New Search
My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
New Search
COE Road Fund Efficiency Review
COE
>
PW
>
Admin
>
Finance
>
Operating
>
2009
>
COE Road Fund Efficiency Review
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/28/2010 12:54:13 PM
Creation date
11/18/2008 12:49:52 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
PW_Operating
PW_Document_Type_ Operating
Reports
Fiscal_Year
2001
PW_Division
Maintenance
GL_Fund
131
GL_ORG
9410
External_View
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
32
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
However, if engineering and administrative charges are adjusted to be more in line with <br /> the way other cities report those charges, Eugene has the lowest overall costs in both <br /> cost/mile and cost/capita. Without any data adjustments Eugene has the lowest costs in <br /> three of the nine categories where comparisons could be made. <br /> <br /> I <br /> Continued performance measurement and focus on key activities will result in better <br /> data to monitor efficiency in the future. Eugene has a culture of continuous self- <br /> evaluation and has made more effort toward developing performance measures than most <br /> cities. However, the existing measures were not that helpful in measuring the services <br /> covered in this report. These services are the same services provided: by many cities and <br /> should be susceptible to comparison. However, only a handful of cities have <br /> implemented meaningful performance measures. <br /> Sunnyvale, California has aperformance-based budget that made comparison of <br /> programs easier than in most cases. Even their performance measures don't always <br /> provide data that could be easily evaluated. <br /> One way to solve this problem is suggested in several of the specific function analyses <br /> that follow. That method requires putting maintenance activities into packages that could <br /> be put out for contract using the quantity measures that would appear in a contract <br /> document. This approach allows a business approach to performance measurement that <br /> can be used to compare costs with other agencies using the same method or contracting <br /> for the service. <br /> Involving employees in any analysis ofprivate contracting is essential because the fear <br /> that discussion of contracting causes among public employees. Recommendations in this <br /> report only suggest areas in which contracting should be examined. That examination <br /> may or may not lead to contracting. <br /> One of the largest contributors to efficiency is the employee's desire to work hard and <br /> smart. A demoralized work crew can never be as productive as a motivated work crew. <br /> The mere discussion of privatization can be demoralizing and can lead to battles that <br /> shouldn't be fought. When employees have been involved in designing maintenance cost <br /> evaluation measures, they usually outperform private contractors and take greater pride in <br /> their work. <br /> A trust level must be established early in the process by management assuring employees <br /> that no one loses their job because of this joint evaluation. <br /> 12 <br /> _ <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.