Cost Control cp
Download 0.6 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Controls Now/Normal Means
Cost Control FailsUnless the counterplan mandates all of these steps, it can’t solveDoT 10 – (“Linking Transportation Performance and Accountability” January 2010, http://www.international.fhwa.dot.gov/pubs/pl10009/pl10009.pdf)//ctc The scan provided considerable insight into the evolution of performance management in nations that have practiced it for at least a decade. Their systems have matured and evolved in ways that provide lessons for the United States. The scan also validated the use of performance management as an effective means to translate broad government goals into meaningful agency practice. The performance management systems observed abroad provided transparency and accountability to transportation programs, while also allowing flexibility to meet local needs. The officials offered the scan team advice in several key areas of performance management. The following outlines their advice and the scan team’s conclusions: 1. Articulate a limited number of high-level national transportation policy goals that are linked to a clear set of measures and targets. 2. Negotiate intergovernmental agreements on how State, regional, and local agencies will achieve the national goals while translating them into State, regional, or local context and priorities. 3. Evaluate performance by tracking the measures and reporting them in clear language appropriate for the audience. 4. Collaborate with State, regional, and local agencies to achieve the targets by emphasizing incentives, training, and support—instead of penalties—as the preferred way to advance performance. 5. Perpetuate long-term improvement by understanding that the real value of performance management is the development of an improved decision making and investment process, not the achievement of many short-term targets. 6. Improve the use of benefit-cost analysis and risk management practices to demonstrate value for money. Consider major project post construction evaluations to assess whether benefits included in the original benefit-cost assessments were realized. 7. Recognize that major national visions, not achievement of narrow targets, tend to generate new investment. 8. Convert long-term deferred maintenance needs into a long-term future liability calculation. This clearly links the budget to long-term system sustainability. 9. Demonstrate accountability by producing annual performance reports on agency achievements. 10. Instead of using technical jargon, report results with language that is meaningful to the public, such as “the journey home” or “support for the journey.” Detailed, technical terms should be used for internal reporting, but translated into understandable language for the public. 11. Collaborate frequently with other cabinet agencies, including conducting periodic meetings with top leadership on cross-cutting issues such as economic development, public health, highway safety, and climate change. 12. Have a strong safety focus and document the results of safety measures, in addition to the usual measures of infrastructure condition, internal operations, transit, and on time rail performance. 13. Focus on desired outcomes for travel time reliability that lead to expanded strategies for highway operations. 14. Learn from international examples of addressing climate change that rely on improving vehicles, fuels, and modal choice, but do not mandate reductions in travel or mobility. 15. Provide resources to enable high-quality data tracking, analysis, and reporting capabilities that allow for the use of performance data in decision making. 16. Recognize that performance management is not a black box or simplistic solution; it is a culture to grow within the agency as an important consideration in the decision making and investment process. Controls Now/Normal MeansStatus quo solves – state DOTs are using multiple performance measures nowChisholm-Smith 11 – Senior program officer at the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (Gwen, “State DOT Public Transportation Performance Measures: State of the Practice and Future Needs” National Cooperative Highway Research Program, September 2011, http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rrd_361.pdf)//ctc In a nationwide survey, approximately two-thirds of all state DOTs indicated that they have some public transportation performance measures in place (30 out of 43 respondents). A number of motivations led these DOTs to the use of public transportation performance measures, including providing accountability to stakeholders. This desire for more accountability has led some state legislatures to impose their own requirements in the use of performance measures. Some DOTs are doing more than tracking performance data and reporting it. Some are experimenting with use of performance data to improve decisions made during long-range planning, and for transit plans and capital programs. Performance measures are a way for agency leaders to communicate organizational priorities to their staff. Of the state DOTs that are using public transportation performance measures, many are using multiple performance measures. The number of public transportation performance measures used within each state varies; most DOTs indicated they have between two and six measures, though several DOTs reported using seven or more measures. Common measures include ridership measures, those focused on the level of public transportation riders using services; availability measures, those focused on the availability of services (e.g., total hours, average number of days per week available); internal cost and efficiency measures, those focused on internal utilization of resources, cost, and other measures of efficiency; quality measures, those that measure the quality of service experienced by the customer; asset management measures, those that look at the physical components of the system (e.g., age of fleet, etc.); and community measures, those that focus on impacts to a community in the way of mobility, air quality, and energy savings. Findings indicate that ridership and internal cost and efficiency measures are much more widespread than measures of availability, service quality, asset management, or community impacts. Use of performance measures by State DOT public transportation divisions is driven by the business functions these divisions perform, including compliance with data reporting requirements and supporting statewide public transportation planning decisions and funding allocation. Within the survey, 17 state DOTs indicated they are using public transportation performance measures to support allocation of or formulas for public transportation operating funding, and 11 indicated they are using performance measures to support allocation of or formulas for capital funding. Several also identified that they were using performance measures to measure progress toward statewide goals (15 state DOTs) or for measuring progress toward agency targets or comparing agency services (15 state DOTs). Directory: files files -> Answer True False 2 points Question 2 files -> Integer programming and game theory files -> 4 Integer Programming files -> Bpa vehicle Window Repair Scenario #1 task: Procure vehicle window relacement. Objective files -> Pop Warner History files -> North Carolina Inclusion Initiative Mapping Where Children with ieps are Being Served Purpose files -> Fall 2013 Spring 2014 Program Data: Standard 1 Exhibit 4d files -> Hanban – asia society confucius classrooms network 2010 request for proposal files -> Northern England’s set-jetting locations Download 0.6 Mb. Share with your friends:
|