Measuring and Improving Infrastructure Performance (1996) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
5 Infrastructure Improvement Through Performance-Based Management
5 Infrastructure Improvement Through Performance-Based Management
Pages 83-93
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 83... ...
dealing with multiple objectives, dimensions of performance, and stakeholders' points of view, (2) dealing with multiple jurisdictions and multiple infrastructure modes to reach conclusions about system performance, and (3)
|
From page 84... ...
The planriing workshop or design "charette" sometimes used for infrastructure planning is an example of a generating method.2 In reacting to the results generated, decision makers may be able to articulate preferences, for instance, a particular portion of the nondominated set worthy of further, detailed exploration.
|
From page 85... ...
Some success has been achieved with projection formats, notably the value path, in which all objective values are projected to parallel (usually normalized) scales and the points on these scales associated with a particular solution connected to show that they indeed do represent one solution alternative.3 Such approaches can effectively deal with certain of the other problematic aspects of real-world decision-making problems, specifically the presence of noncommensurate objectives.
|
From page 86... ...
highway policy is elitist regarding urban personal mobility, favoring those who can afford to own automobiles, although others note that highways often represent the lowest public component of cost for high mobility. Our general approach to the management of much of the infrastructure is essentially libertarian, although the lack of information about harm being done few., air pollution being Generated safety hazards nosed bv driving ~ ~, 1 ~ = ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a -- - ~; ~ ~o ~.
|
From page 87... ...
The committee recommends that responsible agencies undertake a critical self-assessment to determine the nature and extent of specific regulations, organizational relationships, jurisdictional limitations, customary practices, or other factors that may constitute impediments to adoption of the proposed infrastructure performance measurement framework and assessment process. Such a self-assessment could be conducted within the context of a specific infrastructure management problem or as a generic review' but it will necessarily involve time, money, and a concerted effort to motivate active community involvement with open, candid discussion.
|
From page 88... ...
There are valid national interests in local infrastructure performance-for example, uniformly high standards of public health and safety- and local decisions should be made within the context of those interests. Nevertheless, one measure of federal policy effectiveness should be its sensitivity to local variations in objectives and subsequent performance assessment.
|
From page 89... ...
While infrastructure professionals have always recognized the importance of "system effects," continued improvement in computer-based forecasting and simulation methods and new technology for measuring and monitoring system conditions have made more sophisticated approaches for assessing system performance widely available. Remote sensing, real-time monitoring, and network analysis and simulation models provide powerful new capabilities for measuring systemwide conditions and evaluating system changes.
|
From page 90... ...
This approach too is no panacea, but if a manageable number of alternative scenarios can be agreed on and if some agreement can be reached regarding the assignment of relative probabilities of occurrence to these scenarios, then methods exist with which the information contained in multiple scenarios can be aggregated to the point of possible policy relevance. Notable among these methods is regret theory, which had its origin as an alternative to the maximizing of expected utility as a basis for decision making (v on Neumann and Morgenstem, 1947~.
|
From page 91... ...
" Given that information is incomplete, ability to project outcomes is limited, and budgets for avoiding hazards or adopting safeguards are restricted, this question frequently arises in infrastructure decision making. In the end, the answer is generally a matter of values and cannot be resolved except through public discussion.
|
From page 92... ...
In principle the regulatory agency provides a mechanism for the collective decisions that must be made on acceptable performance. The typical mechanism is that the regulators identify specific technical alternatives for achieving adequate performance.
|
From page 93... ...
2These techniques often involve public meetings in which infrastructure professionals work win public participants to propose alternative ways of solving a particular problem, such as a highway route location. Such meetings were held in Baltimore's development of the East Boston Street improvement plan.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.