Developing a Guide for Managing Performance to Enhance Decision-Making (2022)

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.

NCHRP Web-Only Document 317 Developing a Guide for Managing Performance to Enhance Decision-Making Anna Batista Joe Crossett High Street Consulting Group Pittsburgh, PA Michael Grant Beth Zgoda Hannah Twaddel ICF International Washington, D.C. Conduct of Research Report for NCHRP Project 02-27 Submitted January 2021 NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM Systematic, well-designed, and implementable research is the most effective way to solve many problems facing state departments of transportation (DOTs) administrators and engineers. Often, highway problems are of local or regional interest and can best be studied by state DOTs individually or in cooperation with their state universities and others. However, the accelerating growth of highway transportation results in increasingly complex problems of wide interest to highway authorities. These problems are best studied through a coordinated program of cooperative research. Recognizing this need, the leadership of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) in 1962 initiated an objective national highway research program using modern scientific techniques—the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP). NCHRP is supported on a continuing basis by funds from participating member states of AASHTO and receives the full cooperation and support of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), United States Department of Transportation, under Agreement No. 693JJ31950003. COPYRIGHT INFORMATION Authors herein are responsible for the authenticity of their materials and for obtaining written permissions from publishers or persons who own the copyright to any previously published or copyrighted material used herein. Cooperative Research Programs (CRP) grants permission to reproduce material in this publication for classroom and not-for-profit purposes. Permission is given with the understanding that none of the material will be used to imply TRB, AASHTO, FAA, FHWA, FTA, GHSA, NHTSA, or TDC endorsement of a particular product, method, or practice. It is expected that those reproducing the material in this document for educational and not-for-profit uses will give appropriate acknowledgment of the source of any reprinted or reproduced material. For other uses of the material, request permission from CRP. DISCLAIMER The opinions and conclusions expressed or implied in this report are those of the researchers who performed the research. They are not necessarily those of the Transportation Research Board; the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; the FHWA; or the program sponsors. The information contained in this document was taken directly from the submission of the author(s). This material has not been edited by TRB.

The National Academy of Sciences was established in 1863 by an Act of Congress, signed by President Lincoln, as a private, non- governmental institution to advise the nation on issues related to science and technology. Members are elected by their peers for outstanding contributions to research. Dr. Marcia McNutt is president. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to bring the practices of engineering to advising the nation. Members are elected by their peers for extraordinary contributions to engineering. Dr. John L. Anderson is president. The National Academy of Medicine (formerly the Institute of Medicine) was established in 1970 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to advise the nation on medical and health issues. Members are elected by their peers for distinguished contributions to medicine and health. Dr. Victor J. Dzau is president. The three Academies work together as the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to provide independent, objective analysis and advice to the nation and conduct other activities to solve complex problems and inform public policy decisions. The National Academies also encourage education and research, recognize outstanding contributions to knowledge, and increase public understanding in matters of science, engineering, and medicine. Learn more about the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine at www.nationalacademies.org. The Transportation Research Board is one of seven major programs of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. The mission of the Transportation Research Board is to provide leadership in transportation improvements and innovation through trusted, timely, impartial, and evidence-based information exchange, research, and advice regarding all modes of transportation. The Board’s varied activities annually engage about 8,000 engineers, scientists, and other transportation researchers and practitioners from the public and private sectors and academia, all of whom contribute their expertise in the public interest. The program is supported by state transportation departments, federal agencies including the component administrations of the U.S. Department of Transportation, and other organizations and individuals interested in the development of transportation. Learn more about the Transportation Research Board at www.TRB.org.

C O O P E R A T I V E R E S E A R C H P R O G R A M S CRP STAFF FOR NCHRP WEB-ONLY DOCUMENT 317 Christopher J. Hedges, Director, Cooperative Research Programs Lori L. Sundstrom, Deputy Director, Cooperative Research Programs Waseem Dekelbab, Associate Program Manager, National Cooperative Highway Research Program Leslie Harwood, Senior Program Officer Stephanie L. Campbell-Chamberlain, Senior Program Assistant Natalie Barnes, Director of Publications Heather DiAngelis, Associate Director of Publications Janet McNaughton, Senior Editor Jennifer Correro, Assistant Editor NCHRP PROJECT 02-27 PANEL Field of Administration—Area of Economics Philip J. Kase, Jr., Oregon Department of Transportation, Salem, OR (Chair) Holly Bieneman, Illinois Department of Transportation, Springfield, IL Yvonne Marie Carney, Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission, Laurel, MD Brian Fineman, North Jersey Transportation Planning Authority, Newark, NJ Daniel G. Haake, HDR, Indianapolis, IN Patricia Hendren, The Eastern Transportation Coalition, Silver Spring, MD Cristina Torres-Machi, University of Colorado, Boulder, Boulder, CO Karen S. Miller, Missouri Department of Transportation, Jefferson City, MO Kevin Viani, Vermont Agency of Transportation, Barre, VT Susanna Reck, FHWA Liaison Matthew H. Hardy, AASHTO Liaison Bill Keyrouze, Association of Metropolitan Planning Organizations Liaison

iv TABLE OF CONTENTS LISTING OF FIGURES............................................................................................................................ V LISTING OF TABLES ............................................................................................................................. V SUMMARY .......................................................................................................................................... VI CHAPTER 1 PROJECT BACKGROUND .................................................................................................. 1 Project Purpose ............................................................................................................................................................. 1 Project Thesis ................................................................................................................................................................. 1 TPM and PBPP Foundations .......................................................................................................................................... 2 CHAPTER 2 RESEARCH APPROACH ..................................................................................................... 5 State of Practice Review and Practitioner Survey ......................................................................................................... 5 Peer Exchanges ............................................................................................................................................................ 12 Synthesis, Final Research, and Interviews ................................................................................................................... 18 CHAPTER 3 FINDINGS AND APPLICATIONS ...................................................................................... 19 Interim Findings: Peer Exchange Takeaways and Themes .......................................................................................... 19 Project Result 1: Feedback Framework ....................................................................................................................... 22 Project Result 2: Strategies for Improved Feedback ................................................................................................... 26 Project Result 3: Case Studies...................................................................................................................................... 28 CHAPTER 4 CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTED RESEARCH ................................................................. 31 Conclusions .................................................................................................................................................................. 31 Suggested Research ..................................................................................................................................................... 31 APPENDIX A MAKING TARGETS MATTER PRACTITIONER SURVEY ................................................... 33 APPENDIX B DETAILED PEER EXCHANGE NOTES .............................................................................. 38 Peer Exchange 1 — St. Louis ........................................................................................................................................ 38 Peer Exchange 2 — Baltimore ..................................................................................................................................... 50 Peer Exchange 3 — Atlanta ......................................................................................................................................... 57 Peer Exchange 4 — Salt Lake City ................................................................................................................................ 68 NOTE: NCHRP Web-Only Document 317 is associated with NCHRP Research Report 993: Managing Performance to Enhance Decision-Making: Making Targets Matter. Readers can read or purchase NCHRP Research Report 993 at www.trb.org.

v LISTING OF FIGURES Figure 1 FHWA’s transportation performance management framework. .................................................. 3 Figure 2 FHWA’s performance-based planning and programming framework. .......................................... 4 Figure 3 Survey participants by agency type ............................................................................................... 6 Figure 4 NCHRP Survey responses to “Has monitoring provided early warning of performance issues?” . 7 Figure 5 NCHRP Survey responses to “Has monitoring led to adjustments in activities or decisions?” ..... 8 Figure 6 Summary of the kinds of adjustments made by NCHRP survey respondents ............................... 9 Figure 7 AASHTO Regions........................................................................................................................... 12 Figure B-1 Graphic illustration of the difference in outcomes of two different funding scenarios .......... 41 Figure B-2 Minnesota DOT's benefit–cost ratios for different scenarios .................................................. 44 LISTING OF TABLES Table 1 Examples of each adjustment type from the NCHRP survey .......................................................... 9 Table 2 The different types of adjustments observed in the NCHRP Survey can be organized into three categories. ................................................................................................................................................... 11

vi SUMMARY The Making Targets Matter project is premised on the idea that transportation agencies largely have performance structures in place, but that these structures alone do not guarantee progress on meeting performance targets. This leads to a perception that, despite earnest efforts to establish the “right” frameworks, targets often do not matter as much as they could. The research has led to the conclusion that more accurate and more frequent feedback from the people and data that experience the transportation network can help agencies identify which actions that will improve performance and meet targets, thus making those targets more meaningful. The project’s guidance focuses on how agencies can strengthen their gathering and use of feedback to inform actions and performance activities. Project Results There are three major components of the results that help practitioners do this. First is the examination of the component parts of feedback and creation of a framework for how they interact in a transportation context. Second are detailed descriptions of six strategies to improve feedback that identify and develop people and data sensors that have information about the transportation network, help establish pathways to transfer information, and guide integration of feedback into actions and the agency’s performance story. Finally, six case studies highlight agencies making use of feedback in common activities undertaken by transportation agencies, spanning long-range and strategic planning, medium-term programming, and day-to-day operational activities. Feedback Framework Strategies for Better Feedback Case Studies of Feedback in