California Department of Transportation

Project Management

1996/97 Performance Report

CAPITAL SUPPORT PERFORMANCE MEASURES

II.  SUMMARY OF CAPITAL SUPPORT PERFORMANCE MEASURES


PM# Description Target 1996/97 Achievement
1
Capital Support in Context
None Info Only
2
Support / Capital
< 33% 30%
3
Quality
TBD Not available
4
Project Delivery (#)
>92% 93%
5
Project Delivery (Programmed$)
>100% 111%
6
Days Worked / Days Allotted
< 110% 113%
7
Awared$ / Programmed$
< 100% Not available
8
PFE$ / Award$
< 100% 97%
9
FE$/Award$
< 103% 103%
10
Capital Delivery
Not available Eliminated
11
Act.PjD Supp$/Prog PjD Supp$
Not available Not available
12
Act.PjD Supp$/Prog PjD Supp$
Not available Not available

III.  RELATIONSHIP OF PROGRAM PERFORMANCE MEASURES TO DEPARTMENTAL PERFORMANCE

During the process of developing corporate performance measures, it was decided that Caltransí programs would supply indicators to the departmental measures. The Project Management Program provided five indicators for the corporate performance measure Project Delivery. Two of these indicators are supplied directly by program performance measures; one is a new measure; one is a multiplicative composite of three program measures; and one is a weighted average of two program measures. This is summarized below:

Department Performance Measure-Project Delivery

Corporate Indicator Captial Support Measure

Quality

COS PM#3-Rate Final Product

Time Growth

New measure:
No.of projects completed
No.of projects scheduled for completion

Capital Cost Growth

PM#7 x PM#8 x PM#9
Or:
$Awd x $PFE x $FE = $FE
$Prog    $Awd   $PFE   $Prog

Capital Delivery

COS PM#5
$Value of projects delivered
$Value of projects programmed

Support Cost

Weighted avg.of PM#11 and PM#12
Or:
(Act proj Dev Supp + Const Supp Costs)
(Prog proj Dev Sup + Const Supp Costs)

Data used in the development of program Performance Measures 1 and 2 will be used by Corporate Administration to supply indicators for the corporate performance measure "Managing Resources".

A.  Quality Indicator

As stated previously, the survey and rating system envisioned for this measure will be finalized in the latter half of this fiscal year.

B.  Time Growth Indicator

A new measure is proposed to supply this indicator. This indicator will measure the number of projects scheduled for completion that were completed in the fiscal year or earlier, as a percentage of the total number of projects scheduled for completion in the fiscal year. This will measure the Departmentís ability to complete projects on or ahead of schedule. There is currently no baseline data for this. A baseline will be developed and reporting will begin in FY 1998/99.

The target or goal for this indicator should be at least 100%.

C.  Capital Cost Growth Indicator

As shown above, this indicator will be a composite index formed by multiplying PMs 7, 8 and 9 resulting in an index that approximates final estimates to original programmed amounts. It will measure the Departmentís overall success in delivering projects within budget over the entire project life cycle. Since there is no reliable historical data for PM #7, this index cannot be computed currently.

It is important to emphasize that this is an index only since it involves different sets of projects for each component measure. However, over time, it can become an effective comparative measure of overall performance of estimating, programming and budgeting.

The target or goal for this indicator should be not greater than 100%.

D.  Capital Delivery Indicator

As discussed previously, Performance Measure #5 is reported to the CTC as the measure of capital delivery. This measures the dollar value of projects delivered to the value of projects programmed. Or, put in other terms, it measures the Departmentís performance in completing the design of programmed projects within or ahead of schedule. Below are the percentage results for the following years:

FY 92/93
FY 93/94
FY 94/95 1995 Alloc Plan FY 96/97

105%

110%

73%

118%

111%


The target or goal for this indicator should be at least 100%.

E.  Support Cost Indicator

This indicator is a weighted average of Performance Measures 11 and 12 combining total support costs over Project Development, Right of Way and Construction. This measures the Departmentís overall success in keeping total support expenditures within project support budgets.

As mentioned in the discussion of Performance Measures 11 and 12, data for this indicator is dependent on a system to track project costs across splits and combines.

Similar to the Capital Cost Growth Indicator, it should be emphasized that two different sets of projects are involved in the component measures. This can also be an effective comparative measure over time as well as a measurement for continuous improvement.

The target for this indicator should be not greater than 100%, but data will have to be provided to support this.

Previous Page