Project Status


Timeframe

 
 
 

Funding Source


TPM Categories


    [toolset_access role="Administrator,Editor,Author" operator="allow"]
Switch to Table View[/toolset_access]

Results



  • Compendium of TPM Best Practices

    Transportation agencies are now required under Federal Authorization to measure and report performance in seven national goal areas. Highlighting best practices could help states move toward certain standards consistent with the intent of MAP-21. This research will compile best practices in all aspects of TPM.



    Background

    Transportation agencies are now required under Federal Authorization to measure and report performance in seven national goal areas.
    Several agencies have reported performance for two decades or more.
    Managing performance involves many staff and many steps:
    o Defining goals and objectives
    o Determine how to measure progress toward goals and objectives
    o Gathering data
    o Managing and analyzing data
    o Setting targets
    o Publishing quantitative analysis (e.g. graphs and charts)
    o Publishing qualitative analysis or narrative around the results
    o Monitoring trends
    o Reassessing metrics and targets
    o Modifying behavior to influence performance
    No state agency excels in every aspect of Total Performance Management. Several state agencies excel in one or more areas.
    Highlighting best practices could help states move toward certain standards consistent with the intent of MAP-21.

    Objectives

    • Determine the five to 10 key aspects of TPM.
    • Demonstrate two to three best practices for each aspect.
    • Demonstrate three to five best practices in all aspects of TPM, from beginning to end.

  • Linking the Strategic Performance Management Framework with an Agency’s Operational Framework

    Federal Authorization (MAP-21) and, more broadly, transportation performance management have influenced state transportation agencies to focus on outcome-based performance measures such as fatalities, pavement condition, or congestion. These outcome-based measures do not often align directly with the framework or organization chart of the state agency. The study should highlight best practices of internal and external reporting, focusing on agencies that are able to readily adapt behavior to achieve desired operational performance.



    Background

    • Federal Authorization (MAP-21) and, more broadly, transportation performance management have influenced state transportation agencies to focus on outcome-based performance measures such as fatalities, pavement condition, or congestion.
    • These outcome-based measures do not often align directly with the framework or organization chart of the state agency. How the agency manages daily operations and decision making, therefore, may not directly support achieving these higher level performance targets.
    • Metrics that better assess operational performance may be necessary to help modify practices or re-allocate resources. Staff are better able to target metrics that they can directly influence (e.g. Schedule Performance Index for their projects) in their daily behavior than they are to work and manage to fatalities or congestion.
    • Linking such operational metrics to the outcome metrics mandated by MAP-21 and desired by other stakeholders can be challenging.

    Objectives

    • This project should identify agencies that report not only common, outcome-based metrics such as fatalities, infrastructure condition, and congestion, but also operational metrics such as On Budget, On Schedule, Contract Processing Times, or Lane Closure Response Times.
    • The study should examine the ability of agencies to connect high level organizational goals to operational metrics, and operational metrics to performance of groups within the agency’s organization framework.
    • The study should highlight best practices of internal and external reporting, focusing on agencies that are able to readily adapt behavior to achieve desired operational performance.
    • The study should draw conclusions of appropriate organizational structures that support differing priorities from agency to agency. For example, does an agency with a stated vision of improving mobility structure itself to clearly define ownership for each of the various aspects of improving mobility?

  • TPM Implementation Guidebook

    Transportation agencies are increasingly focusing on transportation performance management (TPM) to get greater results from their resources. This research will develop a guidebook using lessons learned and good practices to assist with implementing TPM.



    Background

    • Transportation agencies are increasingly focusing on transportation performance management (TPM) to get greater results from the resources they have
    • The Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21) legislation is requiring state departments of transportation (DOTs) and metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) to become more performance driven.
    • There are many important national and international lessons learned and good practices that have been used that can help agencies improve TPM.
    • The Asset Management Guide that was developed via NCHRP and now published as an AASHTO document is a good model for how a guidebook can help DOTs improve practice.

    Objectives

    • Provide state DOTs and other transportation agencies with process, procedures, and “how to’s” for efficient TPM implementation.
    • Develop a guidebook using lessons learned and good practices to assist with implementing TPM.
    • Compile existing best practices, review resources that have been developed and translate into guidebook components.

  • Getting Credible VMT Data

    Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) is a frequently reported data point, but the accuracy of this data is not always clearly understood or articulated. This project should highlight best practices for gathering VMT data and various subsets of such data including trucks, motorcycles, etc.



    Background

    • Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) is a frequently reported data point, but the accuracy of this data is not always clearly understood or articulated.
    • Technology development has increased the sources by which agencies may capture VMT but has not necessarily increased the credibility of this data.
    • VMT today may rely on data from third parties such as INRIX, HERE, or WAZE. It may rely on HPMS reporting. It may rely on Intelligent Transportation System devices.
    • Few if any sources could actually count every mile traveled by all vehicles, and statistical interpolation must often help complete VMT data sets. Users of those data sets often do not know the margin of error in their analysis.

    Objectives

    • This project should survey the means by which VMT data is gathered, assimilated, and analyzed.
    • The research should analyze similarities and differences in the means by which VMT is gathered and reported.
    • The analysis highlight gaps or shortcomings for each widely deployed mechanism.
    • The project should compare factors such as accuracy, cost, and timeliness between various data-gathering and reporting mechanisms.
    • This project should highlight best practices for gathering VMT data and various subsets of such data including trucks, motorcycles, etc.

  • Non-Motorized Performance Measures

    Bicycle, pedestrian and other non-motorized modes of transportation provide benefits to both the users of those modes and to the entire network, but their benefits to the network are not well measured or documented. This project should identify and document current leading state DOT or other country practices in measuring performance of non-motorized modes.



    Background

    Bicycle, pedestrian and other non-motorized modes of transportation provide benefits to both the users of those modes and to the entire network, but their benefits to the network are not well measured or documented.
    Safety performance measures involving non-motorized modes are generally better develop than are data and measures concerning traffic counts, origin-destination, mobility, or satisfaction.
    Technology is now emerging to better measure performance for bicycle, pedestrians, and other modes, but has not achieved significant penetration for meaningful analysis or comparisons between agencies.

    Objectives

    This project should identify and document current leading state DOT or other country practices in measuring performance of non-motorized modes.
    The project should suggest cost-effective mechanisms for gathering data needed to measure:
    o Volumes or counts (e.g. bicycle ridership)
    o Speeds or reliability
    o Sensitivity to weather or other external elements beyond the control of the user
    o Impact to the motorized portion of the system
    The results should offer a means for analysis of key variables in performance such as connectivity of a non-motorized network, connectivity to transit or other motorized modes, climate, safety of facilities, favorableness of laws and regulations.

  • Development of Multimodal Measures

    It is increasingly necessary to make investments in multiple modes of transportation to meet agency objectives, regardless of funding sources, to maximize the return on investment.



    Background

    It is increasingly necessary to make investments in multiple modes of transportation to meet agency objectives, regardless of funding sources, to maximize the return on investment. Examples include improving bike/pedestrian access with integrated transit facilities and roadway improvements at port/inland and port bottlenecks.

    Objectives

    The objective of establishing and monitoring multimodal waves is to explore the importance and benefit of these investments and encourage the prioritization of additional investment.

  • Framework for Connecting Across Federal Transportation Performance Reporting Requirements

    This research will review and document federal reporting requirements in order to assess opportunities to better integrate across reporting requirements.



    Background

    State DOTs utilize a variety of methods, systems, and tools to report on the performance of the federal aid system. Different systems exist such as ARNOLD, FIMS, HPMS, NBI, FARS, etc. Each of these systems its own set of requirements for data reporting. In addition to these requirements, MAP-21 requires states to report performance for six area – bridges, pavements, safety, traffic congestion, on-road mobile source emission, and freight movement.

    Objectives

    This research will:
    • Review and document all federal reporting requirements that state DOTs do on the condition, performance, and fiscal sustainability of their federal programs
    • Assess the effectiveness and opportunities to better integrate across federal reporting requirements to better inform and improve performance management efforts
    • Document/ recommend a framework for their leveraging federal reporting requirements for state performance management

  • Competencies in Transportation Performance Trend Analysis and Communication

    Trend analysis in performance management can be used to learn lessons from past performances and to predict future performance. It is especially valuable in setting targets for future performance.



    Background

    Trend analysis in performance management can be used to learn lessons from past performances and to predict future performance. It is especially valuable in setting targets for future performance. There is experience in various areas of transportation performance on how trend analyses are conducted and are communicated.
    An agency’s ability to communicate performance trends depends upon staff’s ability to interpret, analyze and communicate short- and long-term trend information.

    Objectives

    This research is aimed at:
    • Enhancing agency understanding of performance trends, especially related to the horizons
    • Providing practical guidance to practitioners in establishing trends
    • Effectively communicating trends.

  • State of Practice in Use of Continuous Improvement to Support Performance Management Practices

    This research effort will provide a state of current practice in Continuous Improvement and provide a foundation for future research.



    Background

    Continuous Improvement is a management philosophy first employed in Japan that dates back decades. Its use in the private sector is well-established. In recent years, individual state departments of transportation (DOT) have begun process measurement and improvement efforts using a performance management framework. This research effort will provide a state of current practice and provide a foundation for future research.

    Objectives

    This research will:
    • Determine current practice in the use of Lean, Lean Six Sigma and other continuous improvement methodologies to support ongoing, active performance management within agencies.
    • Provide Best Practices to assist agencies in implementing continuous improvement programs aimed at affecting performance.

  • Establishment of SCOPM Research Program

    The Standing Committee on Performance Management is seeking to create a dedicated research program for quick turn around research for transportation performance management.



    Background

    Some AASHTO Standing Committees have dedicated research programs for quick turn around research. These include NCHRP 20-07 for Standing Committee on Highways, NCHRP 08-36 for the Standing Committee on Planning and NCHRP 25-25 for the Standing Committee on Environment.
    Transportation Performance Management is of growing importance nationally and is the underpinning of the federal transportation legislation – Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21).

    Objectives

    The Standing Committee on Performance Management is seeking to create a dedicated research program for quick turn around research for transportation performance management.

  • Comparative Performance Management – Environmental Measure – NCHRP 20-118

    Understanding the impacts of transportation on the environment is a major challenge for state departments of transportation (DOTs). A major focus of measuring environmental impact has been on vehicle emissions in congested locations.



    Background

    Previous work by the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) has demonstrated the value of comparative performance measurement. It has helped the transportation community move towards improved performance-based decision making. The previous projects have involved compilation of detailed performance data for multiple DOTs, calculation of performance measures for each agency, composition of peer groups for comparative analysis, identification of the top tier of agencies with respect to the selected measures, and interviews to determine practices that may be related to exemplary performance.
    Understanding the impacts of transportation on the environment is a major challenge for state departments of transportation (DOTs). A major focus of measuring environmental impact has been on vehicle emissions in congested locations.

    Objectives

    • Conduct a comparison of DOTs regarding a set of environmental-related metrics and then report on successful techniques employed by the leading agencies.
    • Understand data and calculation issues related to the performance metrics chosen.
    • Communicate lead practices of high performing states

  • Comparative Performance Management – Non-Motorized Measure – NCHRP 20-118

    Non-motorized modes of transportation (i.e., walking and biking) are increasing becoming choices for personal travel. Understanding how much of an impact this mode is having in meeting transportation agency objectives is needed.



    Background

    Previous work by the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) has demonstrated the value of comparative performance measurement. It has helped the transportation community move towards improved performance-based decision-making. The previous projects have involved compilation of detailed performance data for multiple DOTs, calculation of performance measures for each agency, composition of peer groups for comparative analysis, identification of the top tier of agencies with respect to the selected measures, and interviews to determine practices that may be related to exemplary performance.
    Non-motorized modes of transportation (i.e., walking and biking) are increasing becoming choices for personal travel. Understanding how much of an impact this mode is having in meeting transportation agency objectives is needed.

    Objectives

    • Conduct a comparison of state departments of transportation (DOTs) regarding a set of non-motorized performance metrics and then report on successful techniques employed by the leading agencies.
    • Understand data and calculation issues related to the performance metrics chosen.
    • Communicate lead practices of high performing states

  • Guidance, Methodologies and Tools for Supporting Implementation of MAP-21 Performance Reporting Requirements

    This research will develop guidance for transportation agencies regarding tools and methodologies for supporting implementation of MAP-21 performance management requirements. It will also, where feasible, develop new tools to address gaps.



    Background

    The transportation legislation Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21) contains a number of important new requirements for state transportation departments to track and report performance, as well as to use performance targets to help guide investment decisions and support transportation planning. Although all states track and report performance in a number of areas already, many are nonetheless challenged to meet the specific requirements of MAP-21, often resulting from lack of guidance, calculation tools and/or calculation methodologies for supporting MAP-21 requirements. In particular, it can be difficult to project future performance given a set of assumptions concerning available funding, as required in several areas by MAP-21.

    Objectives

    • Develop guidance for transportation agencies to use addressing the tools and methodologies for supporting implementation of MAP-21 performance management requirements
    • Develop new guidance, tools, and/or methodologies where feasible to address gaps, such as for performing analysis of national-level data to be reported based on MAP-21 requirements

  • Developing National PM Data Strategies to Address Data Gaps, Standards, and Quality – NCHRP Project 08-108

    This research will offer guidance on how to identify common data gaps across agencies and develop strategies for filling these gaps.



    Background

    This project is now active. The RFP is available at http://apps.trb.org/cmsfeed/TRBNetProjectDisplay.asp?ProjectID=4184.
    The availability and cost of obtaining meaningful, consistent, timely and accurate data is a limiting factor for transportation agencies seeking to strengthen their use of performance management. Data are needed both to measure performance indicators of interest as well as to understand how performance trends are impacted by exogenous factors outside of agency control.

    Objectives

    The objective of this research is to identify common data gaps across agencies seeking to enhance performance management capabilities, and to develop a set of national strategies for filling these gaps. National strategies would potentially achieve:
    • A more efficient approach to meeting common performance management data needs,
    • A more consistent and sustainable data collection and management approach than would be possible from individual uncoordinated agency efforts

  • Implementation of Target Setting Practices: A Guidebook

    This research will provide resources focusing on how to set performance targets, including a quick implementation guide regarding MAP-21, Scan Workshop, and step by step guidance.



    Background

    Performance management is gaining national attention as Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) requires agencies to adopt performance management principles to increase accountability and transparency and improve decision-making. A key component of performance management and the MAP-21 requirements is setting performance targets. The majority of transportation agencies have experience with developing performance measures and reporting on condition/performance, but experience is much more limited in setting performance targets and making adjustments based on the achievement (or not) of those targets. As stated in the recently released NCHRP 8-36 Task 113: Meeting the Challenges of the 21st Century, “Understanding how to establish reasonable targets for transportation measures is in its infancy.

    Objectives

    This research will produce resources that focus on “how to” set performance targets. Three products are sought through this research:
    1. Quick Turnaround “How To” Guidance for meeting MAP-21 target setting requirements
    2. Scan Workshop focused on bringing together agencies that have successfully conducted target setting
    3. A practical step-by-step guide to setting performance targets.

  • Enhanced Tools and Approaches for Assessing Economic and System Benefits of Transportation Investments

    This research will expand upon SHRP2 Report S2-C11-RW-1 to improve the tools and approaches for assessing economic benefits of transportation, including the measurement of economic valuation, logistics costs, productivity, and competitiveness.



    Background

    Transportation projects provide a wide range of economic and non-economic benefits. These include measures of traveler impact such as reduced travel time and costs, as well as wider but more indirect benefits that stem from gains in business productivity. Transportation agencies face many challenges in determining the full range of benefits for transportation investments, and communicating those benefits to stakeholders and decision makers to help support investment decisions.
    Recently, SHRP 2 Project C11 developed a set of tools for predicting the wider economic benefits of transportation, followed by SHRP 2 Report S2-C11-RW-1. This research focused on three classes of transportation system impacts:
    • Travel time reliability
    • Intermodal connectivity
    • Market access
    While this research provides an important foundation for improved calculation of transportation benefits, further work is needed to expand it to provide transportation agencies with a complete and comprehensive set of tools and approaches for calculating economic benefits of transportation. Specifically, more work is needed to complete and test the tools developed through the SHRP 2 project, and to expand the tools and approaches to address other important components of economic benefit, such as supply chain costs, logistics costs, and benefits of improved productivity. This project will expand upon the SHRP 2 and other related research to develop an improved set of tools and approaches for calculating economic benefits of transportation.

    Objectives

    Expand upon the research detailed in SHRP2 Report S2-C11-RW-1 to improve the tools and approaches for assessing economic benefits of transportation. The research should address:
    • Incorporation of measures of economic valuation, such as supply chain and logistics costs.
    • Addition of benefits of productivity and competiveness.
    • Guidance on how to communicate results
    • Pilot testing of the tools and approaches developed through the research.

  • Establishment of Performance Data Collection and Reporting Standards

    This research will recommend data collection and reporting standards and develop an implementation plan to improve data quality.



    Background

    In an era of increased demand for transparency and accountability, transportation agencies are embracing performance management practices. A key component of this approach is the tracking and reporting of a wide range of performance measures. The recent passage of MAP-21 will add a set of national performance measures to the body of performance data being publically released. In order to realize the notable benefits from the increased monitoring and sharing of performance results, the industry must address:
    • The current absence of performance data collection and reporting standards
    • The need to build a foundation for effective performance management approaches through quality data
    • Without data collection and reporting standards, publically available performance information that appears to be the same can in fact be an “apples to oranges” situation
    Given this, there is a vital need to work towards ensuring that transportation agencies can consistently obtain quality data for use in performance management practices.
    “Quality data” can be succinctly described as data exhibiting the following six characteristics:
    • Timely (available within a reasonable timeframe)
    • Complete (all required data elements included)
    • Accurate (free of errors)
    • Consistent (same definitions and collection standards applied)
    • Integrated (linking different pieces of data straightforward)
    • Accessible (data is easily retrieved by all potential users).
    The creation of quality data is dependent on the data supply chain steps:
    Definitions, Acquisition, Processing, Validation, and Reporting.
    Given that agencies with varying transportation systems, technological capabilities and staff resources will be adopting performance management principles, it will be important to establish data collection guidelines that can reasonably fit within existing agency practices. For data to be used smoothly and effectively, strong communication is essential among data producers, analysts and decision makers.
    Establishing data collection standards will also prepare agencies for MAP-21 requirements to establish performance targets, prioritize resource allocation decisions and report on results.

    Objectives

    The purpose of this project is to:
    1. Recommend data collection and reporting standards
    2. Develop an implementation plan to improve data quality across all transportation agencies
    3. Provide standardized reporting guidelines

  • Development of a Performance Management Data Tool

    This research will develop a data assessment tool for systematic evaluation of external data sources to be used in performance measurement and management.



    Background

    Transportation agencies seeking to strengthen performance measurement need a variety of data to understand both performance trends and causal factors. Some performance data are collected directly by agencies, but there are a variety of existing and emerging data sources that can be used to supplement agency-collected data. These include data from federal, state and regional governmental agencies as well as data available from commercial sources. Transportation agencies would benefit from a tool that helps them to assess the applicability and usefulness of potential available data sources to support their performance management program. In turn, this would allow them better ways to report performance using available data.

    Objectives

    The objective of this research is to develop a data assessment tool that helps a transportation agency to systematically evaluate an external data source for supporting performance measurement and management.

  • Research of Effectiveness of Performance Management as a Program

    This research will help guide the next generation of performance managements by measuring and comparing the efficacy of the first generation of PM programs.



    Background

    An evolution of performance management initiatives that began more than half a century ago in Japanese, American, and other private industries as quality assurance and quality control programs has now worked its way into federal law in the United States. Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21) contains more than 100 instances of the word ‘performance,’ expanding from prior federal transportation authorization of the reporting and management requirements of state agencies.
    Now three years after adoption (as of July 2015), how effective has performance management been as a program for transportation agencies? Is performance management driving the intended result?

    Objectives

    This research accepts that performance management is and will remain a federal requirement in how state and local transportation agencies conduct business. With the working assumption that most agencies will meet the minimum rules requirements, this research seeks to help guide the next generation of performance managers in part by measuring the effectiveness of the first generation. Specifically, it will:
    1. Examine and compare early implementers of MAP-21 performance reporting and monitoring requirements to determine what, if any, tangible improvements have been made to organization performance as measured within the seven national performance areas, and other areas as practical.
    2. Recommend existing performance management practices for broader implementation and propose new practices for state DOT or other agency consideration.

  • MAP-21 Implementation Survey of Practice and Guidance for State DOTs

    This research will determine the current status of the implementation of MAP-21 PM requirements and provide examples of best practices.



    Background

    After the signing of MAP-21, agencies have begun developing programs meet the Performance Management requirements of the legislation. This research will document good and bad practices in implementing the MAP-21 PM requirements, aiming to:
    • Develop a body of information on how these programs have been implemented differently and what their different strengths and weaknesses may be
    • Understand positive and negative experiences in implementation
    • Examine regional context in terms of different FHWA Division Offices implementing the federal requirements differently
    • Develop step by step guidance on how an agency can build a productive program to implement the requirements

    Objectives

    This research will:
    1. Determine the current status of the implementation of MAP-21 PM requirements. What have agencies experienced so far?
    2. Provide guidance on best practices and allow those undertaking a Performance Management program to avoid pitfalls and learn from the experiences of others

  • Communicating the Importance of Establishing Performance Targets

    This project will identify and document the best practices of state DOTs in communicating performance targets, some of which may be highlight technical and complex, in the context of MAP-21 requirements.



    Background

    Performance management (PM) is of growing importance to help transportation agencies deliver greater value for the resources available, and to communicate what will be delivered, with transparency and accountability.
    • Communicating performance measures, targets, and results is an essential ingredient to a successful PM program.
    • Publishing targets will become more common forcing agencies to deal with challenging situations (e.g., declining targets)

    Objectives

    Performance management (PM) is of growing importance to help transportation agencies deliver greater value for the resources available, and to communicate what will be delivered, with transparency and accountability.
    • Communicating performance measures, targets, and results is an essential ingredient to a successful PM program.
    • Publishing targets will become more common forcing agencies to deal with challenging situations (e.g., declining targets)

  • Effective Performance Benchmarking Practices for the Transportation Sector – NCHRP 20-118

    This research will outline effective benchmarking practices agencies can quickly adopt and explain how these an be used to share and compare between peer agencies.



    Background

    As transportation agencies are pressed to publicly release additional performance data, the potential for erroneous comparison and incorrect conclusions will increase. Many “best to worst” lists of transportation agencies do not control for characteristics that may vary greatly between states (e.g., vehicle miles traveled); a state’s individual characteristics can be highly influential in determining how transportation decisions are made and funds are spent. The potential for false comparisons will only grow with the establishment of national performance measures as required in MAP-21. Instead, the expansion of available performance information could be used to promote the exchange of best practices through benchmarking. A key to effective benchmarking is the identification of peer agencies.

    Objectives

    This research will outline effective benchmarking practices agencies can readily adopted by transportation agencies and describe a process by which these benchmarks can be used to share and compare between peer agencies. The research will also include a systematic methodological framework for identifying peer states that have similar attributes.

  • Decision-Making Framework for Performance and Data

    This research will provide guidance on how to better align technology, data, and analytic tools with the most important investment decisions. It will also help clarify when existing data is adequate to make investments at various levels.



    Background

    Under MAP-21, performance management will provide a means to more efficient investment of Federal transportation funds in part by improving transportation investment decision-making. However, the data needs and framework to inform those decisions still needs to be defined and improved. This research asks the questions:
    • To what extent have transportation policy makers analyzed the correlation between investment and performance?
    • If fully armed with perfect performance or other data, would two different policy makers land on the same investment decision?
    • Evolutions of federal authorization have helped shape the transportation data landscape. Fatalities, condition of pavement and bridge elements, and travel time delays are widely reported and relied upon for program-level and project-level investment criteria. But what other information and qualitative factors help guide executives and policy makers?
    • With endless data points but without the ability to verify, synthesize, or analyze it, how can the information be useful?
    The term DRIP, or Data Rich and Information Poor, resonates with many Chief Executive Officers. A framework for better connecting data to performance-based decisions is needed to add strength to performance management efforts and value to our transportation system.

    Objectives

    This research endeavors to guide transportation officials in better aligning technology, data, and analytic resources with their most important investment decisions through the following:
    1. Understand the relationship between performance, decision-making, and data in order to develop a framework that transportation agencies can use for improved decision-making and optimizing data investments.
    2. Develop a framework for performance-based decision-making that transportation agencies can use to establish good business processes, produce good data, and yield good performance.
    As a military leader, Colin Powell applied a doctrine of 40-70. Making a decision with less than 40% of the available information was premature. Waiting for more than 70% of the available information, however, can prove costly from the standpoints of data collection and time lost for implementation. This research will seek to determine whether such a rule be applied in transportation to capacity-adding projects or operational improvements. This will assist agencies in determining when existing data is adequate to make investments at various levels.

  • Creating the Correct Communication for Each Stakeholder

    This research will provide examples of communications efforts as well as how to assess them and maximize their value and impact.



    Background

    Increasingly, DOTs view effective communication of agency performance, mission, goals and objectives, as being of of critical strategic importance. However, agency staff are often challenged to develop effective business cases to justify investments in communications. Part of the challenge is that research indicates DOTs’ message is not resonating with the public. In order to improve and justify communications, agencies need to understand:
    . Does communication really make a difference? Does communications have a return on investment?
    . How to make a message resonate with the public?
    . What new tools can lead to improvement?

    Objectives

    This research will provide examples of communications efforts as well as models of how to assess them and tools for maximizing the value and impact of each type of effort. It will:
    . Develop evaluation methods and techniques to estimate value of communications investment
    . Assess the experience of selected agencies that have invested in communications efforts, in terms of the investments made and returns realized
    . Develop guidance and associated tools for maximizing the value of communications investments by considering factors such as language and terminology, audience segmentation, media type/format, subject/topic, etc.

  • Estimation of Performance for Proposed Projects and Programs

    This research will develop guidance for transportation agencies to use in predicting performance for proposed projects and programs, including what measures to calculate, how to address common challenges, and how to report results.



    Background

    Frequently transportation agencies must communicate the benefits of performing a proposed project or program of projects, such as through reporting predicted reduction of delay, change in asset conditions, safety benefits, emissions reductions, or other types of performance impacts that may result from a project or program. Further, including information on performance for a proposed project or program can be an effective way to build support for a project or program, and can help support investment prioritization. However, there is little consistency between transportation agencies concerning what performance measures are calculated for proposed projects or programs, or how common measures are calculated.
    Research is needed to develop guidance concerning reporting of predicted performance for proposed projects and programs. The research should help transportation agencies determine:
    • What performance measures to calculate
    • How to calculate them
    • How best to report predicted performance for multiple projects and programs over time.
    The research should address performance measures related to
    • Congestion
    • Safety
    • Asset conditions
    • Emissions
    • Additional measures, such as measures of sustainability and livability.

    Objectives

    This research will develop guidance for transportation agencies to use in predicting performance for proposed projects and programs, including guidance on:
    1. What performance measures to calculate
    2. How to address common challenges that may impede predicting performance, such as limitations in available data
    3. How to report performance

  • Organizational Models, Roles, and Training for Transportation Performance Management

    The objective of this research will be to produce resources to help transportation agencies improve capabilities needed to implement TPM. This includes examples of organizational models, setting roles and responsibilities, and determining training needs.



    Background

    Transportation performance management (TPM) offers agencies an array of opportunities to increase positive outcomes with available resources. These opportunities include:
    • Application of performance measures that relate performance outcomes to investments
    • Deployment of applications that support enhanced decision-making
    • Streamlining of processes to expedite program and project delivery
    • Prioritizing needs to allocate resources where they are most needed
    • Enabling better collaboration amongst stakeholders
    As tools and techniques advance, organizational capabilities in transportation agencies must also advance to realize the benefits of TPM. Many organizational models and role types exist for TPM programs. Matching the right model and role types with people are integral ingredients for realizing the positive outcomes that are possible with TPM. Transportation agencies today need assistance in improving organizational capacity to adopt TPM benefits.

    Objectives

    This research will produce resources to help transportation agencies improve organizational capabilities needed to implement TPM. These resources will be designed to supplement work being developed by the FHWA for its TPM Technical Assistance Program and is intended to be available on the AASHTO Standing Committee on Performance Management website. Three concepts will be produced through this research:
    1. Organizational models for TPM programs
    2. TPM roles and responsibilities
    3. Training needs for TPM roles