Asset Management - Performance Management Peer Exchange

1. Asset Management - Performance Management Peer Exchange Performance Reporting and Target Setting Tuesday, July 27th Francis G. Ziegler, P.E. NDDOT Director

2. How should performance targets be set: what percentage of pavements, bridges, or other assets have to be in acceptable condition? • State specific – states have different priorities and different customer perspectives which leads to different levels of expectations.

3. For pavements, how can IRI and other pavement condition information be used to categorize pavements as good, fair, or poor and/or what constitutes a state of good repair ? • IRI has many variables: • Different equipment and calibration methods. • Different IRI levels represent different levels of pavement condition. • Setting pavement categories as good, fair, or poor should be done on the national level and targets set at the state level.

4. Department of Transportation's road work goes high-tech

5. How do we ensure consistency of condition reporting among states? • Difficult due to differences: • Budgets • Equipment • Environment • Staffing/organizational culture • Customer expectations

6. How do unique differences among states in terms of weather conditions, degree of urbanization, age of the system and other factors like this enter into determining what the targets should be? • All state systems vary in age, traffic volume, reaction to weather & environmental challenges.

7. How do you ensure that professional judgment that takes into account unique local conditions or factors is part of the decision making process at a state or national-level? • Professional judgment can’t be programmed, but must be considered on basis of local factor. • Different information gathering processes offer other perspectives to be offered during the planning phase of the project development.

8. Non-Comparable issues • Bridges – Would ND build a bridge to deal with the same seismic conditions as California? • Pavement striping - Would Florida need to replace their pavement striping as frequent as North Dakota and other Midwestern states would with all of the plowing during the winter? Nile Valley Landslide Yakima, Washington

9. Non-Comparable issues • Pavement – Would I-5 in Washington deteriorate faster due to traffic conditions than I-94 in North Dakota? Pembina, N.D. surrounded by water

10. Performance Management Discussion • Stakeholder expectations for all levels of service are different for each state. • Whereas – Targets need to be set by each state DOT in order to address; legislative priorities, different levels and methods of funding, and different areas and levels of stakeholder expectations.

11. Investigating Performance Management

12. Why performance management? • Demonstrate clear linkage between government expenditures and transportation agency results • Accountability and transparency - show what the public receives for its transportation investment • Improved decision making and investment processes

13. Who should be involved? • Who determines goals, measures, sets targets… • Collaborative effort from all levels of government • One level should not mandate the performance of another • Broad policy goals set at national level • Allow each state to negotiate measures and priorities important to their unique circumstances and set appropriate targets

14. Where do we begin? • Agreement on federal and state roles • AASHTO SCOPM work • USDOT Strategic Plan • International Scan – Linking Transportation Performance and Accountability April 2010 (FHWA-PL-10-011)

15. How do we ensure consistency among states? • Is it necessary? • Is it more important that states have measures and targets appropriate to their situation ? • Is it more important to ensure each individual state is held accountable to their agreed upon performance management system ? • Is it similar to federal requirements for STIP and Long Range Transportation Plan? Excellent guides already exist for possible measures that states could draw from (AASHTO/FHWA/USDOT)

16. What goal areas should be included in law? Proposed: • Safety • Pavement Preservation • Bridge Preservation • Congestion • Freight/Economic Competitiveness • System Operations • Environment • Livability

17. When to learn from others? • International Technology Scanning Program – “Linking Transportation Performance and Accountability” April 2010 Report – Other nations doing Performance Management for over a decade. • “The nations it studied articulated a limited number of national transportation policy goals, negotiate intergovernmental agreements on how state, regional, and local agencies will achieve the goals, and evaluate performance by tracking the measures and reporting them in clear language appropriate to the audience.”

18. Performance Indicators

19. Performance Indicators

20. Performance Indicators

21. North Dakota’s Perspective

22. ND Perspective on Performance Reporting & Target Setting • Performance Measures Report Card • Customer Satisfaction • Employee Satisfaction • Worker Safety • Highway Safety • Highway System Condition • Project Development & Delivery

23. ND Perspective on Performance Reporting & Target Setting • Legislatively Approved Highway Performance Classification System • Prioritized 5-tier system to identify desired levels of service in the following areas: • Ride & Distress • Load Capacity • Access Management • Investment Strategy

24. ND Perspective on Performance Reporting & Target Setting All data tied to common reference system: • Extensive quality data • Pavement condition • Highway components • Video log tied to GIS data • Sign inventory • Robust pavement management system and bridge management system • Strategic committee actively working to continue advancing asset management within the organization

25. ND Perspective on Performance Reporting & Target Setting • Mandated specific performance measures and targets could result in the need for extensive changes in state’s data collection, analysis, and reporting methods = time and resources. • Momentum is there for improving asset management and performance management. Too many prescriptive changes could affect momentum due to efforts needed to comply.

26. ND Perspective on Performance Reporting & Target Setting • Individual states are best equipped to determine measures that fit their needs and set targets that are reasonable and appropriate to advancing their missions.

27. ND Perspective on Performance Reporting & Target Setting • All agencies are doing Performance Management and Asset Management at some level. • No one system is “right” for everyone. • Emphasis should be placed on ensuring systems and processes are in place that work for each individual state and continuous effort is made to enhance the systems.

29. AASHTO Model of Goal areas AASHTO has determined the following goal areas: AASHTO & FHWA Performance Measures for Eight Goals Draft dated 7-12-10