18-01-2013, 12:59 PM
Performance Indicators for the Road Sector
1Performance Indicators.pdf (Size: 1.54 MB / Downloads: 120)
ABSTRACT
Following the recommendations of the OECD 1997 report, Performance Indicators for the Road
Sector, a task force was established to field test a selection of 15 performance indicators used by road
administrations throughout the world. The objective of the project was to assess the applicability of the
performance indicators to improving the management of road administration. The field test was
conducted over the period 1997-99 in 15 Member countries. This report outlines the approach adopted
and summarises the results of the field tests.
The 15 indicators that were field tested included: average road user costs; level of satisfaction
regarding travel time and its reliability and quality of road user information; protected road user risk;
unprotected road user risk; environmental policy/programmes; processes in place for market research
and customer feedback; long-term programmes; allocation of resources to road infrastructure; quality
management/audit programmes; forecast values of road costs vs. actual costs; overhead percentage;
value of assets; roughness; state of road bridges; satisfaction with road condition.
A key aspect of the project was the comparison of the processes in which the indicators are applied by
different road administrations. Qualitative assessment on the role of and function served by road
administrations, and whether the execution of their mandates reflects the views of the public and
government, suggested a need cultural change in most cases toward a client focused approach. The
task force concluded that quantitative comparison between administrations is of limited usefulness
unless it is accompanied by a thorough examination of the underlying reasons for any differences.
Approach
The main objectives of the Taskforce were to:
• Test and learn from the application of the 15 road administration performance indicators.
• Establish the main processes undertaken in a road administration, and to evaluate those
processes against the performance indicators.
• Help build a learning organisation.
• Make recommendations for the dissemination of results.
In order to achieve these objectives, the Taskforce compared the values of performance indicators
for different countries, and investigated the reasons for any differences in these values.
Selection of the performance indicators
A key component of the most successful road projects and programmes is a well-defined set of
goals and objectives. However, the use of performance indicators goes well beyond simply evaluating
the degree to which goals and objectives have been achieved. The use of performance indicators by a
road administration depends on the particular needs for development or improvement in performance.
The main aspects that influence decisions on the use of performance indicators are:
• The main characteristics of the road transport vision in the country concerned.
• The position of the road administration in the process of organisational reform.
• The management style of the organisation.
• The specific functions that require development or learning.
The 15 performance indicators selected for this project are not the “ideal”, or even the most
important, indicators. They were selected by the Expert Group to cover the previously developed
taxonomy.
Average road-user cost (car and truck)
• Road agencies should continue to monitor road-user cost within their jurisdictions over the
long term, so that a basis exists for monitoring changes and trends in road-user cost levels.
• Further analysis should be carried out to measure and monitor road-user costs over a long
period of time (for example, to assess the benefits of policy changes such as increased mass
limits and introduction of new vehicle classes).
• Further work should be undertaken by road agencies to identify the reasons for differences in
the cost components of road-user cost between jurisdictions (as measured by the World
Bank’s HDM-III methodology).
Long-term programmes for construction, maintenance and operations (yes/no)
• The existence of a long-term programme should be considered an indicator of a
well-managed organisation. The involvement of the public in its development and the
identification of specific, measurable performance objectives in the programme should be
considered “best practices” for a long-term programme.
• A key goal for any road administration would be to obtain approval for the multi-year
programme from the highest political level, e.g. the government.
• Implementation of the long-term programme should include objectives and performance
indicators that reflect public opinion and customer needs; achievements should be monitored
on an annual basis.
• More transparency is called for in developing long-term programmes in terms of the setting
of objectives, estimation of costs, estimation of impacts, and evaluation and reporting of
programme implementation.