際際滷shows by User: DrrewJohnston / http://www.slideshare.net/images/logo.gif 際際滷shows by User: DrrewJohnston / Tue, 24 May 2016 07:03:00 GMT 際際滷Share feed for 際際滷shows by User: DrrewJohnston WAPARC Composite Indicator for Whole of Life Management (WOLM) /slideshow/waparc-kpi-for-whole-of-life-management-final-report-62330827/62330827 510fbdd6-7fc3-48cf-b6c9-96ea342e8aa2-160524070300
Composite indicators are increasingly being used to measure the performance of organisations and institutions in economic, social and policy areas (Freudenberg 2003). Composite indicators integrate a large amount of information in a format that is easily understood and are therefore a valuable tool for conveying a summary assessment of performance in priority areas (Jacobs et al. 2004). Given the wide range of stakeholders, there may be value in being able to display performance using one composite rather than a suite of performance indicators. The construction of composite measures is not straightforward and the project has demonstrated a number of different approaches to developing a composite indicator. A review of the results suggests that the approach that allows performance to be visualised at different levels from the SLK to the Regional and State network using a mix of lead and lag indicators is the most promising to move forward with. In order to do this a number of new measures or new ways of calculating individual indicators have been developed. Performance of the network using the composite indicator is demonstrated at different spatial levels for 20092012. The composite indicator describes performance in the Road Safety, Maintenance and Road Management & Efficiency program areas. Alternative approaches to developing the composite using indicators from the Annual Report only allow display of performance at the State level, the composite indicator does not support like for like comparisons on the regional scale and cannot be used at smaller scales. As part of this project there has been an emphasis on transparency in how the composite indicator is developed and why individual indicators were selected. Use and publication of composite performance measures can generate both positive and negative behavioural responses, so careful consideration needs to be given to their creation and subsequent use (Jacobs et al. 2004).]]>
Composite indicators are increasingly being used to measure the performance of organisations and institutions in economic, social and policy areas (Freudenberg 2003). Composite indicators integrate a large amount of information in a format that is easily understood and are therefore a valuable tool for conveying a summary assessment of performance in priority areas (Jacobs et al. 2004). Given the wide range of stakeholders, there may be value in being able to display performance using one composite rather than a suite of performance indicators. The construction of composite measures is not straightforward and the project has demonstrated a number of different approaches to developing a composite indicator. A review of the results suggests that the approach that allows performance to be visualised at different levels from the SLK to the Regional and State network using a mix of lead and lag indicators is the most promising to move forward with. In order to do this a number of new measures or new ways of calculating individual indicators have been developed. Performance of the network using the composite indicator is demonstrated at different spatial levels for 20092012. The composite indicator describes performance in the Road Safety, Maintenance and Road Management & Efficiency program areas. Alternative approaches to developing the composite using indicators from the Annual Report only allow display of performance at the State level, the composite indicator does not support like for like comparisons on the regional scale and cannot be used at smaller scales. As part of this project there has been an emphasis on transparency in how the composite indicator is developed and why individual indicators were selected. Use and publication of composite performance measures can generate both positive and negative behavioural responses, so careful consideration needs to be given to their creation and subsequent use (Jacobs et al. 2004).]]> Tue, 24 May 2016 07:03:00 GMT /slideshow/waparc-kpi-for-whole-of-life-management-final-report-62330827/62330827 DrrewJohnston@slideshare.net(DrrewJohnston) WAPARC Composite Indicator for Whole of Life Management (WOLM) DrrewJohnston Composite indicators are increasingly being used to measure the performance of organisations and institutions in economic, social and policy areas (Freudenberg 2003). Composite indicators integrate a large amount of information in a format that is easily understood and are therefore a valuable tool for conveying a summary assessment of performance in priority areas (Jacobs et al. 2004). Given the wide range of stakeholders, there may be value in being able to display performance using one composite rather than a suite of performance indicators. The construction of composite measures is not straightforward and the project has demonstrated a number of different approaches to developing a composite indicator. A review of the results suggests that the approach that allows performance to be visualised at different levels from the SLK to the Regional and State network using a mix of lead and lag indicators is the most promising to move forward with. In order to do this a number of new measures or new ways of calculating individual indicators have been developed. Performance of the network using the composite indicator is demonstrated at different spatial levels for 20092012. The composite indicator describes performance in the Road Safety, Maintenance and Road Management & Efficiency program areas. Alternative approaches to developing the composite using indicators from the Annual Report only allow display of performance at the State level, the composite indicator does not support like for like comparisons on the regional scale and cannot be used at smaller scales. As part of this project there has been an emphasis on transparency in how the composite indicator is developed and why individual indicators were selected. Use and publication of composite performance measures can generate both positive and negative behavioural responses, so careful consideration needs to be given to their creation and subsequent use (Jacobs et al. 2004). <img style="border:1px solid #C3E6D8;float:right;" alt="" src="https://cdn.slidesharecdn.com/ss_thumbnails/510fbdd6-7fc3-48cf-b6c9-96ea342e8aa2-160524070300-thumbnail.jpg?width=120&amp;height=120&amp;fit=bounds" /><br> Composite indicators are increasingly being used to measure the performance of organisations and institutions in economic, social and policy areas (Freudenberg 2003). Composite indicators integrate a large amount of information in a format that is easily understood and are therefore a valuable tool for conveying a summary assessment of performance in priority areas (Jacobs et al. 2004). Given the wide range of stakeholders, there may be value in being able to display performance using one composite rather than a suite of performance indicators. The construction of composite measures is not straightforward and the project has demonstrated a number of different approaches to developing a composite indicator. A review of the results suggests that the approach that allows performance to be visualised at different levels from the SLK to the Regional and State network using a mix of lead and lag indicators is the most promising to move forward with. In order to do this a number of new measures or new ways of calculating individual indicators have been developed. Performance of the network using the composite indicator is demonstrated at different spatial levels for 20092012. The composite indicator describes performance in the Road Safety, Maintenance and Road Management &amp; Efficiency program areas. Alternative approaches to developing the composite using indicators from the Annual Report only allow display of performance at the State level, the composite indicator does not support like for like comparisons on the regional scale and cannot be used at smaller scales. As part of this project there has been an emphasis on transparency in how the composite indicator is developed and why individual indicators were selected. Use and publication of composite performance measures can generate both positive and negative behavioural responses, so careful consideration needs to be given to their creation and subsequent use (Jacobs et al. 2004).
WAPARC Composite Indicator for Whole of Life Management (WOLM) from Drew Johnston
]]> 206 6 https://cdn.slidesharecdn.com/ss_thumbnails/510fbdd6-7fc3-48cf-b6c9-96ea342e8aa2-160524070300-thumbnail.jpg?width=120&height=120&fit=bounds document Black http://activitystrea.ms/schema/1.0/post http://activitystrea.ms/schema/1.0/posted 0 https://cdn.slidesharecdn.com/profile-photo-DrrewJohnston-48x48.jpg?cb=1523420005