Environmental Performance Measures for State Departments of Transportation (2015)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

46 This three-part chapter examines: (1) performance-based decision making in DOTs, (2) using environmental measures in a DOT, and (3) first principles for using performance targets. The environment is a more multi-faceted topic compared with other major strategic issues in a state DOT’s portfolio, such as bridge condition, safety, or congestion. (Under the umbrella of “environment,” for example, energy issues are quite unrelated to endangered species issues.) Furthermore, some environmental issues are partially or completely outside a DOT’s control, which means environmental performance outcomes are not always greatly influenced by the kinds of decisions a DOT has authority to make, and targets met (or missed) are not necessarily a result of DOT actions. As a result, use of each measure in target setting or decision making should reflect the function(s) it is best suited to supporting and its applicability to different elements of a DOT’s mission: • Function of Measures within a DOT. Research indicates that measures in a DOT mostly serve one or more of three broad functions: (1) some function best as ways to build external accountability and enhance a DOT’s credibility, (2) others function as analytic and internally oriented decision-support tools, and (3) some serve as management tools for signaling where staff should focus their efforts. • Applicability of Measures to Core DOT Mission Elements. A DOT’s mission can be broken into a series of elements that begin with strategic planning and go through long-range plan development, to short-range programming, project planning, design, construction, and end with system operations and maintenance. Different measures have different degrees of relevance to each of these elements. Each suggested environmental measure should be integrated into target setting and decision making according to the particular function(s) it best serves and the DOT mission element(s) for which it has greatest relevance. 5.1 Performance-Based Decision Making in DOTs In this section, the research and literature on how DOTs are using performance-based deci- sion making, performance measures, targets, and performance management are reviewed, and important lessons learned are highlighted. Elements of Performance Management Performance management is a business process widely used among DOTs, in which performance measures and targets are lynch pins that link agencywide organizational strategic goals—like safety, access, mobility, or economic prosperity—with decisions about how to make best use of staff C H A P T E R 5 First Principles for Using Environmental Performance Measures

First Principles for Using Environmental Performance Measures 47 resources and funding to influence outcomes. A generic framework for performance management at a state DOT contains the following basic elements: • Strategic Planning. The first step in performance management is strategic planning, which has many variants, but generally includes setting a vision/mission, goals, and objectives; determining actions to achieve the goals; and mobilizing resources to execute the actions. A strategic plan describes how the ends (goals) will be achieved by the means (resources). An organization’s senior leadership is generally tasked with creating its strategic plan. • Measures. Well-chosen and carefully crafted measures give DOT staff, managers, or executives, and their stakeholders an objective and quantitative depiction of positive or negative trends in performance for strategic goals, and the pace at which change is occurring. The mere act of mea- surement is usually characterized as an important driver of “what gets measured gets done” (9). • Target Setting. Effective performance management also requires targets that complement basic performance trend information. A target is a quantifiable point in time at which an assigned level of performance shall be achieved. As described in NCHRP Report 666: Target Setting Methods and Data Management to Support Performance-Based Resource Allocation by Transportation Agencies, well-chosen targets show what performance is achievable in a world of competing objectives, funding constraints, and political considerations (10). MAP-21 requires state DOTs and metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) to set targets for forthcoming national performance measures in the areas of infrastructure condition, safety, and system performance. • Decision Making. To varying degrees and at various degrees of sophistication among different parts of their organizations, state DOTs are integrating strategic planning, measures, and tar- gets to support decisions. At the advanced end of the spectrum, some DOTs have developed highly analytic and data intensive processes, particularly in the area of asset condition, that use performance information to inform complex decisions, such as if, when, where, and how to repair roads and bridges. Together, performance measures and targets are used in conjunction with strategic planning to inform a cyclical decision-making process of (1) diagnosing problems, if any, that require action, (2) informing decisions on how to resolve them, and (3) monitoring progress toward eliminating problems. Figure 12 has been adapted from NCHRP Report 660 and shows how these elements work together in a cyclical process. Source: NCHRP Report 660: Transportation Performance Management Programs: Insights from Practitioners (2009). Figure 12. Performance management elements.

48 Environmental Performance Measures for State Departments of Transportation Functions of Performance Management Reports such as NCHRP Report 660 and the NCHRP Project 20-24/Task 83 report titled Alternative DOT Organizational Models for Delivering Service identify three broad functions for performance management (11, 12). Different measures and targets can serve all or some of these functions to varying degrees: • Accountability. DOT leaders stress the vital importance of ensuring agency credibility with state legislatures, specific stakeholders, and the public. Gaining credibility often means, in part, ensuring performance meets stakeholders’ expectations. The introduction by Congress of national performance measures under MAP-21 is now driving an even greater focus on accountability. In some instances, a target provides a clear focus on accountability, which DOT stakeholders are increasingly demanding. Targets can also highlight performance gaps when measure outcomes fall short, which can be helpful in making the case for additional resources, policy changes, or other steps required to address performance problems. • Decision Support. State DOTs are being pushed to achieve greater efficiency and to “do more with less.” This is occurring as agencies’ roles are growing, staffing levels are being cut, and there is increased pressure to outsource. Together, these considerations are pushing DOTs to find ways to use data to make better decisions. For example, while strategic plans establish important priorities in qualitative terms, setting a target for performance provides a measure of the size of any performance gap, which can be valuable in helping a DOT calibrate its actions in response. Alternatively, performance targets provide a way to evaluate the probable effectiveness of proposed investment strategies or other policy initiatives. In long-range plans, for example, many DOTs now evaluate the potential performance impact of different invest- ment scenarios. • Management. Lastly, performance measures help management signal priorities to staff in a world where a combination of aging infrastructure, growing congestion, shrinking revenues, and other challenges create many competing priorities. Setting a target for performance can provide a clear aspirational goal for staff to work toward. Sometimes DOTs even link individual annual performance reviews of senior staff to achievement of targets. DOT Mission Elements Any DOT’s mission is characterized by a series of basic work elements, which include policy development, long-range planning, programming, project planning and review for compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), project design, construction, maintenance, and operations: • Strategic Planning/Policy Development. State DOTs have always operated in a shifting business environment; but this holds even truer today. Pressure to make government more efficient and more accountable, shrinking gas tax revenues, and a shift from building to maintaining the Interstate system are a few of today’s big external drivers for change in DOTs. DOT leaders increasingly recognize strategic planning as a vital tool to help their agencies stay on track in an evolving business environment. Strategic planning involves establishing a core set of policies to guide agency direction. Performance data can be a vital input alongside stake- holder opinions, regulatory requirements, and political considerations in informing choices about policy direction. • Long-Range Transportation Planning. The long-range planning process provides the means by which state DOTs translate complex national, state, and local transportation interests and anticipated funding availability into a vision for state transportation investment. States and regions develop their Long-Range Transportation Plans (LRTPs) through a range of approaches and plans take on many different forms from broad policy statements to specific preferred

First Principles for Using Environmental Performance Measures 49 investment strategies. An LRTP will often help quantify long-term needs, revenues, and funding gaps; identify and define investment strategies; and establish framework, priorities, or other guidance to drive shorter-term investment decisions. While state DOTs have leeway in how they develop and use their LRTPs, their planning pro- cesses must comply with federal planning laws, regulation, and guidance. These requirements include the basic requirement that states self-certify their long-range transportation planning process in conjunction with the submittal of a Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) at least once every 4 years. States also develop plans around planning factors that have evolved over time and dictate the various considerations that must be incorporated into state planning processes. Long-range planning is a point at which expectations for performance can be discussed—particularly in terms of desired performance outcomes—and broad performance goals established that drive subsequent investment patterns. • Short-Range Transportation Programming. State DOTs use capital programming to match up priority project-level transportation needs with funds to fulfill them. The short-range capital program is a generic term used to describe (1) an agency’s list of high-priority trans- portation projects with well-developed scopes and precise budgets to be built in a defined timeframe and (2) the process used by a state to arrive at the list by deciding how money for transportation will be spent among competing project needs. An effective capital program should ensure immediate, project-level spending decisions are on track toward making progress in achieving long-term transportation goals that support national, state, and local interests. Development of a state or local capital program is usually a collaborative effort among the state DOT and their local and federal partners. Transportation programming is a point at which broad expectations about performance established in long-range planning can be translated into implementation of a specific set of projects. • Project-Level Planning. Once a transportation project is identified in a capital program, project delivery begins with planning, which takes place before NEPA documents are prepared and which varies with projects and agencies. In general, planning efforts are most extensive for major projects with potential for the greatest environmental impacts. Minor projects, such as guard- rail replacement, acquisition of new buses, or roadway resurfacing may involve little or no planning activity. The planning phase helps agencies to identify project needs, community concerns, and potential solutions. In many states, early consideration of environmental issues before a NEPA document is prepared is an increasingly common part of project planning. Project-level performance measures may be used to inform project-level planning decisions. • Project-Level NEPA Review. Transportation infrastructure projects that receive federal support must follow an elaborate environmental review process designed to ensure that the impacts of federal actions on the environment are considered prior to project development. Environ- mental review procedures are guided by NEPA, which also functions as an umbrella process for assuring compliance with numerous other media-specific environmental laws and regulations that include permitting and consultation activities involving a variety of federal agencies. Frequent federal partners in this process include the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, EPA, and others. Most commonly, state DOTs lead the NEPA process, but it may be carried out by a transit agency or a large local transportation department. NEPA establishes three classes of environmental review actions for transportation projects, based on the magnitude of their anticipated environ- mental impacts including an environmental impact statement (EIS) for major projects where a significant environmental impact is anticipated, such as construction of a new segment of controlled access freeway. As in planning, project-level performance measures may be used to inform project-level NEPA decisions. • Project Design. Once the NEPA process is complete and a basic horizontal and vertical align- ment for the project is agreed upon, detailed engineering plans can be prepared. Most design

50 Environmental Performance Measures for State Departments of Transportation work is unrelated to environmental mitigation. Design work may include environmental compensation or enhancement features, such as stormwater control facilities, wetland miti- gation, or noise walls. Permits from natural resources agencies, such as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, may also be required at this phase during project delivery and require time to prepare and approve. Permits may be required for wetland restoration, stormwater runoff control, conservation of historic resources, or special construction management techniques. Design, land acquisition, and permitting represent a point at which predictions that occur in planning and NEPA review can be verified on the ground and translated into outcome measures of performance. • Construction. During construction, DOTs use contractors to build projects and DOTs typically retain an overall project management and oversight role. Many projects require erosion control practices that can reasonably be described as environmental costs. • Maintenance and Operations. Once a project is built, it is maintained and operated by the state or local agency. This function provides for repairs and preventive maintenance of state highways and the various signs and structures within the highway right of way, such as winter plowing and sanding, and year-round repairs to the state highway system. When Target Setting Is Not Helpful? Under some circumstances, performance management may be neither practical nor desirable: • Issues outside a DOT’s Control. Measures that track issues outside a DOT’s control may provide valuable transparency to stakeholders and an indication of an agency’s commitment to improvement. In this context, however, a target may serve little purpose, since the DOT has no power to achieve it. • Recently Established Measures. If a measure is newly created, target setting may be challenging because no historical precedent can be used as a yardstick for determining where to set the target. In this situation, any targets should be carefully portrayed as subject to revision once greater clarity emerges about performance trends. In these circumstances, targets and review of data that together constitute performance manage- ment may be either inconsequential and unnecessary, or even harmful if it draws staff attention away from other issues or causes stakeholder confusion. 5.2 Using Environmental Measures in a DOT In the second part of this chapter, the research team examines how each of the five envi- ronmental performance measurement goal areas of air quality, energy and climate, recycled materials, stormwater, and wildlife and ecosystems, can best be integrated into a performance management program within a state DOT. In particular, the team examines how the measures serve different functions and support different mission elements, as summarized in Table 14. Air Quality Change in Statewide Motor Vehicle Emissions Measure Function(s): Accountability Decision support Management Mission Element(s): Strategic Planning/Policy Development Long-Range Planning Short-Range Transportation Programming

Measure Funcons Applicability to Mission Element Account- ability Decision Support Manage- ment Strategic Planning Long- Range Planning Program Development Project Planning /NEPA Project Design Construcon Maintenance & Operaons Change in statewide motor vehicle emissions Statewide on-road gasoline consumpon per capita State DOT fleet alternave fuel use as a percent of total fleet fuel use Annual percentage by mass of all roadway asphalt pavement materials composed of reclaimed asphalt pavement (RAP) Percentage of state DOT-owned impervious surfaces for which stormwater treatment is provided Ecosystems Self-Assessment Tool (ESAT) score Key Measure is fully consistent with criteria Measure is mostly consistent with criteria Measure is somewhat consistent with criteria Measure lacks consistency with criteria Table 14. Summary of suggestions for integrating measures.

52 Environmental Performance Measures for State Departments of Transportation Project-Level Planning/NEPA Review Project Design Construction Maintenance and Operations Target Setting: Not appropriate State DOTs have marginal influence over total motor vehicle emissions, because the impact of project-level strategies to manage travel demand or congestion is dwarfed by changes in vehicle technology or fuels that reduce per vehicle emissions. The air quality measure is most relevant for states with air quality nonattainment areas; it provides an indication of trends in the trans- portation sector’s contribution to various air pollutants. The measure is most useful as a way to communicate to the public the role of transportation in generating pollutants that harm air quality. Performance results may be influenced over the long term by planning and building multi-modal transportation systems that offer low-emission travel choices and by reducing con- gestion that causes higher emissions, by using operational strategies and targeted capacity improve- ments. Such direction is usually established during strategic or long-range planning, and any performance trend information can help inform these functions. Energy and Climate Change Statewide On-Road Gasoline Consumption per Capita Measure Function(s): Accountability Decision support Management Mission Element(s): Strategic Planning/Policy Development Long-Range Planning Short-Range Transportation Programming Project-Level Planning/NEPA Review Project Design Construction Maintenance and Operations Target Setting: Not appropriate Energy consumption is a major environmental concern, but as with air quality, state DOTs have marginal control over energy consumption in the transportation sector because strategies to manage travel demand are much less effective than vehicle technologies or consumers’ choices that reduce the amount of energy consumed per mile of travel. The gas consumption per capita measure provides a straightforward indication of the transportation sector’s contribution to GHG emissions and share of overall energy use at a statewide level. As such, it helps shape strategies in the private and public sector for planning and building multi-modal transportation systems that offer energy-efficient travel choices. Such direction is usually established during strategic or long-range planning, and any performance trend information can help inform these functions. State DOT Fleet Alternative Fuel Use as a Percentage of Total Fleet Fuel Use Measure Function(s): Accountability Decision support Management Mission Element(s): Strategic Planning/Policy Development Long-Range Planning

First Principles for Using Environmental Performance Measures 53 Short-Range Transportation Programming Project-Level Planning/NEPA Review Project Design Construction Maintenance and Operations Target Setting: Yes. Based on data gathered as part of this report, a plausible target might range from 2 percent to 10 percent initially, with targets increasing over time. Considerations: All or some of the following factors may constrain a DOT’s target for this measure: statewide availability of alternative fuel sources, state rules governing vehicle acquisitions/modification, fleet turn- over rate. Conversely, state mandates for biofuels could help a DOT attain an alternative fuels target. Alternative fueled vehicles reduce the consumption of petroleum- derived fuels in most cases, and of GHG emissions in many cases. Unlike the air quality or gasoline consumption measures described previously, many state DOTs can have an impact on fuel choices within their vehicle fleet and some already encourage or mandate use of alternative fueled vehicles. The fleet alternative fuel measure is thus valuable as a tool for driving management direction, par- ticularly within a DOT’s maintenance and operations practices. It is also helpful to a limited extent in demonstrating an agency’s long-term commitment to improving the environment by pro- moting alternative fuel use. Materials Recycling Annual Percentage by Mass of All Roadway Asphalt Pavement Materials Composed of Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement (RAP) Measure Function(s): Accountability Decision support Management Mission Element(s): Strategic Planning/Policy Development Long-Range Planning Short-Range Transportation Programming Project-Level Planning/NEPA Review Project Design Construction Maintenance and Operations Target Setting: Yes. Based on data gathered as part of this report, a plausible target might range from 15 percent to 25 percent initially, with targets increasing over time. Considerations: All or some of the following factors may constrain a DOT’s target for this measure: statewide availability of RAP and materials specifi- cations governing how much RAP can be incorporated in asphalt. State DOTs establish specifications for pavement composition; therefore, they have control over the amount of RAP used in

54 Environmental Performance Measures for State Departments of Transportation pavements. The RAP measure is relevant to decision support; main- tenance or construction engineers can review trends and determine whether to be more aggressive about the use of RAP. Likewise, they can use the measure as a management tool for encouraging staff to consider greater use of RAP. The measure is also helpful to a limited extent as an accountability measure in demonstrating an agency’s long-term commitment to improving the environment by recycling and reusing. Stormwater Percentage of State DOT-Owned Impervious Surfaces for Which Stormwater Treatment is Provided Measure Function(s): Accountability Decision support Management Mission Element(s): Strategic Planning/Policy Development Long-Range Planning Short-Range Transportation Programming Project-Level Planning/NEPA Review Project Design Construction Maintenance and Operations Target Setting: As measure is developed by states, targets could be set, but target setting is premature at this time given the measure’s experimental status. Considerations: Not all roads need the same amount of stormwater treatment. Runoff from pavements is an environmental issue in many parts of the country, especially in urban areas where it can contribute to impairment of water bodies. State DOTs are increasingly develop- ing structural BMPs to help meet NPDES permitting requirements and therefore they can influence the proportion of state-owned impervious road surfaces for which treatment is provided. The stormwater performance measure’s value cuts across all functions and many decision-making phases in a DOT. Wildlife and Ecosystems Ecosystems Self-Assessment Tool (ESAT) Score Measure Function(s): Accountability Decision support Management Mission Element(s): Strategic Planning/Policy Development Long-Range Planning Short-Range Transportation Programming Project-Level Planning/NEPA Review Project Design Construction Maintenance and Operations

First Principles for Using Environmental Performance Measures 55 Target Setting: As measure is developed by states, targets could be set, but target setting is premature at this time given the measure’s experimental status. Considerations: Applicability of some of the factors in the ESAT may vary from state to state. It may be most appropriate to use the ESAT to track trends for each state, rather than to set targets. Key Measure completely applicable Measure mostly applicable Measure somewhat applicable Measure slightly applicable Measure not applicable 5.3 First Principles for Using Performance Targets Next, the team examines some first principles for beginning a performance management program and using performance targets. First Principles of Performance-Based Decision Making Together, NCHRP Report 660 and the NCHRP Project 8-36/Task 47 report titled Effective Orga- nization of Performance Management describe several success factors that characterize successful performance management programs (11, 13): • Begin by Taking on the Agency’s Most Pressing Challenges. Many of the programs evaluated as part of NCHRP Report 660 began as a response to a clear and present problem faced by the agency, rather than a broad desire for performance management by virtue of its own merits. While a crisis is neither necessary nor sufficient to highlight the need for better, more informed decision making, a proposed program should initially highlight areas of concern that an agency wants most to address, and these areas of concern should be important to employees throughout the agency, not just the top executives. • Use Performance Measures as Agents for Change. Just as performance management is most effectively implemented in response to specifically identified challenges, the underlying measures themselves are most useful when they provide a laser-like focus on a DOT’s most challenging problems. To avoid the risk of “diluting” the original objectives of performance management, agencies should resist attempts to institute performance management in every aspect of an agency, especially early in program development. Furthermore, within a particu- lar agency function the specific measures used should be tailored to the challenges at hand, even if the result is that certain aspects of that department or function are not measured. • Provide Bold Leadership Stemming from the Top of the Agency. Leaders either bring a performance management philosophy to their position or imprint their own leadership style on an existing program. Particularly when performance management is implemented in response to concerns about agency accountability, it is often in conjunction with changes in leadership. To emphasize that a fundamental change is taking place in the way the agency does business, it is helpful to accompany these changes in philosophy and leadership style with a bold and identifiable new agency program or initiative. Many agencies that have successfully implemented performance management have done so through the introduction of a new agencywide initiative specifically aimed at promoting performance and accountability. • Focus on Initiating a Performance Management Program, Not on Completing It. No agency ever “finishes” its performance management program. In fact, it is doubtful that a

56 Environmental Performance Measures for State Departments of Transportation “complete” performance management program is even possible or desirable. Rather, successful systems build on initial successes and continually refine their program, performance measures, and supporting data. Continuous improvement includes changing goals and objectives based on data analysis, improving data collection and use, changing fiscal or political constraints, and others. • Have Top-Level Leadership. Commitment to performance measurement from a CEO- level leader fosters broad employee support. If an organization’s leader promotes the use of performance data for decision making, resource allocation, and/or guiding agency direction, the performance measurement program is more likely to receive support from within the organization. • Have Career/Senior Management Leaders. Championship of performance measures by career- level managers helps institutionalize a performance measurement program even through changes in administration or CEOs. These champions provide day-to-day leadership and continuity that help sustain performance monitoring on an organization’s agenda, even when changes in administration occur. • Create Performance Measurement Culture and Employee Accountability. Creating a culture where performance measurement is accepted and supported helps motivate employees to participate and strengthens program continuity over time. Ownership and employee buy-in are fostered when staff has an expectation that measurement reports will be regularly reviewed and acted on. A consistent and stable program can improve the value of an agency’s performance measurement program over time and create an expectation that performance measurement is becoming a part of an agency’s operation and not simply a short-term initiative. • Link Measures with Actions. The process of reviewing measure results should be linked to decision making processes that allow appropriate actions to be taken, including resource allocation decisions, to support steps for addressing issues identified during review of perfor- mance results. • Establish Decentralized Responsibility. Establishing widespread responsibility for perfor- mance measurement implementation is likely to ensure it has its greatest impact. The key is to identify effective participants across the agency, engage knowledgeable staff, and develop reporting mechanisms that expand responsibility for the program beyond a centralized over- view of performance results. • Institute Cyclical Reporting on Performance. Regularly scheduled reporting, especially for external audiences, is likely to increase agency accountability for decision making and delivery. Agency reports on key performance indicators establish expectations among legislators and other key decision makers for continued performance-based decision making that support program stability over time. Clear, regularly scheduled reports also provide a consistent dis- cussion document when addressing resource needs. First Principles of Performance Target Setting Target setting is described in NCHRP Report 551: Performance Measures and Targets for Trans- portation Asset Management as a “delicate exercise” (14). Organizations must define baseline, reasonable, and “stretch” levels of performance and then reconcile them with existing and desired organizational competencies and goals. And the targets they set must motivate high performance without encouraging risky behavior or attempts to game the system. Several simple principles can help ensure targets are a useful part of the performance management process not a hindrance: • Establish a Framework for Performance-Based Management. Targets and decisions should be anchored in a set of policy goals and objectives that identify an organization’s desired direction and reflect its business environment.

First Principles for Using Environmental Performance Measures 57 • Review Trend Data. Targets should not be set in isolation; they should be based on reliable data, gathered over several years, that provides a long-term perspective on trends and pace of change to ensure targets are viable. • Work Collaboratively. Target setting should be part of a continuing, cooperative, and com- prehensive planning process for performance measurement that brings together affected entities inside (and outside, where appropriate) the state DOT. Unless performance targets are set with the concurrence of key decision makers and stakeholders, the effectiveness of performance measurement as a management tool is almost certain to be compromised. • Be Realistic and Consider Influences on Targets. Many issues where performance is measured are somewhat, mostly, or completely beyond the state DOT’s control. Targets should reflect the reality of conditions like political or legislative influence, customer and stakeholder perspectives, agency experience with targets, financial resources, timespans, risks, and strategic priorities. • Revisit Regularly. The feasibility of targets should be assessed regularly and updated as needed to reflect evolving risks such as new revenue expectations, changing strategic priorities, political realities, ease of achieving targets, and increasing experience in performance management. Focus on continuous improvement by revising/adding new metrics as needed. • Be Patient. Allow a reasonable amount of time for achieving targets because a measurable change may take considerable effort. In the short term, consider setting an easy short-term target, a moderately challenging target for the medium term, and a stretch target for the long term. • Guard against Unintended Consequences. Consider how targets set for one measure could have unintended consequences for the performance of another measure due to resources shifting to other priorities. • Be Transparent. Setting targets should be accompanied by a rationale for selecting the specific target value. • Track Progress. Virtually all public and private organizations that employ performance management track the impact of their investments in achieving specific targets by preparing periodic performance measure “snapshots” in which red, yellow, and green colored shapes represent annual progress relative to targets. • Accountability and Rewards. When employees understand that their job performance is gauged in part by the outcomes of appropriate performance measures, they are much more apt to see the “big picture” in their work, and to find management strategies that influence results. Therefore a crucial component of performance-based management is cultivating an agency philosophy that stresses the idea that “we’re all in this together.” Likewise, reward business areas that consistently meet targets and goals. Consistent achievement in meeting targets is a powerful motivator for behavior—success breeds success.