Downloads & Free Reading Options - Results

408 pages : 25 cm

x, 129 pages : 24 cm

x, 129 pages : 24 cm

x, 129 pages : 24 cm

In 2002 the Council of the Great City Schools and its members set out to develop performance measures that could be used to improve business operations in urban public school districts. The Council launched the Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Project to achieve these objectives. The purposes of the project were to: (1) Establish a common set of "key performance indicators" (KPIs) in a range of school operations, including business services, finances, human resources, and technology; (2) Use these KPIs to benchmark and compare the performance of the nation's largest urban public school systems; and (3) Use the results to improve operational performance in urban public schools. The teams leading the project's work have used a sophisticated approach to define, collect and validate school-system data. This process calls for each KPI to have a clearly defined purpose to justify its development, and extensive documentation of the "metric definitions" ensures that the expertise of the technical teams is fully captured. At the core of the methodology is the principle of "continuous improvement." The teams are instructed to focus on operational indicators that can be "benchmarked" and are "actionable," and thus can be strategically managed by setting improvement targets. Each page of this report shows detailed information for a single KPI measure. Sections include: (1) Accounts Payable; (2) Cash Management; (3) Compensation; (4) Financial Management; (5) Grants Management; (6) Procurement; (7) Risk Management; (8) Food Services; (9) Maintenance & Operations; (10) Safety & Security; (11) Transportation; (12) Human Resources; and (13) Information Technology. [For the 2016 report, see ED610811.]

In 2002 the Council of the Great City Schools and its members set out to develop performance measures that could be used to improve business operations in urban public school districts. The Council launched the Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Project to achieve these objectives. The purposes of the project were to: (1) Establish a common set of "key performance indicators" (KPIs) in a range of school operations, including business services, finances, human resources, and technology; (2) Use these KPIs to benchmark and compare the performance of the nation's largest urban public school systems; and (3) Use the results to improve operational performance in urban public schools. The teams leading the project's work have used a sophisticated approach to define, collect and validate school-system data. This process calls for each KPI to have a clearly defined purpose to justify its development, and extensive documentation of the "metric definitions" ensures that the expertise of the technical teams is fully captured. At the core of the methodology is the principle of "continuous improvement." The teams are instructed to focus on operational indicators that can be "benchmarked" and are "actionable," and thus can be strategically managed by setting improvement targets. Each page of this report shows detailed information for a single KPI measure. Sections include: (1) Accounts Payable; (2) Cash Management; (3) Compensation; (4) Financial Management; (5) Grants Management; (6) Procurement; (7) Risk Management; (8) Food Services; (9) Maintenance & Operations; (10) Safety & Security; (11) Transportation; (12) Human Resources; and (13) Information Technology. [For the 2016 report, see ED610811.]

In 2002 the Council of the Great City Schools and its members set out to develop performance measures that could be used to improve business operations in urban public school districts. The Council launched the Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Project to achieve these objectives. The purposes of the project were to: (1) Establish a common set of "key performance indicators" (KPIs) in a range of school operations, including business services, finances, human resources, and technology; (2) Use these KPIs to benchmark and compare the performance of the nation's largest urban public school systems; and (3) Use the results to improve operational performance in urban public schools. The teams leading the project's work have used a sophisticated approach to define, collect and validate school-system data. This process calls for each KPI to have a clearly defined purpose to justify its development, and extensive documentation of the "metric definitions" ensures that the expertise of the technical teams is fully captured. At the core of the methodology is the principle of "continuous improvement." The teams are instructed to focus on operational indicators that can be "benchmarked" and are "actionable," and thus can be strategically managed by setting improvement targets. Each page of this report shows detailed information for a single KPI measure. Sections include: (1) Accounts Payable; (2) Cash Management; (3) Compensation; (4) Financial Management; (5) Grants Management; (6) Procurement; (7) Risk Management; (8) Food Services; (9) Maintenance & Operations; (10) Safety & Security; (11) Transportation; (12) Human Resources; and (13) Information Technology. [For the 2016 report, see ED610811.]

Includes bibliographical references (p. 237-243) and index

Perma.cc archive of http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/1441 created on 2021-11-02 01:19:21+00:00.

Perma.cc archive of http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/1441 created on 2021-11-02 01:19:21+00:00.

Perma.cc archive of http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/1441 created on 2021-11-02 01:19:21+00:00.

I am pleased to be here today to discuss the President's Management Agenda to improve the management and performance of the federal government. The federal government is one of the largest, most complex, and diverse organizations in the world, facing a wide range of challenges in responding to a number of key trends, such as globalization, changing security threats, and demographic changes. Especially in light of the tragic events of September 11, federal agencies will need to work better with other governmental organizations, nongovernmental organizations, and the private sector, both domestically and internationally, to achieve results. Focusing on accountable, results-oriented management can help the federal government use this network to deliver economical, efficient, and effective programs and services to the American people.

I am pleased to be here today to discuss the President's Management Agenda to improve the management and performance of the federal government. The federal government is one of the largest, most complex, and diverse organizations in the world, facing a wide range of challenges in responding to a number of key trends, such as globalization, changing security threats, and demographic changes. Especially in light of the tragic events of September 11, federal agencies will need to work better with other governmental organizations, nongovernmental organizations, and the private sector, both domestically and internationally, to achieve results. Focusing on accountable, results-oriented management can help the federal government use this network to deliver economical, efficient, and effective programs and services to the American people.

This guide summarizes the Department of Defense (DoD) position on Information Technology (IT) performance measurement and presents a framework for managing information technology programs as investments rather than as acquisitions. DoD's goal is to, within the framework of Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA), the Information Technology Management and Results Act (ITMRA) and other relevant management legislation, establish performance measures as an integral part of the Information Technology (IT) investment process. It is designed to assist DoD in its transition to a performance-based organization.

This guide summarizes the Department of Defense (DoD) position on Information Technology (IT) performance measurement and presents a framework for managing information technology programs as investments rather than as acquisitions. DoD's goal is to, within the framework of Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA), the Information Technology Management and Results Act (ITMRA) and other relevant management legislation, establish performance measures as an integral part of the Information Technology (IT) investment process. It is designed to assist DoD in its transition to a performance-based organization.

This guide summarizes the Department of Defense (DoD) position on Information Technology (IT) performance measurement and presents a framework for managing information technology programs as investments rather than as acquisitions. DoD's goal is to, within the framework of Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA), the Information Technology Management and Results Act (ITMRA) and other relevant management legislation, establish performance measures as an integral part of the Information Technology (IT) investment process. It is designed to assist DoD in its transition to a performance-based organization.

This guide summarizes the Department of Defense (DoD) position on Information Technology (IT) performance measurement and presents a framework for managing information technology programs as investments rather than as acquisitions. DoD's goal is to, within the framework of Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA), the Information Technology Management and Results Act (ITMRA) and other relevant management legislation, establish performance measures as an integral part of the Information Technology (IT) investment process. It is designed to assist DoD in its transition to a performance-based organization.

The Building State Capacity and Productivity (BSCP) Center released a report outlining a process for state education agencies (SEAs) to evaluate and improve their System of Recognition, Accountability, and Support (SRAS). The federal government now sets high expectations for state and local use of federal dollars while allowing greater state autonomy in achieving these goals. Local education agencies (LEAs), more readily than in the past, turn to their states for guidance and support in meeting their constituents' demands for better school performance and in navigating the complexities of teaching and learning in an era of accountability. State leaders are attempting to shift their organizations to meet these demands, and innovative state leaders are finding new and bolder solutions to low performance, consistent with their state structures, traditions, and contexts (Redding, 2012). Managing the SRAS for performance will not be business as usual. States will need to be deliberate in designing and improving their SRAS to: (1) Strategically mobilize all of its tools including building systemic and local capacity for change, creating opportunity for local agencies to pursue new strategies, offering incentives to improve, and intervening in the hardest cases; (2) Differentiate their application of specific tools to deal with schools' and districts' varied performance challenges and trajectories; (3) Include LEAs as both partners and targets of reform; and (4) Constantly assess its own efforts and identify ways to improve the SRAS to more effectively support improvement in student achievement outcomes. The SRAS Performance Management Rubric is not a compliance monitoring process, a rating system, or a means of comparing one state's system with another's. Rather the state's profile that is produced from using the performance management rubric contained in this SRAS document informs an SEA's immediate planning process by determining which indicators have priority status and are manageable.

The Building State Capacity and Productivity (BSCP) Center released a report outlining a process for state education agencies (SEAs) to evaluate and improve their System of Recognition, Accountability, and Support (SRAS). The federal government now sets high expectations for state and local use of federal dollars while allowing greater state autonomy in achieving these goals. Local education agencies (LEAs), more readily than in the past, turn to their states for guidance and support in meeting their constituents' demands for better school performance and in navigating the complexities of teaching and learning in an era of accountability. State leaders are attempting to shift their organizations to meet these demands, and innovative state leaders are finding new and bolder solutions to low performance, consistent with their state structures, traditions, and contexts (Redding, 2012). Managing the SRAS for performance will not be business as usual. States will need to be deliberate in designing and improving their SRAS to: (1) Strategically mobilize all of its tools including building systemic and local capacity for change, creating opportunity for local agencies to pursue new strategies, offering incentives to improve, and intervening in the hardest cases; (2) Differentiate their application of specific tools to deal with schools' and districts' varied performance challenges and trajectories; (3) Include LEAs as both partners and targets of reform; and (4) Constantly assess its own efforts and identify ways to improve the SRAS to more effectively support improvement in student achievement outcomes. The SRAS Performance Management Rubric is not a compliance monitoring process, a rating system, or a means of comparing one state's system with another's. Rather the state's profile that is produced from using the performance management rubric contained in this SRAS document informs an SEA's immediate planning process by determining which indicators have priority status and are manageable.

The Building State Capacity and Productivity (BSCP) Center released a report outlining a process for state education agencies (SEAs) to evaluate and improve their System of Recognition, Accountability, and Support (SRAS). The federal government now sets high expectations for state and local use of federal dollars while allowing greater state autonomy in achieving these goals. Local education agencies (LEAs), more readily than in the past, turn to their states for guidance and support in meeting their constituents' demands for better school performance and in navigating the complexities of teaching and learning in an era of accountability. State leaders are attempting to shift their organizations to meet these demands, and innovative state leaders are finding new and bolder solutions to low performance, consistent with their state structures, traditions, and contexts (Redding, 2012). Managing the SRAS for performance will not be business as usual. States will need to be deliberate in designing and improving their SRAS to: (1) Strategically mobilize all of its tools including building systemic and local capacity for change, creating opportunity for local agencies to pursue new strategies, offering incentives to improve, and intervening in the hardest cases; (2) Differentiate their application of specific tools to deal with schools' and districts' varied performance challenges and trajectories; (3) Include LEAs as both partners and targets of reform; and (4) Constantly assess its own efforts and identify ways to improve the SRAS to more effectively support improvement in student achievement outcomes. The SRAS Performance Management Rubric is not a compliance monitoring process, a rating system, or a means of comparing one state's system with another's. Rather the state's profile that is produced from using the performance management rubric contained in this SRAS document informs an SEA's immediate planning process by determining which indicators have priority status and are manageable.

The Building State Capacity and Productivity (BSCP) Center released a report outlining a process for state education agencies (SEAs) to evaluate and improve their System of Recognition, Accountability, and Support (SRAS). The federal government now sets high expectations for state and local use of federal dollars while allowing greater state autonomy in achieving these goals. Local education agencies (LEAs), more readily than in the past, turn to their states for guidance and support in meeting their constituents' demands for better school performance and in navigating the complexities of teaching and learning in an era of accountability. State leaders are attempting to shift their organizations to meet these demands, and innovative state leaders are finding new and bolder solutions to low performance, consistent with their state structures, traditions, and contexts (Redding, 2012). Managing the SRAS for performance will not be business as usual. States will need to be deliberate in designing and improving their SRAS to: (1) Strategically mobilize all of its tools including building systemic and local capacity for change, creating opportunity for local agencies to pursue new strategies, offering incentives to improve, and intervening in the hardest cases; (2) Differentiate their application of specific tools to deal with schools' and districts' varied performance challenges and trajectories; (3) Include LEAs as both partners and targets of reform; and (4) Constantly assess its own efforts and identify ways to improve the SRAS to more effectively support improvement in student achievement outcomes. The SRAS Performance Management Rubric is not a compliance monitoring process, a rating system, or a means of comparing one state's system with another's. Rather the state's profile that is produced from using the performance management rubric contained in this SRAS document informs an SEA's immediate planning process by determining which indicators have priority status and are manageable.

Specifically, this report answers the following questions: (1) What analytic and technical challenges are agencies experiencing as they try to measure program performance? (2) What approaches have they taken to address these challenges? And, in particular, because program evaluation studies are similarly focused on measuring progress toward program goals and objectives, (3) How have agencies made use of program evaluations or evaluation expertise in implementing performance measurement? Indeed, the Act recognizes and encourages a complementary role for program evaluation by requiring agencies to describe its use in performance planning and reporting.

Specifically, this report answers the following questions: (1) What analytic and technical challenges are agencies experiencing as they try to measure program performance? (2) What approaches have they taken to address these challenges? And, in particular, because program evaluation studies are similarly focused on measuring progress toward program goals and objectives, (3) How have agencies made use of program evaluations or evaluation expertise in implementing performance measurement? Indeed, the Act recognizes and encourages a complementary role for program evaluation by requiring agencies to describe its use in performance planning and reporting.

This learning module on managing self-paced instruction is one of nine developed for use in training administrators, teachers, and prospective teachers in the utilization of Vocational-Technical Education Consortium of States (V-TECS) catalogs of performance objectives, criteria-referenced measures, and performance guides. Information is provided on the following subject areas: managing self-paced instruction, the role of the instructor, management of slow and fast learners, suggestions for starting a self-paced program, record keeping and filing, facilities for self-paced instruction, and the use of simulators and kits. Examples of module behavioral objectives are these: be able to identify a definition of self-pacing, two requirements of self-paced materials, alternate methods of self-pacing, the role(s) of the teacher in managing a self-paced system, and the three categories for storing modules. A glossary of terms, a glossary self check, and two self checks on module information are provided. (An instructor's handbook--CE 017 440--for use with all the modules contains the checkout activity for this module, a multiple choice test keyed to the behavioral objectives stated at the beginning of the module. The modules are designed for use with individuals or with groups.) (JH)

This learning module on managing self-paced instruction is one of nine developed for use in training administrators, teachers, and prospective teachers in the utilization of Vocational-Technical Education Consortium of States (V-TECS) catalogs of performance objectives, criteria-referenced measures, and performance guides. Information is provided on the following subject areas: managing self-paced instruction, the role of the instructor, management of slow and fast learners, suggestions for starting a self-paced program, record keeping and filing, facilities for self-paced instruction, and the use of simulators and kits. Examples of module behavioral objectives are these: be able to identify a definition of self-pacing, two requirements of self-paced materials, alternate methods of self-pacing, the role(s) of the teacher in managing a self-paced system, and the three categories for storing modules. A glossary of terms, a glossary self check, and two self checks on module information are provided. (An instructor's handbook--CE 017 440--for use with all the modules contains the checkout activity for this module, a multiple choice test keyed to the behavioral objectives stated at the beginning of the module. The modules are designed for use with individuals or with groups.) (JH)

Includes bibliographical references (p. 173-174) and index

Includes bibliographical references (p. 173-174) and index

Includes bibliographical references (p. 173-174) and index

MODELLING AND MANAGING AIRPORT PERFORMANCE

MODELLING AND MANAGING AIRPORT PERFORMANCE

MODELLING AND MANAGING AIRPORT PERFORMANCE

MODELLING AND MANAGING AIRPORT PERFORMANCE

MODELLING AND MANAGING AIRPORT PERFORMANCE

This study develops an expert system for measuring, interpreting, and managing the Wang VS operating system performance factors for the Work Information Management System. The system's performance concerns least known to system administrators are identified. Of these, SHARER buffers and VTOC cache are identified as factors that can significantly impact system performance with little effort. A six step process is used in developing the expert system. Concept maps representing the structure of the Wang VS Disk Input/Output problem domain are provided. The expert system provides information about the system parameters, SHARER buffers and VTOC cache, and recommends main memory allocations. The expert system is particularly useful to inexperienced system administrators. Sample executions of the system are provided.

This study develops an expert system for measuring, interpreting, and managing the Wang VS operating system performance factors for the Work Information Management System. The system's performance concerns least known to system administrators are identified. Of these, SHARER buffers and VTOC cache are identified as factors that can significantly impact system performance with little effort. A six step process is used in developing the expert system. Concept maps representing the structure of the Wang VS Disk Input/Output problem domain are provided. The expert system provides information about the system parameters, SHARER buffers and VTOC cache, and recommends main memory allocations. The expert system is particularly useful to inexperienced system administrators. Sample executions of the system are provided.

This study develops an expert system for measuring, interpreting, and managing the Wang VS operating system performance factors for the Work Information Management System. The system's performance concerns least known to system administrators are identified. Of these, SHARER buffers and VTOC cache are identified as factors that can significantly impact system performance with little effort. A six step process is used in developing the expert system. Concept maps representing the structure of the Wang VS Disk Input/Output problem domain are provided. The expert system provides information about the system parameters, SHARER buffers and VTOC cache, and recommends main memory allocations. The expert system is particularly useful to inexperienced system administrators. Sample executions of the system are provided.

This study develops an expert system for measuring, interpreting, and managing the Wang VS operating system performance factors for the Work Information Management System. The system's performance concerns least known to system administrators are identified. Of these, SHARER buffers and VTOC cache are identified as factors that can significantly impact system performance with little effort. A six step process is used in developing the expert system. Concept maps representing the structure of the Wang VS Disk Input/Output problem domain are provided. The expert system provides information about the system parameters, SHARER buffers and VTOC cache, and recommends main memory allocations. The expert system is particularly useful to inexperienced system administrators. Sample executions of the system are provided.

Includes bibliographical references and index

Includes bibliographical references and index

Includes bibliographical references and index

Includes bibliographical references and index

Includes bibliographical references and index

Includes bibliographical references and index

In April 2000, Dr. Jack Gansler, Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology, established the goal that at least 50 percent of all service acquisitions, measured in dollars and contracts, should be performance-based by 2005. Air Force interest in performance-based service contracts preceded Dr. Gansler's memorandum. On April 1, 1999, the Air Force issued Air Force Instruction (AFI) 63 - 124, Performance-Based Service Contracts (PBSC), which contains guidance on implementing performance-based practices for purchasing a wide range of services to support its installations, employees, and warfighting capability. Under what is now called performance-based services acquisition (PBSA), buyers should * describe what service is desired and not how to perform the work, * use measurable performance standards and quality assurance plans, * specify procedures for reductions in fee or price when services do not meet contract requirements, and * include performance incentives where appropriate.

243 pages : 23 cm

243 pages : 23 cm

243 pages : 23 cm

243 pages : 23 cm

243 pages : 23 cm

In 1991, the U.S Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) established target rates for its planning and design services to provide a gauge for district performance. For the most part, districts have found those targets difficult to meet, partly because they were based upon performance factors derived from 1987- 1990 data collected during a time of robust construction activity and partly because additional design requirements have been imposed and are expected to be completed within historic funding levels. Had the target rates been met by all districts in FY92, planning and design in the USACE would have cost $33 million less