Program Delivery Assessment

1
Program Delivery Assessment
Federal Highway Administration

• AASHTO Finance Conference
• July 9, 2005

2
Program Delivery FHWA State Transportation
Agencies

• What is it?
• How FHWA States deliver projects together
• FHWA Key Business Process
• How is Program Delivery reflected in our
  Performance Planning?
• Fit into Performance Planning
• How are we doing in Program Delivery?
• FHWA our Partners

3
The Program Delivery Initiative

• Endorsed by FHWA Leadership on 10/20/04.
• The internal FHWA goals of the Program Delivery
  Initiative
• Increase understanding of the role that Program
  Delivery plays in relation to the agency mission
  and goals.
• Identify specific strategies and targets to
  strengthen Program Delivery (Assessment Tool).
• Identify specific changes to the annual FHWA
  Performance Plan with a goal to prominently
  address Program Delivery.

4
The Program Delivery Initiative

• Initiative intended to be a collaborative effort
  with FHWA partners.
• Program Delivery Leadership Group (PDLG) and
  Program Delivery Working Group (PDWG) created.
• Starting with 10 Program Areas in the Program
  Delivery Process.
• PDWG charged with the development of a Program
  Delivery Assessment Tool (PDAT).

5
Program Areas and PDWG Leaders

• Finance Derrell Turner, (AR)
• Planning Vern Mickelsen (WY)
• Environment Pete Hartman (NE)
• Right-of-Way Pete Hartman
• Design Patrick Bauer (OH)
• Construction Patrick Bauer
• Operations Kate Quinn (IN)
• System Preservation Kate Quinn (IN)
• Safety Ernie Blais (CT)
• Civil Rights David Nelson (AZ)

6
Charge to the PDWG

• The process must be positive and should be about
  collaboration and improvement.
• The effort should include the FHWA partners and
  should involve AASHTO early in the process.
• The effort should be about being a better
  partner.
• The emphasis should be on program delivery as a
  process and not focus on a single organizational
  entity.
• Risk Management should be considered in the
  process, including efforts by the Office of
  Infrastructure.
• The agency does not have performance measures for
  program delivery. This effort could define
  measures.

7
PDWG Recommendations

• Develop a Program Assessment Tool to assess the
  health of each program area.
• Coordinate Program Assessment with Risk
  Assessment in a two-step approach.
• Define consistent Program Areas and Core
  Elements for both the Program Assessment and
  Risk Assessment.
• Consolidate Other Assessment Tools if possible.

8
PDAT Proposed Format

• Each Program Area broken down into Core Category
  and Core Element
• Program Area
• Core Category
• Core Element
• Core Element
• Assessment Sheet uses a 1 to 5 Scale
• 1 Acceptable
• 2-5 Good to Outstanding
• 5 Pushing the envelope of State of the
  Practice
• Assessment Sheets include the criteria to select
  the appropriate score.

9
PDAT Proposed Format (contd)

• An Assessment Sheet will be done for each Core
  Category.
• Scores will be assessed at the Core Category
  level and rolled up to assess the Program Area
  level.
• Plotting of scores should provide a distribution
  curve to determine an overall picture for each
  Core Category and/or Program Area Nationwide

10
The Distribution Curve

• What is our status of Program Delivery within a
  distribution?
• Over time, is the trend improving, declining, or
  staying the same?
• Can we (FHWA, STAs, MPOs) do better?
• Are we satisfied with just meeting minimum
  requirements?
• What will it take to move beyond the minimum
  requirements?
• What are the Best Practices in Program Delivery?

11
What the PDAT Does

• Assesses the capability to deliver the Federal
  Aid Program by Core Category with in Program
  Areas.
• Determines the health of the Program
• Current Status
• Trends over time
• Measures Process.
• Provides Rating Standards Consistency.
• Rates Acceptable to Outstanding (Best Practices)
• Integrates with Risk Assessment.

12
Benefits

• Discussion tool
• Helps with Oversight and Stewardship
• Helps with performance planning
• National information for FHWA Associate
  Administrators and State Executives
• Identifies best practice areas
• Identifies potential focus areas

13
INITIAL AASHTO INPUT

• End Purpose Knowledge Sharing and Raising the
  Bar vs. Oversight and Risk Management
• Scoring/ Rating System Need for the Zero Column
  and Need for a 5 Scale
• Flexibility and Variability among the States (The
  Scale May Need to be Variable)
• Ability to Use same Template for All Areas
• Need Focus Group Reviews by State Teams

14
AASHTO Team Members
CHAIR

• Headquarters Jack Basso, Anthony Kane and
  Janet Oakley
• Safety Tom Welsh (IO), Bruce Ibarguen,(ME),
• Ed Rice (FL), Troy Costales,
  (OR)
• Environment Mary Ivey (NY), John Mettille(KY),
  
• Kathy Ames (IL), Jay Norvell (CA)
• Planning Susan Mortel (MI), Calvin Leggett
  Mike Bruff (NC), Randy Halvorson (MN), Charlie
  Rountree (ID) ,
• Dennis Keck (NJ)
• Finance Nancy Slagle (AK), Mike Patterson
  (OK),
• Lowell Clary and Martha Johnson (FL)

15
AASHTO Team Members
CHAIR

• ROW Chris Larson (MD), Ken Towcimak (FL),
• Jim Viau (OH), Jerry Gallinger (WA)
• Design Daniel DAngelo (NY), Kirk McClelland
  (MD),
• Construction James Tynan (NY), Roger Driskell
  (IL), Kevin Dayton (WA), Byron Coburn Jr. (VA)
• Sys Preservation Peter Weykamp (NY) Huley
  Shumpert (SC)
• Operations Larry Tibbits (MI), Rick Nelson (NV),
  John Friend (MI), Gummada Murthy (WA)
• Civil Rights Garland Sweeney (NY), Jon Dunham
  (AK)

16
Considerations Discussion

• Is the concept clear?
• Are we on target with our approach ?
• Program Areas, Core Categories, Core Elements
• Tool Format Scoring
• Consistency
• Performance Measures
• Using the results
• Can you see usefulness?
• More useful if?
• Flexibility of the tool

17
Next Steps

• Integrating AASHTO into the tool development
  process
• FHWA AASHTO Review and Comment
• Pilot Program
• Final Product by fall AASHTO Meeting
• Implementation in FFY 2006