Performance Report 1996/97

• Part I, Sections A - C
• Part I, Sections D - F
• Parts II and III

• Chronology 1996
• Chronology 1997

• Comments

Project Management

1996/97 Performance Report

CAPITAL SUPPORT PERFORMANCE MEASURES

D.  Quality Measure

Performance Measure #3 was proposed as a quality measure, to rate the final product at acceptance. While measuring quality will introduce subjectivity, complete measurement must include quality along with time and cost. This will entail development of a customer or stakeholder survey and a rating system. The September 1996 Peer Review Team recommended a standardized process for capturing customer satisfaction. We contracted with, and received assistance from the Survey Research Center at California State University, Chico, in using focus groups to develop and test an instrument to measure customer satisfaction. The goal will be to finalize development of an instrument by the end of the fiscal year so that it can be used in FY 1998/99.

E.  Time Growth Measures

Performance Measures 4 and 5 measure the Department’s success in completing the design of programmed projects within or ahead of schedule. PM #4 measures the number of programmed projects that are ready to list; PM #5 measures the dollar value. Graphs for these two measures for recent years are shown on the next page:

The performance measures for FY 1994/95 are notably lower than the other years shown. The principal reason for this was that there was not sufficient funding available for the STIP, SHOPP and TSM as programmed. Recognition of this led to the adoption of the eighteen month 1995 Allocation Plan extending from January 1995 to June 1996. Other factors contributing to the FY 1994/95 variation were the CTC revising the reporting methodology to segregate programmed projects from emergency and seismic retrofit projects, and the need to deliver emergency storm damage projects caused by the January and March 1995 storms. However, 1994/95 delivery utilized all available funding and $56 million of projects were placed on the shelf.

Targets: The above data indicates that the Department has had a higher percentage programmed dollars delivered than projects. More dollars are deliverable than are programmed because as certain projects are delayed, they are replace by the early delivery of other projects. Therefore, slightly different goals should apply. The data suggest that in more normal years, not skewed by seismic or unusual numbers of emergency projects, 90% project delivery is possible and 100% or more dollar delivery is possible. Therefore, the Project Management Program recommends an aggressive goal of at 92% for PM #4 and a goal of at least 100% for PM #5.

Performance Measure #6 measures contract time during construction, excluding weather days, as a percentage of original allotted days at time of award. Recent performance for this measure is shown on the next page:

Target: While a goal of not greater than 100% might be the ideal state, actual experience would indicate that this is not realistic. A goal of not greater than 110% with continuous improvement is recommended.

F.  Capital Cost Growth Measures

Performance Measures 7, 8 and 9 address capital cost growth during project development and construction. PM #7 measures the Department’s success in delivering projects within their programmed amount by expressing the award cost of programmed projects as a percentage of the amount programmed for those projects.

Currently available data is not reliable or accurate to track this measure historically. To correct this requires resolving the project identifier issue and developing a solid process for maintaining a continuing project inventory and tracking project costs across splits and combines. A Project Manager has been assigned and a Project Team formed for Project Financial Accountability and Cost Tracking (PFACT). This team will develop the ability to identify projects and to: track their project specific costs (and compare against budgeted amounts) as they either split into multiple projects or combine; establish relationships between projects and their funding in programming documents and expenditure authorizations in TRAMS, and; report summarized project financial data. While a PFACT project workplan and schedule has not yet been fully developed, the Department is anticipating being able to implement the core portion of PFACT by January 1999.

Performance Measures 8 and 9 measure capital cost growth during construction. PM #8 measures the proposed final estimate (PFE) for projects completed in a particular year as a percentage of award allotment value of those projects. PM #9 measures the final estimate for projects finalized in a particular year as a percentage of the PFE of those projects. Displays of PM #8 and PM #9 for recent fiscal years follow:

1996/97 Capital Support Expenditures by Activity Category and Percent Expenditure

Activity Category	FY 1992/93	FY 1993/94	FY 1994/95	FY 1995/96	FY 1996/97
Award Allotment	$1,297	$1,014	$1,094	$1,207	$1,087
PFE	$1,282	$1,039	$1,097	$1,221	$1,093
PM#8	98.9%	102.5%	100.3%	101.2%	100.6%