Report Structure The objective of this study was to develop a comprehensive understanding of the driving forces that have contributed to difficu

37、lty in program delivery in todays constrained fiscal environment. In support of the overall study objective, the specific objectives were: 1) to define and describe the forces of change and associated impacts on program management and delivery; 2) to document the state of the practice among state DO

38、Ts, including gaps that may exist in tools, techniques, and management processes to support program delivery; and 3) to make recommendations regarding topic areas for further research. In fulfillment of the study objectives, the remainder of this interim report is dedicated to: More fully discussing

39、 the forces of change across the four broad functional areas of 1) identifying priorities, 2) obtaining resources, 3) delivering the program, and 4) managing finances (Chapter 2); Documenting current tools, techniques, and management processes deployed by state DOTs to respond to these forces of cha

40、nge and identifying gaps in the state of the practice (Chapter 3); and Highlighting promising new and emerging practices and offering recommendations for a Phase 2 study of noteworthy practices and lessons learned (Chapter 4). 2009 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Offi

41、cials. All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.-3- 1.3 Phase 1 Methodology To meet the objectives of this phase of the study, the research team followed a multi-pronged approach that included an in-depth review of the relevant literature, outreach to state DOT officials and

42、 other industry leaders, and application of the research teams own experience and expertise to develop a comprehensive accounting of the forces influencing the four identified areas of program delivery management, the current state of the practice, and gaps in the tools, techniques, and strategies,

43、with an aim toward identifying the most promising areas for further study. 1.3.1 Literature Review To supplement direct research, the research team conducted an in-depth review of the relevant literature. Results of the literature review are incorporated throughout this interim report. Given the cro

44、ss-cutting nature of issues associated with program delivery in a constrained fiscal environment, the research team cast a wide net for potentially relevant literature, including reports and studies that directly or indirectly address the following topicseither individually or in combination: Strate

45、gic Planning Financial Management Practices Long-Range Planning PublicPrivate Partnerships Programming Outsourcing and Alternative Procurement Asset Management Project Management Performance Measurement Organizational Change Economic Benefit/Cost Analysis Human Resource Management Transportation Fun

46、ding and Finance Public Involvement The research team concentrated on literature that identifies broad trends rather than on individual mechanisms or experiences of single states. The research team focused the literature review on the following sources and body of material: Transportation Research B

47、oard (TRB) and National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP)including reports, circulars, e-circulars, syntheses, conference proceedings and presentations, and web documents; Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)guidance, primers, subject matter reports, and web pages; American Association o

48、f State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) reports, conference presentations, and web pages; Government Accountability Office (GAO)reports to Congress; and Universities and Other Research Organizationsrelevant reports and studies. The research team also reviewed bibliographies of other re

49、ports to identify additional relevant material and familiarized itself with the potentially relevant resources available beyond the 2009 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.-4- transportation field, such as those of the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA), independent rating agencies, and associations of state government (e.g., National Conference of State Legi