AASHTO PBHP-2008 A PRIMER ON PERFORMANCE-BASED HIGHWAY PROGRAM MANAGEMENT《底漆性能.基于公路项目管理.修改件1》.pdf

《AASHTO PBHP-2008 A PRIMER ON PERFORMANCE-BASED HIGHWAY PROGRAM MANAGEMENT《底漆性能.基于公路项目管理.修改件1》.pdf》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《AASHTO PBHP-2008 A PRIMER ON PERFORMANCE-BASED HIGHWAY PROGRAM MANAGEMENT《底漆性能.基于公路项目管理.修改件1》.pdf（34页珍藏版）》请在麦多课文档分享上搜索。

1、January 2008 A PRIMER ON PERFORMANCE-BASED HIGHWAY PROGRAM MANAGEMENT Examples from Select States (2,1) -1- PBHPM cover.indd 1/14/2008 12:35:21 PM (2,1) -1- PBHPM cover.indd 1/14/2008 12:35:21 PMPrepared by the AASHTO Task Force on Performance Management American Association of State Highway and Tra

2、nsportation O cials 444 North Capitol Street, NW Suite 249 Washington, DC 20001 (202) 624-5800 Fax: (202) 624-5806 www.transportation.org (1,1) -2- PBHPM cover.indd 1/14/2008 12:35:36 PM (1,1) -2- PBHPM cover.indd 1/14/2008 12:35:36 PMJanuary 2008 A PRIMER ON PERFORMANCE-BASED HIGHWAY PROGRAM MANAGE

3、MENT Examples from Select States2 Performance Management References and Resources Measuring Performance Among State DOTs, AASHTO, March 2006 http:/www.transportation.org/sites/quality/docs/MeasuringPerformance.pdf Strategic Performance Measures for State Departments of Transportation, A Handbook for

4、 CEOs and Executives, AASHTO, June 2003 http:/downloads.transportation.org/Quality-CEOHandbook.pdf Comparing State DOTs Construction Project Costs and Schedule Performance 28 Best Practices from 9 States, May 2007, NCHRP Project 20-24, Task 37A http:/www.transportation.org/sites/quality/docs/ Compar

5、ing%20State%20DOTs.pdf Survey of State DOT Performance Measures, SCoQ , May 2007 http:/knowledge.fhwa.dot.gov/cops/pm.nsf/home?OpenForm Meeting 2: Non-Traditional Performance Measures, NCHRP 8-36 Task 53, March 2006 http:/www.transportation.org/sites/planning/docs/NCHRP%208-36%2853 %29%282%29%20NonT

6、raditional%20Perf%20Measures.pdf Transportation Planning Performance Measures, Oregon Department of Transportation and Federal Highway Administration, October 2005 http:/www.oregon.gov/ODOT/TD/TP_RES/docs/Reports/ PlanningPerformanceMeasures.pdf ScoQ Quality Information Center http:/w w w.transporta

7、tion1.org/qualit y/center.htm Florida Department of Transportation http:/www.dot.state. .us/businessmodel/ Maryland Department of Transportation http:/www.mdot.state.md.us/Planning/Plans%20Programs%20Reports/ Index.html Minnesota Department of Transportation http:/www.departmentresults.state.mn.us/d

8、ot/index.html Missouri Department of Transportation http:/www.modot.org/about/general_info/Tracker.htm Washington State Department of Transportation http:/w w w.wsdot.wa.gov/accountability/default.htmIntroduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

9、 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Outlook: State Perfomance-Based Management Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Pro les: Implementation Results at Select State DOTs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

10、12California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12New York . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

11、. . . . . . . . 14Maryland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

12、 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18Washington . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

13、 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20Montana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22Minnesota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

14、 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24Missouri . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26Ohio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

15、 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28Michigan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 ContentsIntroduction State Departments of Transportat

16、ion (DOT) use performance management for a variety of functions from statewide budgeting and resource allocation to asset and systems management and executive dashboards. e concept of performance measurement, or measurement on a regular basis of the results (outcomes) and e ciency of services or pro

17、grams, is nothing new in the public sector. Whether it was known as the RAND Corporations “systems analysis” in the 1950s or Planning-Programming- Budgeting Systems (PPBS) in the late 1960s, the need to better understand and control outcomes has always been recognized. Consistent with this trend in

18、the public sector, the use of performance mea- surement has been embraced by the federal, state, and local transportation agencies across the United States. e sheer breadth and complexity of the transportation network in this country, however, poses a signi cant logistical and conceptual challenge i

19、n the collection, organization, analysis, and appli- cation of information based on performance measures as a whole. Fortunately, as the result of the development of better tools and methods, there are a number of successful performance-based transportation programs from which lessons can be drawn.

20、As demonstrated by these examples, the bene ts of a performance-based highway program are numerous: It allows for more e cient allocation of increasingly scarce resources; It aids in the development and justi cation of budget and projectproposals; and It holds government agencies responsible for fun

21、ding, constructing,maintaining and operating the highway network accountable to theroad users and the public at large. At the same time, there are inherent limitations in performance measure- ment. First, performance data do not, by themselves, tell why the outcomes occurred. Examining performance d

22、ata does not tell the story behind the numbers, nor provide the context under which such data was generated. Second, some outcomes cannot be measured directly, such as prevention of undesirable events. ird, information provided through performance measurement is just part of the information managers

23、 and elected o cials need to make decisions. Fourth, because the range of factors and consider- ations faced by state DOTs around the country varies from state to state, it is important to avoid using performance measures as a “one-size- ts-all” tool to rank and draw absolute conclusions of state DO

24、T performance. 4This report by the AASHTO Performance-Based Highway Program Task Force follows an earlier AASHTO report for the National Surface Transpor- tation Policy and Revenue Study Commission (the Commission) entitled State DOT Performance Management Programs: Select Examples published in June

25、 2007. It examined performance-based surface transportation program approaches currently being implemented at some of the state DOTs around the country. Building on that primer, this report describes the basic principles involved in applying performance measurement to the state budgeting and program

26、 delivery process, and pro les how 11 states have applied these principles to improve performance and accountability. 5 Pete Rahn, Chair Director, Missouri Department of Transportation Mara Campbell Director of Organizational Results Missouri Department of Transportation Daniela Bremmer Director of

27、Strategic Assessment Washington State Department of Transportation Susan Mortel Bureau Director, Transportation Planning Michigan Department of Transportation Sandy Straehl Administrator, Rail, Transit, and Planning Montana Department of Transportation Je Roerden Management Engineer North Carolina D

28、OT Productivity Services Carlos Braceras Deputy Director Utah Department of Transportation Barbara Reese Chief Financial O cer Virginia Department of Transportation John Zamurs New York State Department of Transportation Dianna Noble Director, Environmental A airs Texas Department of Transportation

29、David Ganovski Director, O ce of Freight Logistics Maryland Department of Transportation Richard Nordahl Chief, O ce of Goods Movement California Department of Transportation Troy Costales Division Administrator Oregon Department of Transportation Larry Tibbits Chief Operations O cer Michigan Depart

30、ment of Transportation Douglas Rose Deputy Administrator and Chief Engineer Maryland Department of Transportation Timothy Henkel Division Director Minnesota Department of Transportation Robert Romig Director, O ce of Policy Planning Florida Department of Transportation AASHTO Performance-Based Highw

31、ay Program Task ForceOverview of Performance Management State and local transportation agencies have been using performance measures for many years. During the 1970s and 1980s, the development of pavement and bridge management systems led to the widespread use of facility condi- tion indicators. A n

32、umber of states such as Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Washington developed maintenance management systems that de ned performance indicators for a range of maintenance and operations activities as well. During this same period, virtually all states reported a variety of “output” measures that r

33、e ected the scope and scale of the programs being implement- ed. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, it began to be recognized that broader performance measurement, focusing more on the “outcomes” of government programs, was needed. In 1989, Oregon established a Progress Board that de ned performance

34、 benchmarks for all government agencies, including trans- portation. Other states such as Florida, Utah, and Minnesota followed with similar e orts. During the same time frame, many local governments and their national associations embraced the use of performance measures. By the mid 1990s, a number

35、 of state Departments of Transportation (state DOTs), metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs), and other transporta- tion agencies were beginning to develop and implement more comprehensive approaches to performance measurement. Often these e orts initially focused on a speci c function (e.g., lo

36、ng-range planning, project delivery, operations, etc.) or program area (e.g., preservation, safety, maintenance, etc.) and then expanded. Over the past 10 years, as the nancial resources available for trans- portation have become more constrained and the call for more accountability and transparency

37、 in government programs has increased, more and more states have implemented or expanded performance management programs. e trend toward more comprehensive performance management is easy to observe in the programs of three national conferences on transportation per- formance measurement that have be

38、en organized since 2000. From an initial focus on providing guidance on the basic concepts of performance measure- ment and early implementation results, there is now a wealth of experience with increasingly comprehensive performance management. Many states, including Maryland, Virginia, Florida, Mi

39、ssouri, New Mexico, and Wash- ington; and MPOs, including those in San Francisco, Dallas, Atlanta, and Los Angeles develop quarterly or annual performance reports. Agency Web sites are used to provide access to a wide range of performance information. e CitiStats program, pioneered by the New York C

40、ity Police Department, involving executive review of agency performance in public forums, has been extended to transportation agencies in a number of cities and states. Perfor- mance results are not just reported but are in uencing resource allocation and budget decisions. Outlook State Performance-

41、Based Management Programs 67 As a result of the increasing focus on performance over the past few years, comprehensive performance manage- ment now is widely embraced as a best business practice in the transportation community. e gure below illustrates the key steps in performance management. At the

42、 heart of comprehensive performance management is the discipline to: Select appropriate performance measures to assess agency performance in critical program and service areas; Track and report actual performance results; Analyze results to identify key factors in uencingperformance and opportunitie

43、s for improvement; Allocate resources and operate transportationsystems to drive better results; and Continue to monitor and report progress. Increasingly, it is recognized that these steps can be applied to all of the functions and operations of a trans- portation agency. It also is recognized by o

44、rganizations that have adopted a performance management approach that the speci c strategy must be tailored to each orga- nization, that progress and improvements occur incre- mentally over time and that full implementation takes sustained leadership over a number of years. Comprehensive Transportat

45、ion Performance Management Adopting a comprehensive approach to performance management requires integrating the basic principles of performance management into all of the critical functions of a transportation agency from planning to delivery to operations. ese functions include: Policy Development

46、and Long-Range Planning. At this stage of the transportation planning and development process, performance measures can help to translate broad policy goals and objectives into more actionable programs, policies, projects and services when combined with broad public outreach and involvement, and a n

47、um- ber of cycles of technical analysis and strategy evaluation. Both federal law and planning regulations require that the goals and objectives for transportation plans be devel- oped in cooperation and coordination with a wide range of agencies and stakeholders, including elected o cials, business

48、 and transportation interest groups, the media and the general public. As a result, the goals, objectives and performance measures in a particular state or region will re ect the results of this process and the priorities of that community. Performance Management Process Select measures to assess pe

49、rformance in key program/service areas Track and report performance results Identify key factors influencing performance and opportunities to improve Allocate resources to drive better results Continue to monitor and report progress8 Programming and Budgeting. A key element of compre- hensive performance management is to use performance results to help drive better performance in the future. To achieve this objective requires that performance results in critical program and service areas be tracked and analyzed to id