API Handbook

Area Performance Indicator
API
Handbook
Issue 05
Revision 01
March 2007
Area Performance Indicator Handbook
Contents
Contents Page
Current document status 3
Handbook Issue History / Document Control 4
Introduction / History 5
Measurement Working Group Membership 8
APIs
1 Response to Emergency Incidents 10
2 Response to Category 1 Defects 13
3 Customer Satisfaction 16
4 Environmental Amenity Index 18
5 Site (workplace) Safety 31
6 Predictability of Discrete Schemes – Time 35
7 Predictability of Discrete Schemes – Cost 38
8 Predictability of Resource (Accruals) Forecasting 43
9 Winter Maintenance 45
10 Defect Free Work 46
11 Road Traffic Accidents at Road works 48
12 Street Lighting Outages 50
13 Network Availability 52
14 Third Party Claims 53
15 Recycling and Re-use 56
Issue 05 Rev 01Mar 2007 2 of 60

Current Document Status
API Issue
Description of Measure Meas. Ref. Date
Ref. No.
Response to Emergency Incidents 01 (REI 01 – REI 04) 02 31 01 05
Response to Category 1 Defects 02 (IR 01 – IR 07) 03 06 05 05
Customer Satisfaction 03 (CS 01 – CS 04) 02 31 01 05
Environmental Amenity Index 04 (EAI 01) 02 31 01 05
Site (workplace) Safety 05 (SS 01 – SS 02) 03 31 01 05
Predictability of Discrete Schemes – Time 06 (TP 01 – TP 04) 06 31 01 05
Predictability of Discrete Schemes – Cost 07 (CP 01 – CP 03) 06 31 01 05
Predictability of Resource (Accruals) Forecasting 08 (EF 01 – EF 02) 02 09 10 03
Winter Maintenance 09 WM 01 – WM 02) 02 31 01 05
Defect Free Work 10 (DF 01 – DF 05) 03 01 12 06
Road Traffic Accidents at Roadworks 11 (RTA 01 – RTA 02) 02 31 01 05
Street Lighting Outages 12 (SL 01 – SL 02) 02 31 01 05
Network Availability 13 (NA 01 – NA 03) 02 31 01 05
Third Party Claims 14 (TPC 01 – TPC 06) 02 31 01 05
Recycling and Re-use 15 (RR 01) 02 31 01 05

Handbook Issue History
Issued Documents Main Amendments Inclusive Measures Issue Date

(note appropriate to time No.
of issue)
API Handbook 1 - 11 01 Feb 03
API Handbook API 5 (02), API 12 &13 1 - 13 02 Sept 03
API Handbook (draft) APIs 14 & 15. 1 - 15 03 July 04
Reformat, inclusion of Design

API Handbook data sheets. 1 - 15 04 Feb 05
Title sheet, Current API 02 revised methodology
04 (Rev May 05
Document Status sheet to clarify and correct IR04. 02
New integer (K) introduced 01)
and API 02
API 10 (Iinclusion of DF05)

API Handbook In all API’s the state 1 - 15 05 Mar 07
See section “Changes in
Issue 05 Revision 01”“
Document Control
Document Title Area Performance Indicator Handbook

Author Measurement Working Group
Owner Performance Measurement Policy Team (PMP) - HA
Distribution HA Area Teams & Service Providers
Document Status See Handbook Issue History

Introduction
The Measurement Handbook details the measurement system developed by the Area Maintenance
Community for the delivery of the Agency's Managing Agent, Managing Agent Contractor contracts and the
Enhanced Managing Agent Contractor contracts.
The measurement system is viewed as an essential management tool to allow us to prove and improve our
performance in delivering our service.
Historical Background
The current operational contracts for M.A.s and M.A.C.s were first rolled out with tranche 1 contracts in the
summer of 2001.
There was concern over the consistency and validity of the measures that were specified in these contracts.
A workshop was held in April 2002 the purpose and output of which was
• To have an alignment as to what attendees collectively wanted to achieve from performance

measurement within the HA over the next few years.
• To agree what were the key strategies that would enable these goals to be achieved
• To agree an action plan to deliver on these strategies.
The following were some of the comments from the workshop with regard to Performance Measurement
within the existing MA/ MAC contracts
Lack of clarity as to why certain things are being measured –how it relates back to desired outputs and
outcomes
Lack of alignment as to what should be measured and hence different things being measured
Disparate ways of carrying out the measure and presenting results
Scepticism as to whether what is being measured is relevant
Lack of clarity as to who is accountable for what in the delivery of the activities
Not a lot on measuring Culture
The Vision
The following vision was agreed and will continue to provide the anchor against which all strategies and
actions are determined.
The Measurement Framework will be:-
A FRAMEWORK THAT MEASURES THE PERFORMANCE AND CAPABILITY OF THE HA AND IT’S
SUPPLY CHAIN PARTNERS, AND DRIVES CONTINUAL IMPROVEMENT.

Objectives and Goals
The Objectives and Goals were agreed as being to have: -
A Measurement Framework that not just quantifies performance but drives its improvement by identifying
best practice.
A Measurement Framework that aligns the measurement of activities with the HA’s Outcomes and
Objectives, measuring elements each organisation can influence.
A consistent approach in the context of what is measured, how it is measured, and how the data is
presented, recognising any bespoke requirements.
A Measurement Framework that is practical, focused, and cost effective.
A means of communicating the Measurement and Results that positively encourages interest and
participation in achieving improvement.
A Measurement Framework that is inclusive of all organisations that contributes to the overall performance.
The Community
It was agreed that a Community would be created whereby the HA and its supply chain partners can move
forward together on the Measurement Framework.
The Way Forward
Strategies to deliver these Objectives were agreed.
Establish a Measurement Group.

Identify a Measurement model.
Establish what we should measure.
Refine the measures.
Collect and present the results.
Enrol the Community and all new members.
A Performance Measurement Group was set up under the auspices of PRIDe to ensure that the strategies
were delivered.
The Way Forward (December 2006)

Performance measurement has been identified as a key process in delivering continued performance
improvements and best value for all Highways Agency projects. In doing so, the Highways Agency will be
supported in achieving its overarching aim stated in the Corporate Plan of “Safe Roads, Reliable journeys,
Informed travellers”. The Highways Agency has developed “Motivating Success” A Toolkit for Performance
Measurement for all long term contracts which will provide a consistent form of measurement across our
contracts. The Toolkit for Maintenance Contracts uses the API’s detailed in this document as evidence of
good performance, and is currently being rolled out across all new contracts.
Details’ regarding the use of API’s is contained in the “Motivating Success Toolkit - A Toolkit for Performance
Measurement -Maintenance” the most current version of which is available from the Highways Agency
Supply Chain Management Team.

The Measurement Model
It was agreed that the model must take the HA’s high level Outcomes (plus external organisations e.g. RUC,
Ministerial) and produce a set of coherent objectives rationalising measure and linking to them controllable
activities.
How We Did It
The Measures were sorted into four bins under the following categories.
`Bin’ 1
Measures that
Add value
Drive improvement
Are practical & cost effective
Can be implemented immediately
`Bin’ 2
Measures that
Add value
Are Measures to be resolved
Require prioritised development
Bin’ 3
Measures that are
Measures to be discarded
Irrelevant
Outside `our’ control
Add no value / costly
`Bin’ 4
Measures that are compliance measures
i.e. demonstrated contractual compliance only and / or covered elsewhere ie by QM systems /
PRIDe audit.
The existing Measures from all the contracts were also linked to the HA’s desired Outcomes as specified at
that time.
These fell under the two areas of Customer Satisfaction from the Ten Year Plan, and Quality Performance
which covers the two areas of Construction Best Practice indicators and Client Charter Compliance
requirements.
Customer Satisfaction Easing Congestion

Effective Maintenance
Safer Travel
Better Information
Quieter Roads
Delivering in Partnership
Smarter Roads
Quality Performance CBP Indicators

Client Charter Compliance
The Measures were then developed into a robust set of measures.

Group Membership
At the start of 2004 the group membership was reviewed and the area representation was altered to
organisational representation thus giving membership on the group to every organisation currently providing
a MA/MAC/TMC service to the HA. This resulted in a smaller more focussed group.
Terms of Reference - Measurement Working Group (MWG)

Date: January 2007
• To assist the Highways Agency, as directed by the PMG, to develop robust Performance Indicators
to measure the efficiency and effectiveness of service delivery as set out in the HA Performance
Measurement Framework (this Performance Measurement Framework is expressed in the API
Handbook, Motivating Success Toolkit, Area Business Strategies and the Agency’s high-level
business objectives and PSA Targets)
• To develop detailed guidance notes to promote consistency in the measurement and reporting of the
HA Performance Measurement Framework
• To review and refine the Performance Indicators (as expressed in the Performance Measurement
Framework) as necessary to ensure their ongoing effectiveness / relevance.
• To communicate requirements with respect to Performance Measurement to the Maintenance

Community.
• To work with the Good Practice Working Group and others in the Maintenance Community to
promote and develop Performance Measurement
• To liaise with other industry bodies with an interest in developing Performance Measurement
Current membership of the group is given at the end of this section of the handbook. Ownership of the
measures has been taken on by individual members of the group who are subsequently responsible for
keeping the measures up to date and reporting back at collective reviews of the measures.
Progress to date
The Measures in the following handbook are the resultant measures from the above exercise. They are still
being developed in some areas and the handbook will be updated as new Measures become available. All
measures as developed have been aligned to other areas of Measure within the HA wherever possible.
The HA have written to Network Boards indicating their approval to the adoption of these Measures in place
of original Annex 12 or 15 contractual Measures. Some organisations may still feel it is beneficial to continue
to Measure some of the original Measures.
Econtract
Econtrack is a IT based web tool that has been developed by the HA, it is being used across all areas by the
HA’s suppliers to input the data for the measures in this handbook. Guidance for the use of Econtrack is
available from the Highways Agency Supply Chain Management Team and can be found on PartnerNet.
PartnerNet
The aim of the PartnerNet site is to foster closer working relationships between the Highways Agency and its
business partners by making it easier for us to communicate, share knowledge and work together. It does
this by allowing access to named members of the Providers’ teams and their HA Counterparts. It also
provides access to toolkits the HA has developed, i.e. Journey Time Reliability, Managing Down Costs, and
Traffic Management.
The Measurement Working Group (MWG) uses PartnerNet to collect relevant documents and exercises
together. The Core Information group is organised with a folder for each meeting of the MWG which holds
the Agenda, Minutes, Presentations, API Reviews, the report to the Performance Management Group any
other reports such as proposals for new APIs or the Maintenance Steering Group’s Briefing Paper.

There are other areas (API Specific and BSL Collector groups) house specific material relating to the
development of APIs in general, this Handbook, and any material relating to the use of BSL’s Econtrack
product.
.
Changes in Issue 05 Revision 01
Inclusion of document Control table.
Section name change from “Background” to “Historical Background”
Inclusion of “The Way Forward (December 2006)”
Inclusion of Measurement Working Group’s “Terms of Reference”
Inclusion of simple explanation of Econtrack, PartnerNet,
Update of membership table for Measurement Working Group.
In all API sections the removal of “Possible future measures under consideration”
API04 - Inclusion of description for (K)
API08 - Removing (Target +/- 5% max.) from paragraph two.
- Removing (Target +/- 2% max.) from paragraph three.
- Simplyfing “Data Source” statement to - “HA systems and / or providers records”.
- EF01(A) changed to EF01(FYTD) to be the same as in Econtrack
- EF02(A) changed to EF02(FYTD) to be the same as in Econtrack
- EF01(M) Area target from * to tick
- EF01(FYTD) Area target from tick to *
API10 - Inclusion of Measure DF05
API14 - TPC01 and TPC05 change of Area Target from 9 to N/A
API15 - Inclusion of description for (V)
General Tidying of document formating.

Measurement Working Group

Membership at March 2007
Organisation Areas Representative E-mail Phone Mobile API
ownership
HA Tony Darnell Tony.darnell@highways.gsi.gov.uk 01132 835416 07710958413
HA Chris Roy Christopher.roy@highways.gsi.gov.uk 01234 796352
HA 2 Lance Marshall Lance.Marshall@highways.gsi.gov.uk 0117 372 8325 07789923 175
Atkins/Optima 6,10,11 Mark McCappin mark.mccappin@optima-im.com 01827 317649 07876 656794 3 & 11
Atkins Emma Langman emma.langman@atkinsglobal.com 01214 835590 07834505827
AmeyMouchel 9, 13 Stephen Norris stephen.norris@amey.co.uk 01865 713349 07747627037 1&2
Mouchel Parkman Tim Pearce tim.pearce@mouchelparkman.com 013728445604 6&7
Carrillion/URS/WSP 5,8,12 Mark Rawson mrawson@carillion-urs.com 01536 413700 4, 9
A-one 14 Kumar Kusalakumar kumar.kusalakumar@aone.uk.com 01325 341697 07921795150 14
AMScott 7 John Eyles john.eyles@amscott7.com 01623 675625 07766422110 12 & 15
BBISL/MM/InterRoute 3,4 John Bourke john.bourke@bbisl.com 07966895705 5 & 10
InterRoute 2 John Mills John.Mills@area2.interroutejv.co.uk 01454 452373 07801434392
AccordMP Alison McFarlane alison.mcfarlane@accordmp.com 01392 312659 07929279494 13
Le Crossing Dartford Azeem Tayab azeemtayab@lecrossing.co.uk 01322 221603 07957993178 8
For current membership details use PartnerNet

Indicator Ref. & Title API 1: Response to Emergency Incidents Indicator issue 02
HA Objective Reducing Congestion and Improving Reliability, Improving Road Safety

Purpose / To measure the efficiency and effectiveness of the Provider’s Emergency
Description Management and Response service. The Provider should respond to
emergencies on the Area Network as quickly and effectively as possible in
order to minimise any danger, disruption or delay to the public, or damage to
the Area Network and / or local environment.
Measures
REI01 Total number of emergency incidents for which an immediate response
by an ISU was required.
REI02 Percentage of emergency incidents identified by Provider’s ISU teams

(`proactive’ deployments).
REI03 Percentage of `reactive’ ISU call-outs to emergency incidents achieved

within the response times defined in the Contract.
REI04 Average response time achieved for `reactive’ ISU call-outs to

emergency incidents reported as a percentage of the response times
defined in the Contract. (note: the lower the percentage, the better the
performance)
Definitions
Emergency Incident A disruption or potential hazard to the operation, safety and/or integrity of the
Area Network (or adjacent land) that requires an immediate response by an
ISU.
`Proactive’ deployment Response provided to an emergency incident identified directly by Provider’s

ISU teams (note: has a `zero’ response time)
`Reactive’ call-out Response provided to an emergency incident notified to the Provider’s

Control Centre by a 3rd party or Provider’s staff (excluding ISU teams)
Response Time The time elapsed (in minutes) from notification of the initial incident to the
Provider’s Control Centre, to the time of notification of arrival on site of the
emergency incident by the ISU (note: not the time of arrival of the ISU at the
back of a traffic queue caused by the incident – although Provider’s may wish
to record this time separately for their own records)
ISU Incident Support Unit (or equivalent as defined in the contract)
Methodology REI02 is calculated as a percentage of the incidents reported at REI01.
REI03 is calculated as the combined sum of all `reactive’ call-outs (within

each response time category) responded to within target time, divided by the
total number of `reactive’ call-outs attended.
REI04 is reported as a percentage of the response times defined in the

Contract (to take account of differing contractual requirements). The
percentage is calculated as the sum of the actual response times provided,
divided by the sum of the contractual response times.
Issue 05 Rev 01 Mar 2007 11 of 60

Data Source / Provider’s incident logs / database

Requirements
Additional REI01 and REI02 are reported for contextual information, although REI02
Information also provides a measure of the proactive service provided by ISU teams.
REI03 and REI04 exclude incidents identified directly by the Provider’s ISU
teams in order to provide a `true’ measure of the `reactive’ incident call-out
response times achieved (i.e. excluding `proactive’ deployments with a `zero’
response time).
Issue 05 Rev 01 Mar 2007 12 of 60

Data Input (Frequency / Reporting Period: Calendar month)
Field Type Calculation Decimals Range
Total number of emergency ISU (A) Integer 0 0 - 1000

deployments (in month)
Number of `proactive’ emergency ISU (B) Integer 0 0 - 1000

Number of `reactive’ emergency ISU (C) Auto Calc A-B 0 0 - 1000

Number of `reactive’ deployments (D) Integer 0 0 - 1000

achieved within target response time
Total actual response time to `reactive’ (E) Integer 0 0 - 20,000

deployments (mins)
Total allowable response time to (F) Integer 0 0 - 20,000

`reactive’ deployments (mins)
Calculations (Individual Monthly Performance)

Report – Graph Area
Measure and/or Table Type Calculation Decimals Range
(G/T)
Target
REI01 - (M) G+T Integer A 0 0 - 1000 n/a
REI02 - (M) G+T Percentage (B / A) *100 1 0 - 100 *
REI03 - (M) G+T Percentage (D / C) *100 1 0 - 100 9
REI04 - (M) G+T Percentage (E / F) *100 1 0 - 100 9
Calculations (Rolling 12 Month Performance) i.e. current month + preceding 11 months

(G/T)
Target
REI01 - (A) T Integer ΣA / 12 0 0 - 1000 n/a
REI02 - (A) T Percentage (ΣB / ΣA) 1 0 - 100 *

*100
REI03 - (A) T Percentage (ΣD / ΣC) 1 0 - 100 *

*100
REI04 - (A) T Percentage (ΣE / ΣF) 1 0 - 100 *

*100
Note: Σ = the aggregation of input data for the current month and the preceding 11 months.
(M) Monthly indicator (A) Annual indicator
9 Denotes area set target, * denotes target requirement at discretion of area.
Issue 05 Rev 01 Mar 2007 13 of 60

Indicator Ref. & Title API 2: Response to Category 1 Defects Indicator issue 03
HA Objective Improving Road Safety

Purpose / To measure the efficiency of the Provider’s response to Category 1 defects.
Description The Provider should manage resources and programme to ensure all Category
1 defects are responded to within the maximum response times defined in the
Contract. In meeting these targets, danger to the public will be minimised and
further deterioration of the defect will be avoided.
Measures
IR01 Percentage of Category 1 defects made safe or repaired within the 24
hour response time
IR02 Percentage of Category 1 defects repaired within the 7 day response time
IR03 Percentage of Category 1 defects repaired within the 28 day response

time
IR04 Average time (in days) for repair of Category 1 defects within the 7 day
response time category
IR05 Percentage of Cat 1 “24 hour” defects which remain open and overdue
within the current month and preceding 11 months.
IR06 Percentage of Cat 1 “7 Day” defects which remain open and overdue
IR07 Percentage of Cat 1 “28 Day” defects which remain open and overdue
Definitions
Category 1 defect Defects which require prompt attention because they represent an immediate
or imminent hazard, or there is a risk of immediate or imminent structural
deterioration, or there is an immediate or imminent risk of damage to a 3rd
party’s property or equipment, or there is an immediate or imminent risk of
damage to the environment, or there is a risk of breach of statutory duty.
Repair (ed) Repair is as defined under the area contract
Defect A defect is deemed to fall within a month if its required completion date falls
within the month.
Issue 05 Rev 01 Mar 2007 14 of 60

Methodology IR01 is reported as a percentage of the number of Category 1 defects identified

requiring a 24hr response time (made safe or repaired).
IR02 is reported as a percentage of the number of Category 1 defects identified

requiring a 7 day response time.
IR03 is reported as a percentage of the number of Category 1 defects identified

requiring a 28 day response time.
IR04 is reported as the average repair time in days. This is to include only
those Category 1 defects identified requiring a 7 day response time and applies
to all in month repairs irrespective of the required completion date.
IR05 is reported as the number of open and overdue Category 1 defects

requiring a 24hr response time reported as a percentage of the total (for current
month and preceding eleven months).

requiring a 7 day response time reported as a percentage of the total (for
current month and preceding eleven months).

requiring a 28 day response time reported as a percentage of the total (for
current month and preceding eleven months).
Note defects requiring to be made safe in 24 hrs and repaired within e.g. 7
days would be reported in both categories.
Data Source Provider’s RMMS database / works order system
Issue 05 Rev 01 Mar 2007 15 of 60


Number of Cat 1 “24 hour” defects with
required completion date / time within (A) Integer 0 0 – 1000
month
Number of Cat 1 “24 hour” defects

closed by required completion date / (B) Integer 0 0 – 1000
time in month.
Total number of Cat 1 “24 hour defects”

which remain open and overdue within
(C) Integer 0 0 – 5000
the current month and preceding eleven
months.
~~~~~~~~~~~
Number of Cat 1 “7 Day” defects with
required completion date / time within (D) Integer 0 0 – 1000
month
Number of Cat 1 “7 Day” defects closed

by required completion date / time in (E) Integer 0 0 – 1000
month.
Total number of Cat 1 “7 Day” which

remain open and overdue within
(F) Integer 0 0 – 5000
previous the current month and
preceding eleven months.
~~~~~~~~~~~
Number of Cat 1 “28 Day” defects with
required completion date / time within (G) Integer 0 0 – 1000
month
Number of Cat 1 “28 Day” defects closed

by required completion date / time in (H) Integer 0 0 – 1000
month.
Total number of Cat 1 “28 Day” which

remain open and overdue within
(I) Integer 0 0 – 5000
previous the current month and
preceding eleven months.
~~~~~~~~~~~
Total repair time in days for Cat 1 “7
Day” defects closed in month
(J) Integer 0 0 – 21000
(irrespective of required completion
date).
Number of Cat 1 "7 Day" defects closed

in month (irrespective of (K) Integer 0 0 - 3000
required completion date).
~~~~~~~~~~~
Issue 05 Rev 01 Mar 2007 16 of 60


Measure Type Calculation Decimals Range
and/or Table (G/T) Target
IR01 - (M) G+T Percentage (B / A)*100 1 0 - 100 9
IR02 - (M) G+T Percentage (E / D)*100 1 0 – 100 9
IR03 - (M) G+T Percentage (H / G)*100 1 0 – 100 9
IR04 - (M) G+T Integer J/K 1 0 - 25 9

IR01 - (A) T Percentage (Σ B/ Σ A) *100 1 0 - 100 *
IR02 - (A) T Percentage (Σ E/ Σ D) *100 1 0 – 100 *
IR03 - (A) T Percentage (Σ H/ Σ G) *100 1 0 – 100 *
IR04 - (A) T Integer ΣJ / ΣK 1 0 - 25 *
IR05 - (A) T Percentage (C/ ΣA)*100 1 0 – 100 *
IR06 – (A) T Percentage (F/ ΣD)*100 1 0 – 100 *
IR07- (A) T Percentage (I / ΣG)*100 1 0 – 100 *
Note:
Σ = the aggregation of input data for the current month and the preceding 11 months.
9 Denotes area set target, * denotes target requirement at discretion of area
Issue 05 Rev 01 Mar 2007 17 of 60

Indicator Ref. &

API 3: Customer Satisfaction Indicator issue 02
Title
HA Objective Seeking Feedback from Customers
Purpose / To measure the effectiveness of the Provider's response to complaints and enquiries
Description received from the public and other stakeholders in relation to the operation of the Area
Network and / or the Provider’s activities.
Measures
CS01 Total number of enquiries and complaints received.
CS02 Number of complaints received.
CS03 Percentage of complaints received that require(d) corrective action.
CS04 Percentage of complaints received that require(d) corrective action that were
closed within 10 working days.
Definitions
Enquiry Communication / correspondence received requesting information about the Area
Network or the Provider’s services.
Complaint Communication / correspondence received regarding the condition or performance of

the Area Network or the Provider’s performance which is formally recorded as a
dissatisfaction with the service provided.
Observation Communication / correspondence received which reports on the condition or

performance of the Area Network or the Provider’s performance (not notified to the
Provider as a dissatisfaction).
Compliment Communication / correspondence received which expresses praise for the service
provided.
Corrective action An action which rectifies the condition or performance of the Area Network or modifies
the Provider’s working practices (procedures).
Closed Actioning the initial complaint – may be just a reply, but must be a substantial reply
detailing actions to be taken and timescales.
HAIL Highways Agency Information Line
Methodology Number of enquiries and complaints received by the Provider to include correspondence
referred from HAIL and all other direct sources. Communications may be received in
any form (i.e. telephone, e-mail, letter, personal etc). Enquiries and complaints received
that are not the responsibility of the Highways Agency or the Provider will not be
reported.
CS01 to include the number of complaints reported in CS02.
CS01-A and CS02-A will show average, not cumulative, values.
CS03 to be reported as a percentage of complaints reported in CS02.
CS04 to be reported as a percentage of the number of complaints that require(d)

corrective action reported in CS03.
Data Source Provider’s Customer Service logs / database
Issue 05 Rev 01 Mar 2007 18 of 60

Indicator Ref. &

API 3: Customer Satisfaction Indicator issue 02
Title
Number of enquiries and (A) Integer n/a 0 0 - 500

complaints
Number of complaints (B) Integer n/a 0 0 - 500
Number of complaints (C) Integer n/a 0 0 - 500

requiring corrective action
Number of complaints (D) Integer n/a 0 0 - 500

requiring corrective action
that were closed within 10
working days
Report
–
Measure Graph Type Calculation Decimals Range Area Target
and/or
Table
(G/T)
CS01 - (M) G+T Integer A 0 0 - 500 n/a
CS02 - (M) G+T Integer B 0 0 - 500 n/a
CS03 - (M) G+T Percentage (C / B) *100 1 0 - 100 9
CS04 - (M) G+T Percentage (D / C) *100 1 0 - 100 9
Calculations (Rolling 12 Month Performance) ie current month + preceding 11 months
Report –
Graph
Measure Type Calculation Decimals Range Area Target
and/or
Table (G/T)
CS01 - (A) T Integer ΣA / 12 0 0- n/a

500
CS02 - (A) T Integer ΣB / 12 1 0- n/a

500
CS03 - (A) T Percentage (ΣC / ΣB) 1 0- *

*100 100
CS04 - (A) T Percentage (ΣD / ΣC) 1 0- *

*100 100
Note:
Issue 05 Rev 01 Mar 2007 19 of 60

Indicator Ref. & Title API 4: Environmental Amenity Index. Indicator issue 02
HA Objective Respecting the Environment

Purpose / To provide a measure of the overall appearance and amenity value of a
Description route / the network.
Measures EAI01 Environmental Amenity Index.
Definitions
Environmental A subjective visual assessment of the amenity value of a route section across
Amenity Index 10 categories (litter and debris, standard of grass cutting – swath and visibility
splays, standard of grass cutting at obstructions, weed growth in verges and
central reserve, weed growth in gullies and drainage, visibility of signs,
cleanliness off signs, sweeping of channels, encroachment of vegetation
on/over the carriageway, footpaths and cycleways, illegal signs, obstructions
and graffiti) following the attached grading system.
Methodology A 5km length of continuous carriageway of a route is jointly chosen at random

by the Provider and HA Route Sponsor with no prior notice given to Provider’s
‘operations’ team. Inspections are carried out from a vehicle travelling as slowly
as prevailing traffic speeds allow without disruption of traffic flow where
practicable.
At the end of each 1000m an assessment following the guidance notes is made
for that section where there is an occurrence of the category item (NB this is not
applicable to illegal signs, obstructions and graffiti). This will result in a
maximum of 5 scores per category, these are then averaged to obtain the
overall score for each category.
The index is the average of the categories with resultant scores (e.g. if each
1000m section within a 5km length had no grass present a score would not be
applicable for grass cutting, the maximum number of categories would therefore
be 8 – see always applicable column on data input table below).
All scores are reported to the nearest whole number.
Details of the route and length are to be recorded.
Where applicable routes shall be chosen to ensure maximum coverage of
network annually.
Data Source Provider’s Inspection records.
Additional Information Provision of possible traffic management e.g. crash cushions, will depend on
local conditions.
Inspection to be carried out and agreed with HA Route Sponsor.
A 5km random length of route should be jointly chosen prior to inspection with
no prior notice given to `Operations’.
Inspection to be carried out from a vehicle traveling as slowly as prevailing
traffic speeds allow without disruption of traffic flow.
All routes where possible, to be inspected annually (financial year).
Scoring:
A - 100%, B - 66%, C - 33%, D - 0%
Average of applicable categories (whole no.) to be reported monthly, record

route inspected.
Issue 05 Rev 01 Mar 2007 20 of 60

Always
Applicable
Score for “Litter and Debris” (A) Percentage 0 0 – 100 9
Score for “Standard of Grass (B) Percentage 0 0 – 100 X
Cutting – Swath & Visibility
Splays”
Score for “Standard of Grass (C) Percentage 0 0 – 100 X
Cutting at Obstructions”
Score for “Weed Growth in (D) Percentage 0 0 – 100 9
Verges and Central Reserve.”
Score for “Weed Growth in (E) Percentage 0 0 – 100 9
Gullies and Drainage”
Score for “Visibility of Signs” (F) Percentage 0 0 – 100 X
Score for “Cleanliness of Signs” (G) Percentage 0 0 – 100 X
Score for “Sweeping of (H) Percentage 0 0 – 100 X
Channels”
Score for “Encroachment of (I) Percentage 0 0 – 100 9
Vegetation”
Score for “Illegal Signs, (J) Percentage 0 0 – 100 9
Obstructions and Graffiti”
Environmental Amenity Index (K) Percentage Sum(A:J)/n 0 0 – 100 9

for month ”

Measure and/or Table Type Calculation Decimals Range Targe
(G/T) t
EAI01 - (M) G+T Percentage (SUM (A:J)) / 0 0 – 100 9

n

Measure and/or Table Type Calculation Decimals Range Targe
(G/T) t
EAI01 - (A) G+T Percentage ΣK / 12 0 0 – 100 *
Note:
Σ = the aggregation of monthly performance results for the current month and the preceding 11 months.
n = the number of applicable input scores for the current month (max. 10, min 5)
SUM (A:J) = A + B + C + ….+ J
Issue 05 Rev 01 Mar 2007 21 of 60

General guidance on grading system:-
1. Inspection to be carried out and agreed with HA route sponsor.
2. A 5km random length of route should be jointly chosen prior to inspection with no prior notice given to
‘Operations’.
3. Inspection to be carried out from a vehicle travelling as slowly as prevailing traffic speeds allow without
disruption of traffic flow.
4. All routes where possible, to be inspected annually (financial year).
5. Scoring: - A 100%
B 66%
C 33%
D 0%
Average of the categories (whole no.) to be reported monthly, record route inspected.
Issue 05 Rev 01 Mar 2007 22 of 60

1. Litter and debris.
A. Free of litter.
B. Not much litter apart from a few small items.
C. Quite a lot of litter with small build-ups.
Issue 05 Rev 01 Mar 2007 23 of 60

2.Standard of grass cutting - Swath and Visibility Splays
A. Consistent length, good visibility.
B. Inconsistent cut, good visibility.
C. Inconsistent cut, minor windrows, tufts left possibly causing

visibility problems with new growth.
D. Inconsistent cut, tufts still standing, obstructing visibility.
A B
C D
Issue 05 Rev 01 Mar 2007 24 of 60

3. Standard of Grass Cutting at Obstructions
A. No visible growth > surrounding grass.
B. Obstructions/ signs exposed some areas of grass >

surrounding area.
C. Partial attempt, obstruction/ sign (~50%).
D. No attempt made.
A B
C D
Issue 05 Rev 01 Mar 2007 25 of 60

4. Weed Growth in Verges and Central Reserve
A. No visible weed growth.
B. Weed growth minimal and no higher than surrounding grass.
C. Weed growth evident with further treatment required.
D. Weed growth unrestrained.
A B
C D
Issue 05 Rev 01 Mar 2007 26 of 60

5. Weed Growth in Gullies and Drainage
A. No visible weed growth.
B. Weed growth visible, no impairment of function.
C. Weed growth partially impairing function.
D. Weed growth impairing function.
A B
C D
Issue 05 Rev 01 Mar 2007 27 of 60

6. Visibility of signs
A. Fully visible.
B. Partially obscured (<10%) with no loss of visibility of message.
C. Partially obscured message readable.
D. Message obscured and/ or unreadable.

(Ref - The traffic signs regulations & general directions for
distances.)
SIGN
FULLY
VISIBLE
A B
C D
Issue 05 Rev 01 Mar 2007 28 of 60

7. Cleanliness of Signs
A. Clean.
B. Soiling barely visible no impairment of legend.
C. Partial impairment of legend.
D. Heavily soiled, legend not clear.
A B
C D
Issue 05 Rev 01 Mar 2007 29 of 60

8. Sweeping of Channels
A. Clear of detritus.
B. Small amounts of detritus, no impairment of function.
C. Function partially impaired.
D. Function impaired.
A B
C D
Issue 05 Rev 01 Mar 2007 30 of 60

. Encroachment Of Vegetation on/ over carriageway, footpaths and cycleways.
A. No encroachment.
B. Growth near pavement but no encroachment.
C. Encroachment without action being taken.
D. Encroachment over pavement potentially hazardous.
A B
C D
Issue 05 Rev 01 Mar 2007 31 of 60

10. Illegal signs, obstruction and Graffiti
A. Clear of all illegal signs, obstructions and graffiti.
B. No graffiti minimal sign(s) of temporary nature e.g. charity

event.
C. Minimal non offensive graffiti and or minor signs/ obstructions

with no associated hazards.
D. Graffiti and/or signs/ obstructions causing visible blight or

potential hazard.
CLEAR OF ALL
Illegal signs,
Obstructions, and Graffiti
A B
C D
Issue 05 Rev 01 Mar 2007 32 of 60

Indicator Ref. & Title API 5: Site (Workplace) Safety Indicator issue 03
HA Objective To Be a Good Employer

Purpose / To measure the effectiveness of the Provider’s safety processes by monitoring
Description all accidents reportable under RIDDOR and all other recorded injuries within
the Provider’s organisation.
Measures
SS01 Area RIDDOR Frequency Rate, based on all accidents reportable under
RIDDOR.
SS02 Area Accident Frequency Rate, based on the total number of SS01 and all
other recorded injuries.
Definitions
Provider’s organisation All site, network and compound based staff involved in MAC, EMAC or
MA/TMC activities including subcontractors and head office staff directly
employed in area business. Further guidance is given on the attached table at
appendix A.
RIDDOR Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations
Recorded injuries All injuries recorded in Accident Books (or databases) covering the Agency's
Area Maintenance contract (MA & TMC, MAC or EMAC).
Methodology SS01 is calculated as all accidents reportable under RIDDOR in the 12 month
period, as a rolling average, divided by the total number of hours worked in
that period by the Provider’s organisation (see appendix A), multiplied by
100,000.
For reasons of practicality, other staff hours such as delivery drivers and
limited visits to site by HA staff or other third parties will not be monitored.
However any injuries incurred by others shall be included in the injury
numbers.
SS02 is calculated as the total number of recorded injuries and all accidents
reportable under RIDDOR in the 12 month period, as a rolling average, divided
by the total number of hours worked in that period by the Provider’s
organisation, multiplied by 100,000.
Data Source Provider’s Accident Books / databases including RIDDOR forms.
Additional none
Information
Issue 05 Rev 01 Mar 2007 33 of 60

Indicator Ref. & Title API 5: Site (Workplace) Safety Indicator issue 03

Total number of hours worked in the (A) Integer AM + AT B B B B 0 0 – 150000
month
Total number of all accidents reportable (B) Integer BM + BT B B B B 0 0 – 50

under RIDDOR in the month
Total number of recorded injuries in the (C) Integer CM + C T B B B B 0 0 – 100

month (Non-RIDDOR)
Total of all accidents reportable under (D) Auto Calc B+C 0 0 – 150
RIDDOR and all recorded injuries

Measure and/or Table Type Calculation Decimals Range Target
(G/T)
SS01 - (A) G+T Integer (ΣB / ΣA) *105 P P 2 0–5 9
SS02 - (A) G+T Integer (ΣD / ΣA) *105 P P 2 0 – 20 9
Note:
Subscript M relates to MA/MAC data

B B
Subscript T relates to TMC data where applicable, for MACs this will be nil
B B
Issue 05 Rev 01 Mar 2007 34 of 60

Indicator Ref. & Title API 5: Site (Workplace) Safety - Appendix A Indicator issue 03
Ref Resource type Resource category To be included in

API 5 analysis?
(incl employees, on
training scheme, on work
experience, employed by
someone else or self-
employed)
1 Member of the public N/A No
2 HA Area and Head Office No
(HO) dedicated Area staff
3 HA Route Management No
Strategy / other consultant
working in/on the
Highways Agency (HA)
Area
4 HA Technology Provider No except for Area 2
EMAC where
Technology
elements are
included in
Provider's scope
5 MA/MAC HO dedicated staff Yes
6 MA/MAC Area staff Yes
7 MA/MAC Agency staff Yes
8 MA/MAC Sub-consultants Yes
(permanent works design /
study)
9 MA/MAC Sub-contractors for Yes
surveys, letter drops and
the like
10 TMC/MAC/EMAC HO dedicated staff Yes
11 TMC/MAC/EMAC Area staff Yes
12 TMC/MAC/EMAC Sub-consultants Yes
(temporary works
designers, Design &
Construct (D&C) item
designers and the like)
13 TMC/MAC/EMAC Sub-contractors Yes
14 TMC/MAC/EMAC Agency staff Yes
15 Framework Contractors HO staff dedicated to the No
scheme
16 Framework Contractors Scheme specific staff No
17 Framework Contractors Scheme specific Agency No
staff
18 Framework Contractors Sub-consultants No
(temporary works
designers, D&C item
19 Framework Contractors Sub-contractors No
Issue 05 Rev 01 Mar 2007 35 of 60

Indicator Ref. & Title API 5: Site (Workplace) Safety - Appendix A Indicator issue 03
Ref Resource type Resource category To be included in

API 5 analysis?
(incl employees, on
training scheme, on work
experience, employed by
someone else or self-
employed)
20 MA/MAC/EMAC Framework schemes Partial: exclude
supervisory staff (MA, hours where these
MAC or EMAC) staff are on
Framework site as
these will be
reported by
Framework
Contractor as
Principal Contractor
21 Tendered scheme HO staff dedicated to the No
contractor scheme
22 Tendered scheme Scheme specific staff No
contractor
23 Tendered scheme Scheme specific Agency No
contractor staff
24 Tendered scheme Sub-consultants No
contractor (temporary works
designers, D&C item
25 Tendered scheme Sub-contractors No
contractor
26 MA/MAC/EMAC Tendered schemes Partial: exclude
contract supervisory staff hours where these
(MA, MAC or EMAC) staff are on
Tendered Scheme
site as these will be
reported by
Framework
Contractor as
27 Section 278 scheme HO staff dedicated to the No
contractor scheme
28 Section 278 scheme Scheme specific staff No
contractor
29 Section 278 scheme Scheme specific Agency No
contractor staff
30 Section 278 scheme Sub-consultants No
contractor (temporary works
designers, D&C item
31 Section 278 scheme Sub-contractors No
contractor
32 MA/MAC/EMAC Section 278 scheme Partial: exclude
contract supervisory staff hours where these
(MA, MAC or EMAC) staff are on Section
278 site as these will
be reported by
Framework
Contractor as
Issue 05 Rev 01 Mar 2007 36 of 60

Indicator
Indicator Ref. & Title API 6: Predictability of Discrete Schemes – Time (Schemes > £100k) issue 06
HA Objective To Ensure More Effective Delivery Through Better Working Relationships

Purpose / This API measures the accuracy of time predictions, initially only on eligible
Description schemes exceeding £100K in value. The indicators are designed to reflect the
impact on customers and the HA of milestones in the process of design and
construction of these schemes not being achieved at predicted times.
The API is a measure on the whole of the delivery team including HA, MA/MAC,
TMC and the Supply Chain.
Milestone A series of milestones throughout the scheme are identified as defined in “Time and
description Cost Phases for API 6 & 7”, see Appendix 1.
1. Commitment to detailed design – dates to be agreed by 31st March

2. Completion of detailed design
3. Agreement of Cost (API 7 only)
4. Agreement of predicted start and finish dates
5. Actual start of Construction
6. Actual Completion of Construction
7. Agreement of final account at first valuation after completion (API 7 only)
Measures
TP01 Variance between actual date at 2, compared to date at 2 as predicted at 1.
NB: Only for Live Schemes where data is less than 365 days old


TP04 Variance between duration 5 to 6 as predicted at 4, compared to actual

duration 5 – 6.
Definitions
“Live” Scheme A Live scheme is determined by the age of the second of the two milestones that
constitute the API. This should be 365 days old or less to qualify as Live data.
Scheme Cost The sum of all money managed by the Provider on behalf of the HA – including
design, construction, statutory undertakers etc. This will not include land costs.
Eligible Scheme Scheme currently approved by HA, with an estimated scheme cost over £100K at
milestone 1.
Measure Period Rolling 12 months [current month + preceding 11 months] (or year to date if less
than 12 months data exists)
All Parties HA, Designer/Project Manager, Constructor(s), MA/MAC, TMC and Supply Chain.
Milestones All Milestones are defined in Appendix 1, “Time and Cost Phases for API 6 and & 7”.
Issue 05 Rev 01 Mar 2007 37 of 60

Indicator
Methodology Scheme Data Flow

As part of preparing the annual programme, covering works funded for each
financial year, a record for each Scheme is produced and relevant details recorded,
including project details and the predicted date for completion of detailed design
(milestone 1).
When detailed design is completed relevant details are recorded and the variation
from the prediction is calculated and recorded (milestone 2).
Similarly, when all parties agree the construction dates – (during milestone 4) – the
predictions for the start date for construction and completion date for construction,
and therefore the construction duration are recorded.
The actual dates for Start and End of Construction are promptly recorded as they
occur and at the End of Construction the construction duration is calculated and
entered into the records (milestone 5 & 6)
API Calculation
Individual scheme data is then summarised to calculate the API’s.
Only Live data is considered for each of the API’s. Each month, each API is
considered independently, so that data for a scheme may be eligible for inclusion in
the calculation of some or all API’s. (NB As soon as completion of detailed design
data is recorded for a scheme, that data is included in the subsequent calculation of
TP01, at the end of the month. Once this data is more than 365 days old (i.e. 12
months old) it is removed from the calculation of TP01, even though data from the
same scheme may still be eligible for the calculation of TP02, TP03 or TP04 that
month.]
For all Time Predictability API’s only positive variations (late completions) are added
to the cumulative total, which is divided by the number of eligible schemes in the
measure period to calculate the indicators.
Compensation events will affect the actual recorded dates but the predicted dates
will not be amended to reflect compensation events. i.e. compensation events which
affect the duration of a scheme will have a negative effect on the result.
Until data is available for 12 months, the indicators are reported as Year to Date
(YTD).
Data Source Provider’s records
Additional None.
Information
Issue 05 Rev 01 Mar 2007 38 of 60

Indicator
Data Input for individual projects (Frequency / Reporting Period: Calendar month for all new data)

Predicted date for completion of (A) Integer 0 Any date
detailed design as made at milestone 1.
Actual date for completion of detailed (B) Integer 0 Any date

design (milestone 2).
Predicted date for start of construction (C) Integer 0 Any date

as made at milestone 4.
Actual date for start of construction (D) Integer 0 Any Date

(milestone 5).
Predicted date for completion of (E) Integer 0 Any Date

construction as made at milestone 4.
Actual date for completion of (F) Integer 0 Any Date

construction (milestone 6).
Live Data for TP01 (G) Calculation =IF[(TODAY – 0 0/1

(B)) >365, 0, 1]
Live Data for TP02 (H) Calculation =IF[(TODAY – 0 0/1

(D)) >365, 0, 1]
Live Data for TP03 and TP04 (I) Calculation =IF[(TODAY – 0 0/1
(F)) >365, 0, 1]
Predicted Length of Construction (J) Calculation (E-C) 0 0-1000
Actual Length of Construction (K) Calculation (F-D) 0 0-1000
Number of Days Variance for TP01 (L) Calculation (B-A) 0 0-500
Number of Days Variance for TP02 (M) Calculation (D-C) 0 0-500
Number of Days Variance for TP03 (N) Calculation (F-E) 0 0-500
Number of Days Variance for TP04 (O) Calculation (K-J) 0 0-500
Issue 05 Rev 01 Mar 2007 39 of 60

Indicator
Calculations (Rolling 12 month Performance i.e. current month + preceding 11 months)
Report –
Graph Area
and/or Target
Table (G/T)
IF(G = 1), then
TP01 - (A) G+T Integer 0 0 - 500 9
(Σ(L>0))/ Σ(G)
IF(H = 1), then

TP02 - (A) G+T Integer 0 0 - 500 9
(Σ(M>0))/ Σ(H)
IF(I = 1), then

TP03 - (A) G+T Integer 0 0 - 500 9
(Σ(N>0))/ Σ(I)
IF(I = 1), then

TP04 - (A) G+T Integer 0 0 - 500 9
(Σ(O>0))/ Σ(I)
Note:
Σ = the aggregation of input data for the current month and the preceding 11 months. This data is deleted
after 12 months inclusion in the results, see definition of live data.
Issue 05 Rev 01 Mar 2007 40 of 60

Indicator
Indicator Ref. & Title API 7: Predictability of Discrete Schemes – Cost (Schemes > £100k) issue 06

Purpose / This API measures the accuracy of cost predictions, initially only on eligible
Description schemes exceeding £100K in value. The indicators are designed to reflect the
impact on customers and the HA, of changes in predictions and costs during the
different phases of design and construction of these schemes.
The API is a measure on the whole of the delivery team including HA, MA/MAC,
TMC and the Supply Chain.
Milestone description A series of milestones throughout the scheme are identified as defined in “Time
and Cost Phases for API 6 & 7”, see Appendix 1.
1. Commitment to detailed design – dates to be agreed by 31st March

2. Completion of detailed design
3. Agreement of Cost (API 7 only)
4. Agreement of predicted start and finish dates
5. Actual start of Construction
6. Actual Completion of Construction
7. Agreement of final account at first valuation after completion (API 7 only)
Measures CP01 Variance between the sum of costs at milestone 3 compared to those
costs predicted at milestone 1, as a percentage of costs predicted at
milestone 1.
CP02 Variance between the sum of costs at milestone 7 compared to these

milestone 3.
CP03 Variance between the sum of costs at milestone 7 compared to these

milestone 1.
Definitions
“Live” Scheme A Live scheme is determined by the age of the second of the two milestones that
constitute the API. This should be 365 days old or less to qualify as Live data.
Scheme Cost The sum of all money managed by the Provider on behalf of the HA – including
design, construction, statutory undertakers etc. This will not include land costs.
Eligible Scheme Scheme currently approved by HA, with an estimated scheme cost over £100K at
milestone 1.
Measure Period
Rolling 12 months [current month + preceding 11 months] (or year to date if less
than 12 months data exists)
All Parties HA, Designer/Project Manager, Constructor(s), MA/MAC, TMC and Supply Chain.
Milestones All Milestones are defined in Appendix 1, “Time and Cost Phases for API 6 and &
7.
Issue 05 Rev 01 Mar 2007 41 of 60

Indicator
Methodology Scheme Data Flow

As part of preparing the annual programme, covering works funded for each
financial year, a record for each Scheme is produced and relevant details are
recorded, including project details and prediction of final cost (milestone 1).
When all parties agree the construction costs (milestone 3), the provider records
the revised predicted final scheme cost and the date of this entry, against the
project record.
Finally, the provider records the projected final scheme cost, at the first valuation
after the End of Construction (milestone 7) and the date of this entry, against the
project record.
API Calculation
Individual scheme data is then summarised to calculate the API’s.
Only Live data is considered for each of the API’s. Each month, each API is
considered independently, so that data for a scheme may be eligible for inclusion
in the calculation of some or all API’s. (NB As soon as cost data at milestone 3 is
recorded for a scheme that data is included in the subsequent calculation of CP01,
at the end of the month. Once this data is more than 365 days old (i.e. 12 months
old) it is removed from the calculation of CP01, even though data from the same
scheme may still be eligible for the calculation of CP02 + CP03 that month]
As all deviations from predictions are undesirable for budgetary control, the API
considers the absolute value of cost variances as a percentage of the sum of the
initial predictions. This avoids the potential for negative and positive differences, in
separate schemes, to have a compensatory effect on the indicators.
Compensation events will affect the actual scheme cost but the predicted cost will
not be amended to reflect compensation events. i.e. compensation events which
affect the overall cost of a scheme will have a negative effect on the result.
Until data is available for 12 months, the indicators are reported as Year to Date
(YTD).
Data Source Provider’s records, HA records and Contractor’s records (if applicable)
Additional None.
Information
Issue 05 Rev 01 Mar 2007 42 of 60

Indicator
Data Input for individual projects (Frequency / Reporting Period: Calendar month for all new data)

Predicted scheme cost as made (A) Integer 0 0 - 5x106 P P
Milestone 1.
Predicted scheme cost as made (B) Integer 0 0 - 5x106 P P
Milestone 3.
Date Milestone 3 was reached. (C) Integer 0 Any Date
Predicted scheme cost as made (D) Integer 0 0 - 5x106 P P
Milestone 7.
Date Milestone 7 was reached. (E) Integer 0 Any Date
Variance Calculation for CP01 (F) Calculation B–A 0 0 - 5x106 P P
Variance Calculation for CP02 (G) Calculation D–B 0 0 - 5x106 P P
Variance Calculation for CP03 (H) Calculation D–A 0 0 - 5x106 P P
Live data for CP01 (I) Calculation =IF[(TODAY – (C)) 0 0/1

>365, 0, 1]
Live data for CP02 and CP03 (J) Calculation =IF[(TODAY – (E)) 0 0/1
>365, 0, 1]
NB: Data for F-J does not necessarily need to be visible
Overall Calculations (Rolling 12 month Performance i.e. current month + preceding 11 months)
Report –
Graph Area
and/or Target
Table (G/T)
For all schemes where I = 1
CP01 - (A) G+T Percentage [ (Σ F ) / Σ A ] * 100 0 0 - 100 9
For all schemes where J = 1

CP02 - (A) G+T
Percentage
[ (Σ G ) / Σ B ] * 100 0 0 - 100 9
For all schemes where J = 1

CP03 - (A) G+T
Percentage
[ (Σ H ) / Σ A ] * 100 0 0 - 100 9
Note: Σ = the aggregation of input data for the current month and the preceding 11 months. This data is
deleted after 12 months inclusion in the results, see definition of live data.
A...etc signifies a modulus of the number. i.e. all values taken as positive whether positive or negative.
Issue 05 Rev 01 Mar 2007 43 of 60

API 6 & 7 : Predictability of Discrete Schemes –

Indicator Ref. & Title Indicator issue 06
Cost (Schemes > £100k)
Appendix 1: Time and Cost Phases for API 6 & 7

Construction Phase to first
valuation after completion
Pricing
Design Phase Phase Construction
Phase
time
Commitment to detailed design
Agreement of predicted start and finish dates
Possible delay between agreement of target price and

start of construction..
Possible delay between completion of works info and
completion
Completion of detailed design
Actual completion of construction

start of pricing.
Agreement of Cost
Actual start of Construction
Agreement of final account at first valuation after

Milestone 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Milestone definitions
• DESIGN PHASE:
1. Commitment, after final VM, to detailed design completion dates and initial scheme cost. These
dates are drawn from a programme covering works funded for a financial year, to be compiled and
agreed by 31st March, for all eligible schemes. For schemes issued after 31st March the earliest
P P P P
possible design date and scheme cost is to be agreed within the team.
2. Completion of detailed design as evidenced by the availability of a COMPLETE design package (this
may not coincide with the issue of the design package, subject to programme and unforeseen delays
in starting pricing).
Any issue of additional information would put back the end of the design stage.
If the HA request a hold on pricing then the end of the design stage is the stage at which the
complete package is ready for issue.
• PRICING PHASE
3. Agreement of Cost (e.g. Target Cost, Derived Price, Task Order Agreement and Tender price
agreement)
Contd.
Issue 05 Rev 01 Mar 2007 44 of 60

API 6 & 7 : Predictability of Discrete Schemes –

Indicator Ref. & Title Indicator issue 06
Cost (Schemes > £100k)
Appendix 1:
U Time and Cost Phases for API 6 & 7
• CONSTRUCTION PHASE:
4. Point at which an agreed construction programme is published. This will normally coincide with
milestone 3.
5. Actual start of works on site including any traffic management.
6. Completion as defined under the Contract and including removal of all traffic management.
7. Agreement of final account at first valuation after completion
Issue 05 Rev 01 Mar 2007 45 of 60

Indicator Ref. & Title API 8: Predictability of Resource (Accruals) Forecasting Indicator issue 02

Purpose / To measure the predictability of the Provider’s resource (accruals) forecasting
Description with respect to the monthly accruals and annual budget allocation for the overall
area portfolio. Relates to the requirements of the Resource Accounting Manual
to demonstrate the `proper handling and reporting of public money’.
Measures
EF01 Percentage variance between the actual and forecast value of work
completed in the month (overall portfolio)
Percentage variance between the current Full Year Projection (FYP) and
EF02 the Full Year Budget (FYB) (overall portfolio)
Definitions
Resource Accounting System of planning, controlling and reporting on public spending for government
& Budgeting (RAB) using accruals accounting principles
Accruals `Non-cash’ effects of transactions and other events reflected in the month / year
in which they occur (i.e. not when cash involved is received or paid)
Forecast expenditure The value of work planned to be incurred during the month, forecast at the
beginning of the month (or end of the preceding month), based on the proposed
programme for design, supervision and works.
Actual expenditure The value of work actually incurred during the month as shown on invoices /
applications submitted to the Highways Agency for payment.
Full Year Projection The overall value of work projected / forecast to be incurred during the financial
(FYP) year (April – March) – updated monthly
Full Year Budget (FYB) The overall budget allocated to the Maintenance Area for the financial year, as
formally adjusted from time to time throughout the year.
HAMIS / SfM Highways Agency Management Information System/System for Management
MPML Management Plan Monitoring Line (budget category)
Methodology To be reported on the overall portfolio / budget under the control of the MAC /
MA / TMC.
EF01 to be calculated as the actual value of work incurred in the month minus
the forecast value of work in the month, divided by the forecast value of work in
the month (expressed as a percentage)
i.e. (Am – Fm) / Fm
EF02 to be calculated as the current Full Year Projection (FYP) minus the Full
Year Budget (FYB), divided by the Full Year Budget (FYB) (expressed as a
percentage)
i.e. (FYP – FYB) / FYB
Data Source HA systems and / or providers records.
Issue 05 Rev 01 Mar 2007 46 of 60

Indicator Ref. & Title API 8: Predictability of Resource (Accruals) Forecasting Indicator issue 02
Data Input (Frequency / Reporting Period: Calendar

month)

Forecast value of work planned to be (A) Integer 0 0 - £30m
completed in month (overall portfolio)
Actual value of work completed in (B) Integer 0 0 - £30m

month (overall portfolio)
Current Full Year Projection (FYP) (C) Integer 0 0 - £120m

(overall portfolio)
Current Full Year Budget (FYB) (D) Integer 0 0 - £120m

(overall portfolio)

EF01 (M) G+T Percentage (B - A) / A 1 0 – 100 9

*100 (+ or -)
Calculations (Financial Year to Date – April to March) i.e. current month + preceding months to and
including April
EF01 (FYTD) G+T Percentage (ΣB - ΣA) / 1 0 - 100 *

ΣA *100 (+ or -)
EF02 (FYTD) G+T Percentage (C - D) / D 1 0 - 100 9

*100 (+ or -)
Note:
(FYTD) = Full Year To Date, Σ = the aggregation of input data for the current month and the preceding
months to and including April.
Issue 05 Rev 01 Mar 2007 47 of 60

Indicator Ref. & Title API 9: Winter Maintenance Indicator issue 02
Desired Outcome Customer Satisfaction ~ Effective Maintenance

Purpose / To measure the effectiveness of the Provider’s Winter Maintenance service.
Description The Provider should, as far as is possible, ensure that ice does not form on the
carriageway. In doing so, the service should allow the safe movement of traffic
on the network, and keep delays and accidents caused by adverse weather to
a minimum.
Measures
WM01 Number of reported instances of ice on the network.
WM02 Number of confirmed instances of ice on the network.
Definitions
Reported instances Instances where the Provider is notified by a 3rd party or member of the
P P
Provider’s staff that there is ice on the network (excludes snow). This includes
instances where the reliability of the reporter to confirm ice is in doubt.
Reported instances of ice on the network should be assessed and verified by a
competent person – see below. Reported instances include all confirmed and
unconfirmed reports.
Confirmed instances Instances where a competent employee of the Provider, or other reliable
source identifies or confirms the presence of ice on the network.
Methodology WM01 is reported as the number of reported instances of ice on the network
reported in the month.
WM02 is reported as the number of confirmed instances of ice on the network

reported in the month.
Data Source Provider’s Customer Service logs / database
Additional Reasons and locations for confirmed instances of ice should be detailed in the
Information Comments / Exceptions section of the API Report.

Total number of reported instances of ice (A) Integer N/A 0 0 – 200
in month
Total number of confirmed reported (B) Integer N/A 0 0 – 200

instances in month

(G/T)
WM01 - (M) G+T Integer A 0 0 – 200 9
WM02 - (M) G+T Integer B 0 0 – 200 9
Note: (M) Monthly indicator (A) Annual indicator

Issue 05 Rev 01 Mar 2007 48 of 60

Indicator Ref. & Title API 10: Defect Free Work Indicator issue 03
Desired Outcome Customer Satisfaction – Quality Performance

Purpose / To measure the effectiveness of the Provider’s supervision and workforce in
Description achieving a right first time culture. To reduce inconvenience to the customer
caused by additional visits to the site for remedial works and the customer’s
perception of continuous occupation of the highway.
Measures
DF01 Number of Provider’s works substantially completed.
DF02 Percentage of Provider’s works substantially completed with no

defects.
DF03 Percentage of Provider’s works substantially completed with defects

that require corrective action.
DF04 Percentage of Provider’s works substantially completed with defects

that require a compromise acceptance to the Specification with an
associated guarantee.
DF05 Percentage of Provider's works substantially completed with Customer

Impact Defects.
Definitions
Provider’s works Renewal (including Small Works) and Improvement works greater than
£5,000 in works value undertaken by the MAC / TMC below the threshold
value (as defined in the Contract) – excluding lump sum and/or cyclic/routine
maintenance.
Substantial Completion The stage when the works have been put to use for their intended function or
completed in accordance with the contract be this with no defects or only
minor defects.
Defect A part of the works that is not in accordance with the Works Information (as
defined in the Contract) – will either require corrective action or acceptance
as a compromise to the Specification. Defects can be in design,
workmanship or materials.
Customer Impact Defect A Defect which, after Substantial Completion, gives rise to rectification work
that necessitates restrictions to the unimpeded use of the Network.
Network The length of trunk road and/or motorway, including all carriageways, hard
shoulders, slip roads and access roads as recorded in SRW for an area.
Methodology DF02, DF03 DF04 and DF05 are reported as a percentage of the number of
Provider’s works reported at DF01 on a rolling 12 month basis.
Data Source Provider’s Records.
Additional DF01 is reported for contextual information, to evaluate DF03, DF04 and
Information DF05.
DF02 is reported as a check.
Issue 05 Rev 01 Mar 2007 49 of 60

Indicator Ref. & Title API 10: Defect Free Work Indicator issue 03
Number of Provider’s works substantially (A) Integer 0 0 – 200

completed in month greater than £5k
Of (A), number of works with Defects that (B) Integer 0 0 –200

require corrective action
Of (A), number of works with Defects that (C) Integer 0 0 – 200

require compromise to Specification
Of (A), number of works with Customer (D) Integer 0 0 – 200

Impact Defects (record in the month the
impact first occurs)

DF01 – (M) T Integer A 0 0 – 200 *
Calculations (Rolling 12 Month Performance) ie current month + preceding 11 months

DF01 - (A) G+T Integer ΣA / 12 0 0 – 200 *
DF02 - (A) G+T Percentage ((ΣA-(ΣB+ΣC))/ 0 0 – 100 9

ΣA) *100
DF03 - (A) G+T Percentage (ΣB / ΣA) *100 0 0 – 100 *
DF04 - (A) G+T Percentage (ΣC / ΣA) *100 0 0 – 100 *
DF05 – (A) G+T Percentage (ΣD / ΣA) *100 0 0 – 100 9
Note:
Issue 05 Rev 01 Mar 2007 50 of 60

Indicator Ref. & Title API 11: Road Traffic Accidents at Roadworks Indicator issue 02
Desired Outcome Customer Satisfaction ~ Safer Travel

Purpose / To monitor road traffic accidents associated with roadworks and any resultant
Description criticism of the traffic management.
Measures
RTA01 Number of road traffic accidents reported at roadworks.
RTA02 Number of road traffic accidents reported at roadworks where criticism

of the traffic management was received.
Definitions
Roadworks Coned extent of traffic management – to include queuing traffic beyond extent
of traffic management.
Criticism of TM Any criticism received by the Provider with respect to the traffic management
system, which can be directly related to a road traffic accident at roadworks.
Methodology RTA01 Record total number of road traffic accidents reported at roadworks.
RTA02 Record total number of road traffic accidents reported at roadworks

where criticism of the traffic management was received.
.
Data Source Provider’s Customer Service and Accident databases
Additional It is recognised that limitations in the scope of data capture exist with this
Information measure.
Issue 05 Rev 01 Mar 2007 51 of 60

Indicator Ref. & Title API 11: Road Traffic Accidents at Roadworks Indicator issue 02
Total number of RTAs reported at (A) Integer A 0 0 – 200

roadworks.
Number of road traffic accidents reported (B) Integer B 0 0 –100

at roadworks where criticism of the traffic
management was received.

RTA01 - (M) G+T Integer A 0 0 – 200 9
RTA02 - (M) G+T Integer B 0 0 – 100 9
Calculations (Rolling 12 Month Performance) i.e. current month + preceding 11

months

RTA01 - (A) T Integer ΣA 0 0 – 200 N/A
12
RTA02 - (A) T Integer ΣB 0 0 - 100 *
12
Note:
Issue 05 Rev 01 Mar 2007 52 of 60

Indicator Ref. & Title API 12: Street Lighting Outages Indicator issue 02
Desired Outcome Customer Satisfaction ~ Safer Travel

Purpose / To measure the effectiveness of the Provider’s response to operational
Description failures of road lighting equipment on the network.
Measures
SLO 01 Number of lamp outages based on the last lamp scout in the reporting
period as a percentage of the total agreed population.
SLO 02 Percentage of CAT 2 (High & Medium) outages fixed within target time.
Definitions
Road Lighting Equipment Includes:
• Luminaires provided for the purpose of road lighting whether mounted on
columns or brackets on Motorways and All-Purpose Trunk Roads.
• Pedestrian subway lighting
Excludes:
• Tunnel lighting
• High mast lighting
• Lighting to signs and bollards etc.
Outage An outage shall be recorded for each individual lamp failure i.e. Where 2
luminaries on a single column or bracket have failed, this shall be recorded as
2 number outages.
Inspections Two levels of inspection may be carried out to detect lighting failures. A
programme of regular nightime “Safety Inspections” carried out from a moving
vehicle. Additionally, these may also be carried out in response extreme
weather or major road traffic accidents.
“Detailed Inspections” will involve a comprehensive scrutiny & testing of the

structural, electrical and mechanical elements of the road lighting system.
Inspection Frequency Safety Inspections shall be carried out as detailed in the Design Manual for
Roads and Bridges, Volume 8, Section 3, TD 23/99, Annex B, Table 6.
Detailed Inspections are generally carried out with programmed bulk lamp
changes every 24 months, however reference should be made to DMRB TD
23/99 Annex B, Table 6 for specific requirements.
Category of defect A description of defect categories is given in the Design Manual for Roads
and Bridges, Volume 8, Section 3, TD 23/99, Tables 1 and 2.
Response Time A description of response times for each category of defect is given in Design
Manual for Roads and Bridges, Volume 8, Section 3, TD 23/99, Table 3.
Methodology SLO 01 is calculated as the number of lamp outages recorded at the last
lamp scout in the reporting period as a percentage of the agreed figure for the
total population.
SLO 02 is calculated as the number of outages classified as CAT 2 (High &

Medium) fixed within the target response time as a percentage of the total
number of outages (with required completion date/time in month) classified as
CAT 2 (High & Medium) recorded at the last lamp scout in the reporting
period.
Data Source / Provider’s inventory database and inspection records

Requirements
Issue 05 Rev 01 Mar 2007 53 of 60

Indicator Ref. & Title API 12: Street Lighting Outages Indicator issue 02
Additional It must be recognised that a true figure for outages at any one time is difficult
Information to accurately determine, as lamp scouts are carried out over a period of days
on large networks and SLO 01 does not allow for repairs completed between
the lamp scout and reporting period end date. Assuming that outages occur
at a relatively consistent rate, an assessment of performance can be gained
by comparing changes month by month.
Please note that checks should be made to ensure that repeat failures do not
occur month on month. The measure SLO 02 may show a satisfactory
performance for completing a repair but will not highlight if the same failure
occurs regularly.
Performance against all reported figures may be influenced by power outages

under the control of the Regional Electricity Boards
Total lamp population. (A) Integer 0 0 – 50000
Total number of lamp outages recorded (B) Integer 0 0 – 50000

at the last scout.
Number of lamp outages classified as (C) Integer 0 0 – 10000

CAT2 (high & medium) with required
completion date/ time in month.
Number of lamp outages classified as (D) Integer 0 0 – 10000

CAT2 (high & medium) closed by
required completion date/ time within
month.

(G/T))
SL01 - (M) G+T Percentage (B / A) *100 1 0 – 100 9
SL02 - (M) G+T Percentage (D / C) *100 1 0 – 100 9

(G/T))
SL01 - (A) T Percentage (ΣB / ΣA) *100 1 0 – 100 *
SL02 - (A) T Percentage (ΣD / ΣC) *100 1 0 – 100 *

Note:
Issue 05 Rev 01 Mar 2007 54 of 60

Indicator Ref. & Title API 13: Network Availability Indicator issue 02
Desired Outcome Customer Satisfaction ~ Easing Congestion

Purpose / To provide an indirect measure of the amount of work being carried out on
Description the Area Network, and of the effectiveness of the Provider's network
management / operator role with respect to road space co-ordination.
Wherever possible, road works should be carried out outside of peak times
so as to minimise disruption and delay to road users.
Measures
NA01 Percentage of the Area Network available for use by road users during
peak hours.
off-peak hours.
night hours.
Definitions
Area Network The length of trunk road and/or motorway, including all carriageways, hard
shoulders, slip roads and access roads as recorded in SRW for an area.
Peak
Off-peak As defined in SRW
Night
Methodology The network availability percentages are calculated using the standard
reports provided within SRW.
Data Source / Scheduled Road Works (SRW) system, or

Requirements
Availability - Peak hours (A) Percentage 2 0 - 100
Availability - Off-peak hours (B) Percentage 2 0 - 100
Availability - Night hours (C) Percentage 2 0 – 100

(G/T))
NA01 – (M) G+T Percentage A 2 0 - 100 9
NA02 – (M) G+T Percentage B 2 0 - 100 9
NA03 – (M) G+T Percentage C 2 0 - 100 9
Note:
(M) Monthly indicator
Issue 05 Rev 01 Mar 2007 55 of 60

Indicator Ref. & Title API 14: Third Party Claims Indicator issue 02
Desired Outcome Customer Satisfaction – Quality Performance

Purpose / To measure the effectiveness of the Provider’s handling of Third Party Claims on
Description behalf of the Secretary of State.
Measures
TPC01 Number of incidents of damage by 3rd parties to Crown property.
TPC02 Percentage of Claims identified in TPC01 for which driver / vehicle details
are “known” (i.e. traceable claims).
TPC03 Estimated Total Value of “known” claims (identified in TPC02).
TPC04 Percentage of Claims for which driver / vehicle details are “known”
(TPC02) that have been invoiced by the Provider (either to Culprit or sent to
HA dependent on contractual obligations)
TPC05 Number of claims made against the Provider (on behalf of the HA) from
third parties claiming damages as a result of the condition of the Area
Network.
TPC06 Percentage of Claims (identified in TPC05) where details are forwarded to

the HA in compliance with contractual requirements.
Definitions
TR430 This form must be used when reporting damage to Crown Property under the
provisions of circular 630, Circular Roads 4/75 and TRMM 2/87 on behalf of the
Secretary of State (Green Claims)
TR137 This form must be used when investigating a claim by third parties, against the
Secretary of State, arising out of the condition of the Area Network. (Red
Claims)
Methodology TPC01 is the total number of incidents of damage to Crown Property, by a third
party, where “Known” and “Unknown” claims have arisen, reported monthly and
on a rolling 12 month basis. Reported for contextual information only.
TPC02 is reported irrespective of value, on a rolling 12 month basis, due to

possible time lag in obtaining details. TPC02 should include claims where
details have been received and claims where information is known to be
available but has not yet been received from DVLC / Police etc. (withheld on
occasion)
TPC03 Estimated total value of “known” claims. Reported on a rolling 12 month

basis. Reported for contextual information only.
TPC04 Percentage of claims identified in TPC02 for which driver details are
“known” that have been invoiced by the Provider (TR430’s may be used here,
dependent on contract). Reported on a rolling 12 month basis only (no monthly
figure).
Issue 05 Rev 01 Mar 2007 56 of 60

Methodology TPC05 Number of claims made against the provider will include all types of
(Continued) claims. Condition of the Area Network includes removal of debris at works etc.
Reported monthly and on a rolling 12 month basis.
TPC06 is the total number of claims where details have been forwarded to the
HA within contractual requirements, reported on a rolling 12 month basis,
contextual information only.
Issue 05 Rev 01 Mar 2007 57 of 60

Number of incidents of damage by 3rd P P (A) Integer 0 0 – 1000

parties to Crown property in monthly.
Number of incidents of damage for which (B) Integer 0 0 – 12000

driver details are known (12 Month
Rolling Total)
Estimated total value of “known” claims (C) Integer 0 0 – 15 x 106 P P
(identified in TPC02) (12 Month Rolling

Total)
Number of Claims for which driver details (D) Integer 0 0 – 12000

are “known” and have been invoiced as
per contractual obligation (12 Month
Rolling Total)
Number of claims made against the (E) Integer 0 0 – 100

Provider from third parties claiming
damages in month.
Number of claims made against the (F) Integer 0 0 – 1200

Provider forwarded to the HA in
compliance with the contract (12 Month
Rolling Total)
(G/T))
TPC01 – (M) T Integer A 0 0 – 1000 N/A
TPC05 – (M) T Integer E 0 0 - 100 N/A

(G/T)
TPC01 - (A) G+T Integer ΣA / 12 0 0 – 1000 N/A
TPC02 - (A) G+T Percentage (B / ΣA) * 100 1 0 - 100 9
TPC03 - (A) T Integer C 0 0 – 50 x 106 P P N/A
TPC04 - (A) G+T Percentage (D / B) * 100 1 0 – 100 9
TPC05 - (A) G+T Integer ΣE / 12 0 0 – 100 N/A
TPC06 - (A) G+T Percentage (F / ΣE) * 100 1 0 - 100 9

Note:
Issue 05 Rev 01 Mar 2007 58 of 60

Indicator Ref. & Title API 15: Recycling and Re-use. Indicator issue 02
Desired Outcome Construction Best Practice ~ Delivering in Partnership.

Purpose / To promote the recycling and re-use of materials used in or arising from all
Description network activities.
Measure RR01 Total of scores recorded across the 19 identified material categories.
Definitions A subjective assessment based on evidence, of the percentage recycling and

/ or re-use of materials in 19 identified categories using a points system.
Each category scoring a maximum of 5 points except planings where scores
are doubled (i.e. Max 10).
Recycling
The use of a production process to convert waste materials into new material.
Re-use
The use of waste materials for any purpose without processing that results in
an overall material change (e.g. cleaning of items would not result in an
overall change).
Methodology Following an initial assessment of recycling and re-use scores are

established for the reporting categories consistent with the supporting
evidence available.
A mechanism that enables improvement (e.g. action plan), where applicable,
is then agreed (Provider and HA). This should be reviewed on an annual
basis.
As supporting evidence becomes available scores are amended accordingly

and reported in the month that they take effect.
Categories. (European Waste Codes - guidance where applicable)

U U
Tyres(16.01.03), Glass(20.01.02), Paper(20.01.01), Office Consumables /

Equipment(20.01.36,other codes may apply), Planings(17.03.02), Concrete
and Concrete Products(17.01.01), Filter Drain Material(17.05.03), Unbound
Materials / Aggregates(17.05.04), Wood(20.01.38), Ferrous Metals (not
including safety fence) (17.04.05), Safety Fencing (17.04.05), Non Ferrous
Metals (17.04.07), Batteries(20.01.33), Oil(13.--.-- full code dependent on
type of oil), Plastics(20.01.39), Water(no applicable code), Green
Waste(20.02.01), Lantern Units(20.01.21), Gully Arisings(20.03.03).
Scoring.
U
Estimated percentage ≤10 11-20 21-40 41-60 61- 81-

usage 80 100
Points 0 1 2 3 4 5
Data Source Audits, internal and external.

Service contracts.
Scheme specific information.
Sub-contractors.
Issue 05 Rev 01 Mar 2007 59 of 60

Indicator Ref. & Title API 15: Recycling and Re-use. Indicator issue 02

Score for Tyres (A) Integer 0 0-5
Score for Glass (B) Integer 0 0-5
Score for Paper (C) Integer 0 0-5
Score for Office Consumables / (D) Integer 0 0-5
Equipment
Score for Planings (E) Integer 0 0 - 10
Score for Concrete and Concrete (F) Integer 0 0-5
Products
Score for Filter Drain Material (G) Integer 0 0-5
Score for Unbound Materials / Aggregates (H) Integer 0 0-5
Score for Wood (I) Integer 0 0-5
Score for Ferrous Metals (J) Integer 0 0-5
Score for Safety Fencing (K) Integer 0 0-5
Score for Non Ferrous Metals (L) Integer 0 0-5
Score for Batteries (M) Integer 0 0-5
Score for Oil (N) Integer 0 0-5
Score for Plastics (O) Integer 0 0-5
Score for Water (P) Integer 0 0-5
Score for Green Waste (Q) Integer 0 0-5
Score for Lantern Units (R) Integer 0 0-5
Score for Gully Arisings (S) Integer 0 0–5
Recycling and Reuse Index for month (V) Integer Sum(A:S) 0 0 - 100

Report –
Graph Area
and/or Table Target
(G/T)
RR01 - (M) G+T Integer SUM (A-S) 0 0 -100 9
Report – Graph Area Target

(G/T)
RR01 - (A) G+T Integer ΣV / 12 0 0 – 100 *
Note:Σ = the aggregation of input data for the current month and the preceding 11 months.
Issue 05 Rev 01 Mar 2007 60 of 60

API Handbook

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

API Handbook

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Area Performance Indicator

Current document status 3

Handbook Issue History / Document Control 4

Measurement Working Group Membership 8

Issue 05 Rev 01Mar 2007 2 of 60

Current Document Status

Response to Emergency Incidents 01 (REI 01 – REI 04) 02 31 01 05

Response to Category 1 Defects 02 (IR 01 – IR 07) 03 06 05 05

Customer Satisfaction 03 (CS 01 – CS 04) 02 31 01 05

Environmental Amenity Index 04 (EAI 01) 02 31 01 05

Site (workplace) Safety 05 (SS 01 – SS 02) 03 31 01 05

Predictability of Discrete Schemes – Time 06 (TP 01 – TP 04) 06 31 01 05

Predictability of Discrete Schemes – Cost 07 (CP 01 – CP 03) 06 31 01 05

Predictability of Resource (Accruals) Forecasting 08 (EF 01 – EF 02) 02 09 10 03

Winter Maintenance 09 WM 01 – WM 02) 02 31 01 05

Defect Free Work 10 (DF 01 – DF 05) 03 01 12 06

Road Traffic Accidents at Roadworks 11 (RTA 01 – RTA 02) 02 31 01 05

Street Lighting Outages 12 (SL 01 – SL 02) 02 31 01 05

Network Availability 13 (NA 01 – NA 03) 02 31 01 05

Third Party Claims 14 (TPC 01 – TPC 06) 02 31 01 05

Recycling and Re-use 15 (RR 01) 02 31 01 05

Issue 05 Rev 01Mar 2007 3 of 60

Handbook Issue History

Issued Documents Main Amendments Inclusive Measures Issue Date

API Handbook 1 - 11 01 Feb 03

API Handbook API 5 (02), API 12 &13 1 - 13 02 Sept 03

API Handbook (draft) APIs 14 & 15. 1 - 15 03 July 04

Reformat, inclusion of Design

API 10 (Iinclusion of DF05)

Document Title Area Performance Indicator Handbook

Issue 05 Rev 01Mar 2007 4 of 60

• To have an alignment as to what attendees collectively wanted to achieve from performance

• To agree an action plan to deliver on these strategies.

Disparate ways of carrying out the measure and presenting results

Scepticism as to whether what is being measured is relevant

Not a lot on measuring Culture

The Measurement Framework will be:-

Issue 05 Rev 01Mar 2007 5 of 60

Objectives and Goals

The Objectives and Goals were agreed as being to have: -

A Measurement Framework that is practical, focused, and cost effective.

The Way Forward

Strategies to deliver these Objectives were agreed.

Establish a Measurement Group.

The Way Forward (December 2006)

Issue 05 Rev 01Mar 2007 6 of 60

The Measurement Model

Customer Satisfaction Easing Congestion

Quality Performance CBP Indicators

The Measures were then developed into a robust set of measures.

Issue 05 Rev 01Mar 2007 7 of 60

Terms of Reference - Measurement Working Group (MWG)

• To communicate requirements with respect to Performance Measurement to the Maintenance

Issue 05 Rev 01Mar 2007 8 of 60

Issue 05 Rev 01Mar 2007 9 of 60

Measurement Working Group

Issue 05 Rev 01Mar 2007 10 of 60

HA Objective Reducing Congestion and Improving Reliability, Improving Road Safety

REI02 Percentage of emergency incidents identified by Provider’s ISU teams

REI03 Percentage of `reactive’ ISU call-outs to emergency incidents achieved

REI04 Average response time achieved for `reactive’ ISU call-outs to

`Proactive’ deployment Response provided to an emergency incident identified directly by Provider’s

`Reactive’ call-out Response provided to an emergency incident notified to the Provider’s

REI02 - (M) G+T Percentage (B / A) 100 1 0 - 100

IR02 - (A) T Percentage (Σ E/ Σ D) 100 1 0 – 100

IR03 - (A) T Percentage (Σ H/ Σ G) 100 1 0 – 100

IR05 - (A) T Percentage (C/ ΣA)100 1 0 – 100

IR06 – (A) T Percentage (F/ ΣD)100 1 0 – 100

IR07- (A) T Percentage (I / ΣG)100 1 0 – 100