Performance Report 1997/98
Project Management
1997/98 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 DEPARTMENT PERFORMANCE MEASURES
During the process of developing corporate performance measures, it was decided that Caltrans’ 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:
Departmental Performance Measure-Project Delivery
| Corporate Indicator | Captial Support Measure |
|---|---|
Quality |
COS PM#3-Rate Final Product |
Time Growth |
New measure: |
Capital Cost Growth |
PM#7 x PM#8 x PM#9 |
Capital Delivery |
COS PM#5 |
Support Cost |
Weighted avg.of PM#11 and PM#12 |
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 and put into use during the 1998/99 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 construction completion (construct contract acceptance, or CCA) that were completed in the fiscal year or earlier, as a percentage of the total number of projects scheduled for construction completion in the fiscal year. This will measure the Department’s ability to complete projects on or ahead of schedule. A baseline has been 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 Department’s overall success in delivering projects within budget over the entire project life cycle. Reporting this indicator will begin in the 1998/99 fiscal year.
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 Department’s 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 | FY 97/98 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
105% |
110% |
73% |
118% |
111% |
117% |
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 Department’s 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. Reporting this indicator will begin in the 1998/99 fiscal year.
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.