California Department of Transportation

Project Management

1998/99 Performance Report

CAPITAL SUPPORT PERFORMANCE MEASURES

II.  SUMMARY OF CAPITAL SUPPORT PERFORMANCE MEASURES

PM# Description Target 1998/99 Achievement
1
Capital Support in Context
None Info Only
2
Support / Capital
Trend 43%
3
Quality
TBD Not available
4
Project Delivery (#)
>90% 91%
5
Project Delivery (Programmed$)
>100% 117%
6
Days Worked / Days Allotted
< 110% 122%
7
Awared$ / Programmed$
85% - 100% 82%
8
PFE$ / Award$
< 100% 101%
9
FE$/Award$
< 103% 101%
10
Capital Delivery
Not available Eliminated
11
Act.PjD Supp$/Prog PjD Supp$
TBD 71%
12
Act.PjD Supp$/Prog PjD Supp$
TBD 101%

III.  RELATIONSHIP OF PROGRAM PERFORMANCE MEASURES TO DEPARTMENTAL 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. These are 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, a tool, business rules, and the electronic tool necessary for implementation of this measure are expected to be in place by June 2000.

B.  Time Growth Indicator

This indicator measures 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 measures the Department's ability to complete projects on or ahead of schedule. A baseline was developed at the beginning of the FY 1998/99. Accomplishment was:

FY 98/99

58.3%

As this is the first year for this measurement, analysis indicates a need to better estimate future completion dates, and to more accurately develop the baseline. Both efforts are underway for the 1999/00 FY. The target or goal for this indicator should be at least 90%.

C.  Capital Cost Growth Indicator

As shown above, this indicator is a composite index formed by multiplying PMs 7, 8 and 9 resulting in an index that approximates final estimates to original programmed amounts. It measures the Department's overall success in delivering projects within budget over the entire project life cycle, and is shown, below:

FY 98/99

83.5%

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 accuracy in 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 93/94
FY 94/95
1995 Alloc.Plan FY 96/97 FY 97/98 FY 98/99

110%

73%

118%

111%

117%

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. It measures the Department's overall success in keeping total support expenditures within project support budgets and, for the 1998/99 fiscal year was:

FY 98/99

77.6%


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 in the range of 80% - 100%.

Previous Page