Conference Proceedings 26 - Transportation Research Board

54 PERFORMANCE MEASURES TO IMPROVE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS AND AGENCY OPERATIONSence, what gets measured is viewed as being moreimportant and what is not measured as less important.For performance measurement to thrive, indicatorsof what is important in an organization—goals, strategies, policies, programs, and projects—must be aligned in all directions: vertically, spanningthe hierarchy; horizontally, spanning the functionalspecialties and geographic turf; and diagonally, spanninghorizontal and vertical dimensions simultaneously.It is surprising how often this alignment simplydoes not occur. It is not good for headquarters tofocus on key measures of critical importance to theleadership while the field, where much of the workgets done, is on a different page. It does not help ifone or more of the essential organizational units responsiblefor working together on a particular initiativefails to understand the effort required and theresults expected. Yet how incredibly common is thisoccurrence in our collective experience?At one end of an organization, polices, strategies,and goals are articulated. At the other end, operationalactivities produce outcomes. The need to definethose outcomes in the context of performanceobjectives and measures that align with policies,strategies, and goals is fundamental. Clear and focusedcommunication and teamwork among all affectedorganizational units, as well as strong and sustainedleadership and commitment, are keys toachieving omnidirectional alignment. It is a neverendingprocess of sensing differences, respondingconstructively, and developing a clear consensus.SurvivalOne of the major questions we face in introducingorganizational change is whether the changes will besustained over the long run, whether they will be unceremoniouslydropped at the next change in leadership,or whether they will simply fade away overtime.The common goal of champions of change is toinstitutionalize what they perceive as new positivepractice. Certainly, this is what would be expectedamong the sponsors of performance measurement.Barring a conscious effort to the contrary, the hopewould be that performance measurement would becomeso deeply ingrained in the culture of the organizationand the benefits so apparent that it wouldbe unthinkable to stop. The tendency at all levelswould be to continue the practice because it workswell.The key is to address the issue of ingraining suchchanges in the fabric of an organization at the veryoutset. The manner by which the first seeds of performancemeasures are sown will have a strong bearingon whether the underlying philosophy and dayto-daypractice become firmly rooted. It depends inno small way on whether there is a well-thought-outstrategy for implementation developed with the involvementof the people who will be affected, fromdata collectors to decision makers.• Is there a well-thought-through plan of attack?• Is the plan being discussed openly and often?• Is the plan well understood?• Is the plan widely supported?• Is the plan taking root in a systematic and deliberativemanner?• Is there provision built into the plan for refinementand continuous improvement?Implementing performance measurement is not acakewalk and is not to be taken lightly. It demandsstrong leadership coupled with sensitivity, skill, goodwill, and intuitive common sense. If it seems right, itvery likely is. However, if it seems wrong, it likelyis too.U.S. Department of Transportation ExperienceIn 1992, the then-new administration in Washingtoninitiated the National Performance Review under theleadership of Vice President Al Gore. In 1993, theU.S. Congress enacted the Government Performanceand Review Act. The legislation required each agencyto develop a 5-year strategic plan; define its missions,goals, and objectives; establish annual performanceplans and budgets; identify performance measures;and prepare an annual performance report.Within the federal establishment, the U.S. Departmentof Transportation (DOT) has been praised forits work in establishing national performance objectivesand measures. However, the response from stateand local transportation officials has been quite different.From their perspective, federally developedmeasures applied to highway and transit systemsowned and operated by the states and localities havebeen inappropriate and intrusive.This dilemma is fraught with difficulty. The federalgovernment finances a significant share of capital investmenton the nation’s arterial highways and transitsystems. From that perspective, it makes sense forCongress and U.S. DOT to seek ways to measure theeffectiveness of these investments in terms of safety,service levels, and structural integrity of the nation’sprincipal transportation infrastructure. However, thestates and local areas own, operate, and maintainthese arterial highways and transit systems. Many of