National Academies Press: OpenBook

Analytical Tools for Asset Management (2005)

Chapter: Section 2 - Needs Assessment

« Previous: Section 1 - Introduction
Page 9
Suggested Citation:"Section 2 - Needs Assessment." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Analytical Tools for Asset Management. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13851.
×
Page 9
Page 10
Suggested Citation:"Section 2 - Needs Assessment." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Analytical Tools for Asset Management. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13851.
×
Page 10
Page 11
Suggested Citation:"Section 2 - Needs Assessment." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Analytical Tools for Asset Management. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13851.
×
Page 11
Page 12
Suggested Citation:"Section 2 - Needs Assessment." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Analytical Tools for Asset Management. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13851.
×
Page 12
Page 13
Suggested Citation:"Section 2 - Needs Assessment." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Analytical Tools for Asset Management. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13851.
×
Page 13
Page 14
Suggested Citation:"Section 2 - Needs Assessment." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Analytical Tools for Asset Management. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13851.
×
Page 14
Page 15
Suggested Citation:"Section 2 - Needs Assessment." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Analytical Tools for Asset Management. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13851.
×
Page 15
Page 16
Suggested Citation:"Section 2 - Needs Assessment." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Analytical Tools for Asset Management. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13851.
×
Page 16
Page 17
Suggested Citation:"Section 2 - Needs Assessment." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Analytical Tools for Asset Management. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13851.
×
Page 17
Page 18
Suggested Citation:"Section 2 - Needs Assessment." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Analytical Tools for Asset Management. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13851.
×
Page 18
Page 19
Suggested Citation:"Section 2 - Needs Assessment." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Analytical Tools for Asset Management. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13851.
×
Page 19
Page 20
Suggested Citation:"Section 2 - Needs Assessment." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Analytical Tools for Asset Management. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13851.
×
Page 20
Page 21
Suggested Citation:"Section 2 - Needs Assessment." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Analytical Tools for Asset Management. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13851.
×
Page 21
Page 22
Suggested Citation:"Section 2 - Needs Assessment." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Analytical Tools for Asset Management. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13851.
×
Page 22

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

9SECTION 2 NEEDS ASSESSMENT 2.1 OBJECTIVES OF THE NEEDS ASSESSMENT The purpose of the needs assessment was to gain a better understanding of state DOT needs with respect to analyti- cal tools for resource allocation. The needs assessment was focused on providing the research team with a clear idea of • The types of information that agencies would like to have to improve asset investment decisions, • The degree of the agencies’ receptivity to different types of analysis methods and procedures for investment deci- sion support as well as the likely degree of influence that analysis results would have on agency decisions, • The typical requirements for integration with existing data and systems, and • The desirable features of existing tools and the shortcom- ings that might be addressed by new or modified tools. 2.2 NEEDS ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY The needs assessment methodology was designed to build upon the already established experience of the research team and to provide direction for the remaining tasks in a highly efficient manner. It was not intended to produce an in-depth or comprehensive study that is fully representative of the needs and opinions of any individual state DOT and certainly not of all state DOTs. Rather, its goal was to provide insights from a variety of perspectives that could be used to guide the research team in identifying and prioritizing new types of tools for development. The needs assessment effort consisted of the following activities: • Literature review and summary, • Structured interviews with target users at state DOTs, and • Exploratory discussion with target users at conference sessions. Each of these activities is described in the following paragraphs. Literature Review and Summary Recent research efforts have involved surveys of state DOT personnel on issues related to the use of decision sup- port tools for asset management. The research team identi- fied and summarized eight relevant studies documenting these efforts. Structured Interviews The primary data collection effort for the needs assess- ment involved interviews with target users at 10 state DOTs. Representatives from five of these DOTs were interviewed in-person; remaining interviews were by telephone. Selection of States Seventeen DOTs were identified as candidates for the inter- views, as shown in Table 2. These DOTs represent a range of variation in size of system and transportation budget, geo- graphic location, degree of urbanization, current use of eco- nomic analysis and analytic tools, approach to asset man- agement, and degree of funding flexibility across modes and project types. Based on comments from the panel, a target set of 10 DOTs was identified based on the following criteria: • Geographic distribution, • Variation in size of budget (with FHWA apportionment as a proxy for this), • Inclusion of at least two DOTs that have not been adopt- ing the asset management principles and framework as specified in NCHRP 20-24(11), and • Variation in the extent to which resource allocation and project selection decisions are centralized versus made at the district level. States targeted for interviews were • Michigan, • California, • Massachusetts, • Montana,

• Wisconsin, • Ohio, • New York, • South Carolina, • Florida, and • Maryland. Users Interviewed Interviews were conducted with potential users of new ana- lytical tools—both the direct, hands-on users and the decision- makers who would be requesting and receiving information from the tools. These users and decision-makers include rep- resentatives of the following three major functions: • Policy, planning, and program development; • Engineering (construction, maintenance, operations) – Chief engineers or their designees – District engineers or their designees (in states where districts have significant resource allocation lati- tude); and • Budget and finance. While the primary emphasis of this research was on ana- lytical tools to support decision-making within the highway mode, the target interview subjects included individuals in each state who could comment on the level of use and/or interest in tools to support multimodal investment tradeoffs. For each state selected for inclusion in the needs assess- ment, the research team identified a primary contact person, with the assistance of the project panel and based on our estab- lished network of contacts. This primary contact person helped to identify two to four target users who could adequately assess their state’s needs from the three previously stated perspec- tives. Interviews were then arranged for the target users. As noted, representatives of at least five of the selected states were interviewed in person. Because of the content of the survey, group interviews were conducted where possible to encourage discussion across different perspectives. However, individual interviews were conducted in a few cases where scheduling a group interview presented a problem. 10 Interview Structure and Content Interviews consisted of four parts: 1. The first set of questions determined what types of deci- sion support systems are in place. Tools in place were related to the level of interest in new tools; for exam- ple, if the agency already uses project-level benefit/cost analysis and indicates a low level of interest in new benefit/cost tools, the agency finds benefit/cost analy- sis useful, but not a capability in which it is experienc- ing an important gap. The systems in place also were useful for understanding integration needs for new tools. 2. The second set of questions related to the agency’s cur- rent approach to asset management. These questions addressed whether the agency’s current business pro- cesses would easily fit with the kinds of functions envi- sioned for the analytical tools to be developed in this project. For example, if an agency is not analyzing tradeoffs across categories and has no flexibility to real- locate funds across categories based on expected per- formance, a tool that performs such tradeoff analysis would not be expected to have a high degree of impact on resource allocation decisions. 3. The researchers presented a matrix showing different types of analyses that new analytical tools might sup- port. Respondents were asked about their level of inter- est in new or enhanced tools in each category. They also were asked to suggest desired features of the tools in which they expressed a high degree of interest. 4. The final series of questions was designed to learn about the specific requirements of tools to be developed. These questions covered the shortcomings of existing tools that are to be avoided, integration issues, and the platform for the new tools. Some open-ended questions were included to elicit the respondent’s viewpoint about the most desirable qualities of new tools. The researchers used an interview guide to ensure collec- tion of a consistent set of information that could be summa- rized across respondents. This guide was sent to respondents before the interviews. AASHTO Region Size (FY 2001 FHWA Apportionment ) Mississippi Valley Southeastern Northeastern Western < $400 Million Kansas South Carolina Vermont Montana Colorado $401-$900 Million Wisconsin Virginia Massachusetts Maryland Arizona Washington >$900 Million Michigan Ohio Florida New York Pennsylvania California TABLE 2 Candidate states for needs assessment interviews

Exploratory Discussions Needs and requirements for analytical tools also were dis- cussed with target users as part of the following forums (which included wide national representation of high-level managers involved in asset management from state DOTs): • At the National Highway Institute (NHI) Pilot Training Course on Asset Management (Lansing, Michigan, June 2002), participants were asked to identify the top two asset management decisions that they need better ana- lytical tools to address. • At the joint summer meeting of the AASHTO Task Force on Asset Management and the TRB Committee on Asset Management held in conjunction with the meeting of the TRB Planning and Management Committees in Prov- idence, Rhode Island (July 2002), informal discussions on needs for analytical tools were held with attendees. Results of these discussions are not detailed in this report but were used to supplement the state interview findings and reviews of tools in the next section. 2.3 LITERATURE REVIEW The literature review was aimed at supplementing the sur- vey of 10 states conducted for this research. Thus, it focused on fairly recent efforts (over the past 5 years) that have sur- veyed groups of states on issues related to the use of analyt- ical tools for asset management. Eight studies were identified and are summarized below. 1999 AASHTO Survey of States on the Use of Management Systems and Decision Tools (1) The survey was sent to 50 states, and 30 responses were received (thus, there may have been some self-selection bias towards states that were using decision tools). The findings of the survey were presented at the Scottsdale Peer Exchange workshop on asset management. Highlights of these survey findings follow: • Nearly all of the respondents had a pavement and bridge management system; 70 percent had a safety manage- ment system; 70 percent had a maintenance management system; and 57 percent had a congestion management system. The number of states that reported having safety and congestion management systems was substantially lower than that found in the 1997 General Accounting Office survey (2) on state implementation of transpor- tation management systems (96 percent and 90 percent, respectively). • The majority of respondents (80 percent) said they were able to assess the impacts of investments using manage- ment systems. Of this majority, 84 percent do so for pave- ments and 68 percent do so for bridges. 11 • Eighty-two percent of respondents were using at least one decision support tool. Tools that analyze benefits/ costs and life-cycle costs were the most commonly used (each was used by roughly 80 percent of all respon- dents). Eight of the thirty states (27 percent) used tools to analyze tradeoffs; four (13 percent) used tools to ana- lyze quantitative investment. Survey on the Use of Bridge Management Systems (BMSs) at State DOTs (3) This paper, presented at the 8th International Bridge Man- agement Conference in Denver, Colorado (1999), documented the use of bridge management systems in 26 states and reported that, although BMSs were in place in most agencies, the systems had not yet been used to their full potential. However, a number of the respondents indicated the interest and intention to expand the use of their BMS, and progress has been made since the time of the survey. Highlights of the survey follow: • Fifteen of the twenty-six agencies employ a strategic planning process that includes a bridge component. Eleven of these agencies use quantitative goals in this process, typically related to sufficiency ratings, health index, or the number of deficient bridges. • Fifteen of the respondents house their BMS in the bridge division/department; six maintain the BMS in the design department; and the remaining five operated the BMS in their maintenance or operations divisions. Primary BMS users are bridge engineers or bridge maintenance engineers. Typically, a single individual is responsible for the BMS, and this individual typically has multiple other responsibilities and limited time to devote to BMS activities. • About one-third of the respondents use their BMS as part of their bridge management business process. • Four of the twenty-six states use the BMS for State Transportation Improvement Program/Transportation Improvement Program (STIP/TIP) development; most of the other agencies generate bridge programs based on sufficiency ratings or state-specific prioritization for- mulas in conjunction with engineering judgment and inspector recommendations. • Fifteen respondents had a maintenance management sys- tem (MMS), but only two of these indicated that the MMS information was compatible with the BMS and could be electronically linked to the BMS. Synthesis of Asset Management Practice (4) This synthesis examined current practice in asset manage- ment based on site visits to seven states and a literature review covering international experience and private sector efforts.

Findings relevant to the design of analytical tools to support asset management practice follow: • Several states are moving from a project-centric view to a more strategic approach to asset management, includ- ing highway “tiering” systems or corridor designation systems that go beyond functional classification and provide a structure for performance monitoring, targets, and investment strategy development. • Experience in Washington and Colorado DOTs indicates the value of establishing program categories that are con- sistent with high-level policy objectives. A Colorado DOT effort to establish a customer-oriented, performance- based investment category structure was noted for its support for effective tradeoff analysis and resource allo- cation. Investment categories were organized by policy objective as opposed to asset or project type: mobility, system quality, safety, strategic projects, and program delivery. For example, pavement, bridge, tunnel, rest area, and roadside maintenance activities are all grouped within a system quality investment category. • States interviewed were making an effort to shift their program philosophies to put greater emphasis on preven- tive preservation and lowest long-term cost, as opposed to a reactive or “worst first” approach. Experience has shown that, although moving to a preventive approach is justified economically and technically, the decision to work on assets in good condition while those in poor condition are left alone is politically difficult. Analytic studies conducted by Washington and Michigan DOT staff have been helpful in building support for these new approaches. • Almost all of the states visited had plans to upgrade their asset management systems or support tools. Use of data warehouses to consolidate asset inventory information (and in some cases project information) from different systems was a common theme, as was use of GIS plat- forms to provide integrated views of information from disparate systems. • Existing asset management systems are not typically geared for use by high-level managers to support resource allocation and program tradeoff analysis. The need for this type of capability is likely to increase given new ini- tiatives in asset management and requirements of Gov- ernment Accounting Standards Board Statement 34. An example of a successful executive information system (EIS) in Washington was cited, as was a prototype EIS developed as part of a study for the Transportation Association of Canada (TAC) (5). • An Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Devel- opment study (6) of 13 member countries noted that all respondents were using management systems for indi- vidual asset classes, but that no country had introduced an integrated system for their entire road network. The 12 study recommended that future integrated asset man- agement systems be developed that – Incorporate performance indicators and the capabil- ity to monitor performance, – Provide the ability to analyze maintenance options based on life-cycle costs and develop maintenance pro- grams based on best value for the money spent, and – Provide the capability to value assets and depreciate this value with time or use. • Specific asset management frameworks are described for Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and the United Kingdom—countries that have done extensive work in the asset management area. TRB Task Force on Transportation Asset Management Report of FY 2001 Activity This report compiled information on best practices in asset management from subcommittee members, a review of DOT web sites, and information from a Volpe National Trans- portation Systems Center research effort conducted in 1999 in preparation for the Asset Management Peer Exchange. The following best practices that were reported are most rel- evant to development and use of analytical tools: • Use of management systems and related tools to sup- port development of long-range strategic systems plans (Michigan, Washington) or medium-term programs (New York, Montana) based on performance or condi- tion objectives; • Establishment of data standards (Michigan Architecture Project); • GIS/management system integration efforts in Arizona, Maryland, Michigan, Wyoming, and Minnesota; • Coordinated interagency effort to establish a common GIS framework (Michigan Geographic Framework Program); • Integrated program and project information system to handle both program development and implementation- related information (New York); and • Meta-manager to analyze physical deterioration and safety, conduct congestion modeling, evaluate improve- ment alternatives, assess costs, develop priorities, and define budget needs (Wisconsin). This report also commented on the limited progress made to date in effectively using existing management systems because of the lack of organizational alignment around an asset management approach: “Too often pavement manage- ment systems become the territory of pavement experts and bridge management systems, of bridge experts. The result is often that the systems are not used by organizations to make real investment decisions. The wealth of information that they could contribute is lost and investments are too often suboptimized.”

State-of-the-Practice Review 2001 (7) NCHRP 8-36 Task 7, Development of a Multimodal Trade- offs Methodology, summarized the methods, tools, and pro- cedures used by state DOTs to address multimodal tradeoffs, building on prior research efforts (including NCHRP Syn- thesis of Highway Practice 286 [8]), and developed a frame- work for multimodal tradeoffs. Key conclusions of interest follow: • An overall structure is needed to link asset management information systems, travel demand forecasting systems, traffic simulation models, economic analysis models, and various other related analytical tools in an inte- grated manner to better address decision-making needs. In many cases, these analytical capabilities exist in par- allel but are not effectively integrated. If systems were better integrated and linked, tradeoff analyses would be less cumbersome, more accurate, and more likely to be pursued by DOT staff and decision-makers. • Multimodal tradeoff analysis varies considerably from state to state: several states have made significant advances in multimodal planning and development of support tools, whereas other states have no involvement in multimodal tradeoff decisions. • Many tools—such as management systems, travel fore- casting tools, and benefit/cost techniques—can support multimodal tradeoff analysis, but these tools have not yet been integrated in a manner that would support program- level modal tradeoffs that reflect a broad range of pol- icy objectives. • Significant work has been accomplished in developing specific impact analysis tools and piecing together infor- mation for specific corridor studies, modal needs stud- ies, statewide plan development efforts, and so forth; however, no state has developed a strategic, top-level, ongoing view of major tradeoffs around core agency objectives. • State DOTs cited deficiencies in data and analytic tools as the second most serious constraint to multimodal planning. • Development of technical tools and data to support multimodal planning should follow a dialog between customers and stakeholders (providers) of the trans- portation system. Multimodal Transportation: Development of a Performance-Based Planning Process (1999) (9) Phase I of NCHRP Project 8-32(2) conducted 20 case studies and 8 workshops on the topic of how performance measurement had been incorporated into planning decision- making. The following key findings are relevant to analyti- cal tools: 13 • Generation and analysis of system performance data are major obstacles to implementation of outcome- based, user-oriented performance measures. The ana- lytical methods and tools need to be refined, and these tools need to be made more readily available to a range of users. • Replacing an inherently complex, political process with one that is overly simplified or purely quantitative is not desirable. While performance measurement can bring higher quality information to the decision process, it is most valuable as an input to the existing process and should not replace those more deliberative, qualitative processes. • A more flexible approach to data collection, analysis, and reporting procedures in support of performance- based planning would allow public planning agencies to evolve and respond more quickly to changing needs and expectations of their customers. • The tendency to use output and efficiency measures of the analytic system as opposed to outcome and effec- tiveness measures meaningful to users is in part due to limitations in data and analytical models, as well as the high initial and ongoing costs of applying and main- taining certain types of tools. The research found sev- eral cases where agencies wishing to adopt measures of accessibility and mobility were constrained not only by the lack of current data but also by the inability to esti- mate values for important data under hypothetical future scenarios. NCHRP Synthesis of Highway Practice 243: Methods for Capital Programming and Project Selection (1997) (10) This synthesis included a survey of 39 agencies on approaches to capital programming since the Intermodal Sur- face Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA). Key findings related to use of analytical tools for asset manage- ment follow: • Most agencies have management systems in place and use them to track facility conditions. Pavement and bridge management systems were being used in half of the states to help set reconstruction and rehabilitation project priorities. Use of these systems to help define program-level funding was increasing in prevalence. However, use of management systems for more strategic- level decision-making such as performance measure- ment and investment tradeoffs across programs or modes was not well developed. • Sufficiency rating and deficiency rating methods were widely used for setting priorities. Benefit/cost techniques were in use primarily for safety improvements. Only two surveyed states were not using any quantitative methods for setting priorities.

• Although states were improving their ability to examine a wider range of solutions and modal tradeoffs, the survey found significant barriers to multimodal programming. These barriers included institutional, organizational, and funding constraints as well as the “continued need for more effective technical tools and data to support multi- modal analysis within reasonable resource constraints.” • The use of quantitative criteria for establishing goals and measuring performance was increasing but was not as comprehensive or as widespread as might be expected. State-of-the-Practice Survey on Statewide Multimodal Planning (1999, 2000) (11) This survey was conducted by the Washington State Trans- portation Center for the Washington State DOT as part of a research effort to develop a multimodal tradeoff decision process. A survey was mailed to all state DOTs, and 38 states responded. The survey was updated in 2000 based on follow- up calls to selected agencies (12). The authors summarize the results of this survey by stating, “There are more state DOTs that are uninterested in developing a multimodal program analysis tool than there are states that are interested.” Spe- cific conclusions of the survey follow: • Many states lack interest in analyzing multimodal trade- offs because dedicated funding is used to support specific program areas; therefore, there is no cross-modal compe- tition to provide the motivation for tradeoff analysis. • For some states (e.g., Minnesota, Rhode Island), multi- modal planning responsibility is primarily at the metro- politan planning organization (MPO) level rather than at the state DOT level. • Program tradeoffs, where they do occur, are made in a subjective, ad hoc environment. • Only one state (New Jersey) reported that it currently analyzes multimodal tradeoffs. A handful of states sur- veyed expressed interest in developing a multimodal tradeoff methodology. The two highest ranked impediments to implementing multimodal planning activities were (1) inadequate depart- mental resources and (2) lack of multimodal data and ade- quate tools. 2.4 STATE INTERVIEW FINDINGS Structured interviews with representatives of 10 state DOTs were conducted in the summer and fall of 2002. These inter- views yielded useful insights into the needs for new analyti- cal tools and the factors that contribute to the success or fail- ure of analytical tools for asset management. Detailed results of each state interview are provided in Appendix A. Tables 3 through 5 summarize the results. Key findings and their implications are discussed in the following paragraphs. 14 These interviews do not represent in-depth case studies and may not be fully representative of activities or needs in the subject states; the views expressed may not represent the offi- cial opinion of the agencies. In virtually all of the interviews, opinions and perspectives among the different interviewees representing an individual state varied significantly—not only regarding the perceived needs for new tools, but also regard- ing current asset management practice and use of existing tools. Nevertheless, the objectives of the interviews were achieved—to provide a picture of the types of information needed to improve asset management decisions, the degree of receptivity to different types of new analytical tools, and the specific types of features desired. Current Use of Analytical Tools Current (as of 2002) use of analytical tools is summarized in Table 3. Nearly all of the 10 states had pavement and bridge management systems, and most used these systems (in vary- ing degrees) to support project prioritization and analyses of the relationship between investment levels and system per- formance. Several states had congestion, safety, and/or main- tenance management systems that were used for prioritization or investment analysis. One state (Maryland) was developing a drainage management system. Six of the ten states reported use of benefit/cost analysis tools to evaluate some types of projects or strategies. Five of the ten states have GIS-based tools for displaying and ana- lyzing the outputs of various asset-specific management sys- tems in order to support the program development process. Such systems are used by district staff to identify projects that reflect multiple types of needs (e.g., pavement and safety) and, in some cases, analyze the predicted impacts of a set of projects on system performance. All of the states analyzed life-cycle costs but typically only for large pavement proj- ects, consistent with federal requirements. Two of the states were conducting or evaluating life-cycle cost analysis for bridges. None of the states reported using analytical tools to eval- uate the impacts of alternative policies or standards for proj- ect scope, timing, and design. None of the states had formal tools for analyzing budget tradeoffs across different program categories. Only two of the states had tools that supported feedback of information on actual project costs and/or effec- tiveness back into management systems. Interest in New Analytical Tools The degree of receptivity to new analytical tools and the specific types of information desired by each state are sum- marized in Table 4. (Additional comments on gaps in capa- bilities are synthesized in Section 4.1.) Respondents were (text continues on page 20)

Type of Analysis California Florida Massachusetts Maryland Michigan Montana New York Ohio South Carolina Wisconsin Investment level versus predicted performance within a program category PMS BMS ITMS PMS BMS MMS PMS DMS SWS PMS BMS Road Quality Forecasting Syste m (RQFS) PMS BMS SMS (manual) CMS (manual) CMS (CNAM) District multiyear work plan Funds mgt. spreadsheet analysis PMS (future capability) PMS BMS MMS PMS SMS CMS Performance tradeoffs for different budget allocations across program categories Spreadsheet analysis Predicted impacts on system condition, safety, mobility, economic growth, etc., for a set of proposed projects ITMS Decision Support System (DSS) Systems performance query tool (semi manual) Program support system/ project management information system (PSS/PMIS) Meta-manager Project/ strategy evaluation California Life-Cycle/ Benefit/Cost Analysis Model (Cal-B/C) ITMS Micro- BENCOST for construction office Present worth spreadsheet for pavement analysis In-house tools for pavement and safety B/C analysis SMS In house B/C analysis tools High-hazard safety projects B/C analysis Highway Investment Analysis Package (HIAP) Micro- BENCOST In-house spreadsheet B/C tools TABLE 3 Current (as of 2002) use of analytical tools (continued on next page)

Type of Analysis California Florida Massachusetts Maryland Michigan Montana New York Ohio South Carolina Wisconsin Project prioritization within or across project types PMS BMS MMS (IMMS) In-house tools for calculating Safety Index, Delay Index ITMS APMS PMS BMS MMS CMS PMS SMS CMS (Boston MPO) PMS BMS SMS DMS* SWS In-house tools based on info from transportation management system, PMS, BMS PMS BMS SMS CMS (CNAM) Prototype tool for cross- project prioritization based on excess user costs District multiyear work plan PMS BMS MMS SMS PMS BMS CMS Life-cycle cost (LCC) Spreadsheet analysis for pavements Value engineering (for projects > $20 million) Workbook describing recommended approaches LCC for major projects FHWA pavement LCC analysis tool LCC for projects >$1 million Evaluating bridge LCC, NCHRP Project 12-43 Pavement, Adaptation of FHWA Demo Project 115 system* LCC on major pavement projects LCC for bridges and pavements Pavement LCC tool (in-house) Monitoring actual project costs and effectiveness (to provide feedback into management systems) PSS/PMIS MMS* Financial management strategic planning system Other CTIS – integrated GIS view of current and planned projects Maintenance quality assurance program* *System under development. Key: APMS – Airport Pavement Management System DMS – Drainage Management System PMS – Pavement Management System BMS – Bridge Management System ITMS – Intermodal Transportation Management System SMS – Safety Management System CMS – Congestion Management System MMS – Maintenance Management System SWS – Storm Water Management System TABLE 3 (Continued)

Type of Analysis California Florida Massachusetts Maryland Michigan Montana New York Ohio South Carolina Wisconsin Investment level versus predicted performance within a program category 5: Maintenance 3 3: Maintenance 4: Congestion 3: Bridges, drainage 1/2: Others 5: Other than pavements or bridges 4: Safety 1: Bridges, pavements 1 4/5 4 1 Performance tradeoffs for different budget allocations across program categories 5 3 4 5 5 5 4/5 5 5 1 Predicted impacts on system condition, safety, mobility, economic growth, etc., for a set of proposed projects 5: Maintenance 3: Others 3 4/5 4/5 5: If includes more than roads and bridges 4 4 5 5: Bridges 1: Pavements 5 Impacts of alternative policies/standards for project scope, timing, and design 2 4 1 5 1 4 4/5 4/5: Bridges 1: Pavements 4 Project/strategy evaluation 4: Maintenance 3 4: Safety, Maintenance 5: Congestion, Drainage 3: Bridges 1: Others 5: Safety 2: Others 1 4 4/5 5 2 Project Prioritization within or across project types 5: Across asset types 1 5: For MPOs – within project types 1: Across project types 5: Congestion 4: Across asset types 3: Bridges 2: Others 1 1 5: Across asset types 1: Within asset type 4/5 4/5: Safety 1: Pavements, bridges 5 TABLE 4 Level of interest in new analytical tools (continued on next page)

Type of Analysis California Florida Massachusetts Maryland Michigan Montana New York Ohio South Carolina Wisconsin Life-cycle cost 5: “Important” assets 3: Others 5 3 3/4 5 4: Bridges 1: Pavements 2 1 5: Bridges 3: Safety 1: Pavements 1 Monitoring actual project costs and effectiveness (to provide feedback into management systems) 5 4 1 5 5 5 5 5 5: Bridges, pavements 2: Safety 4/5 Other (e.g., customer feedback analysis) 5: Customer survey data 3 1 1 5 1 = Very Low, 5 = Very High TABLE 4 (Continued)

TABLE 5 Preferences for implementation platforms Platform California Florida Massachusetts Maryland Michigan Montana New York Ohio South Carolina Wisconsin Stand-alone web-based tool Y Y Y Y Y N 1 Y Y Y N Stand-alone spreadsheet-based tool N Y Y N Y N 1 D2 N Y Y Stand-alone GIS-based tool Y N 3 Y3 Y N 3 N 3 D2 N Y3 Y Plug-in module for integration with existing systems Y Y Y Y Y Y D 2 Y Y Y Guideline/specification (as opposed to software) Y Y N N Y Y N Y Y D4 Other (specify) Y5 Y5 Preference Level (Y = OK or Indifferent, N = Not OK, D = Depends on Specifics) Notes: 1 Stand-alone tools work against an integrated approach to data management and analysis. 2 Type of tool may create data setup and interoperability issues. 3 Tool would need to be compatible with GIS Framework. 4 OK if accompanied by software. 5 Client/server architectures.

20 asked to rate their interest in each type of analysis capability on a scale of 1 to 5 (1 indicated very low interest, and 5 indi- cated very high interest). Low interest indicated either a lack of perceived need for the tool or current possession of this type of analysis tool with no perceived need to improve or supplement its capabilities. Results are organized according to the key processes of the generalized asset management decision model presented in Figure 2. Evaluate Investment Levels and Tradeoffs Investment Level Versus Performance Within Program Categories. Six of the states indicated a high level of inter- est (4+) in program-level tools for analyzing the relationship between investment levels and system performance. Several of these states noted that capabilities already existed in the pavement and bridge area; a few already had these capabili- ties for other program categories (as noted previously). How- ever, the need for improved capabilities to quantify the ben- efits of preventive maintenance and, specifically, to predict the life-extension impacts of different levels of preventive maintenance was reported by more than one respondent. Other specific gaps cited were in the congestion, safety, and maintenance program areas and for equipment, buildings, and other physical assets not covered by standard manage- ment systems. Some states said that they were not interested in pursuing predictive capabilities for safety projects because of liability implications, whereas other states did not have this concern. Performance Tradeoffs for Different Budget Allocations Across Program Categories. Eight of the ten states indicated a high level of interest in this capability. Some were interested in tradeoffs across modes, whereas others were only inter- ested in tradeoffs across program categories within the high- way mode (e.g., preservation versus new capacity, preventive maintenance versus rehabilitation, tradeoffs across functional classes or corridors). Several respondents expressed the need for a relatively high-level analysis tool that could be used to illustrate program tradeoffs to policy-makers during the bud- get process. Two individuals expressed interest in a marginal analysis approach that would support decisions on where additional money would be best spent (or conversely, where needed cuts should be made) given a base program of projects. In discussions during the TRB Providence conference, a representative from Washington State noted that methods for analyzing multimodal tradeoffs continue to be of interest to that state. WSDOT has sponsored a multimodal investment tradeoff tool (MICA) based on goal achievement analysis, which is still in the research stage. The Washington State rep- resentative felt that a tool that addresses preservation ver- sus maintenance tradeoffs would be more methodologically tractable and (if done right) could significantly affect deci- sions, particularly in this era of tight budgets. Such a tool would address the impacts that cuts in the preservation budget would have on routine and responsive maintenance needs. Predicted Impacts of a Set of Projects on System Condition/ Performance. Nine of the ten states indicated a high level of interest in improved capabilities in this area. Specific gaps included (1) tools able to calculate the economic benefit for a proposed program of projects and (2) tools focused on the benefits to customers or facility users rather than benefits related to facility condition. Identify Needs and Solutions Impacts of alternative policies/standards for project scope, timing, and design. Six of the ten states were interested in tools in this area. Specific needs were mentioned for tools to analyze alternative work scoping/packaging and timing options—both at a project level (how do the benefits and costs change if the project is delayed by 3 years?) and at the network level (what are the impacts of a change in policy regarding what ancillary work is done with pavement projects?). Evaluate and Compare Options Project/Strategy evaluation. Seven of the ten states indicated a high level of interest in additional tools for project or strategy evaluation. Respondents generally acknowledged that although several existing tools addressed this need, there were some gaps to be filled, including improved capabilities to eval- uate safety, congestion, and drainage projects; improved capa- bilities to quantify life-extension benefits of maintenance projects; improved techniques to estimate economic devel- opment benefits, and improved capabilities to represent ben- efits of reduced vulnerability costs (risks) associated with bridge projects. Project prioritization. Seven of the ten states indicated a high level of interest in new tools for project prioritization. Three of these states specifically indicated an interest in new tools for prioritization across project types. Life-cycle cost analysis. Six of the ten states gave life-cycle cost analysis a high rating; two of the states said that their pri- mary interest was for bridge projects, because they already had an adequate capability in place for pavement projects. One state mentioned the need for better methods for transit vehicle life-cycle cost analysis. Other. One state felt that an improved approach to overlay a customer perspective on the engineering-oriented decision criteria for project selection was needed.

Monitor Results Monitoring actual project costs and effectiveness to pro- vide feedback into management systems. All of the 10 states felt that monitoring actual project costs and effectiveness was an important capability to be improved; one state gave this a low rating because representatives felt this capability should be integral to existing management and tracking systems in a state rather than provided as part of a new tool. Preferences for Implementation Platforms Table 5 summarizes respondents’ preferences for specific implementation platforms for new analytical tools. In gen- eral, the most negative comments were for development of a stand-alone spreadsheet or GIS-based tool. These comments reflected the desire to pursue an integrated approach to new asset management tools. A web-based tool or a plug-in mod- ule for integration with existing systems was generally con- sidered acceptable platforms. A couple of states noted that the tool must be compatible with a client/server architecture. Four of the ten states felt that the product of this NCHRP project should be operating software (at least in prototype form) as opposed to a guideline or specification alone. Key Factors Affecting Success Respondents identified several barriers to and ingredients for the successful implementation of analytical tools. Barriers to Successful Tool Implementation and Use Agencies may lack time for staff to learn, upgrade, and maintain new tools. Additionally, staff turnover coupled with the infrequent use of many tools require new tools to be easy to use and have a self-explanatory interface. Another barrier to successful tool implementation is the need for vertical and horizontal integration of data and tools. Developing an integrated approach to the use of data and tools across organizational units with different require- ments, applied to the same domain, is challenging. Tools are typically designed and implemented with a particular user group’s needs in mind. Efforts to simultaneously satisfy mul- tiple groups and business processes within an organization require skillful direction and frequently get bogged down. Data are not available for input into the systems. Even when sophisticated models are available, credible values for model parameters are difficult to estimate based on docu- mented experience. Agencies may be reluctant to trust new tools because their inner workings are overly complex and not well understood. 21 Finally, respondents were skeptical of the ability of ana- lytical tools to contribute to an inherently complex, multi- dimensional, and highly political process. Key Ingredients for Successful Tool Implementation and Use For successful tool implementation and use, agencies must have a well-defined asset management business process that depends on good quality information and analysis results and tools specifically tailored to answering the right questions. Of course, using the tool is an essential part of the process. There must be an evolutionary process to tailor modeling procedures and parameters to specific agency conditions. This process results in buy-in and ownership among agency staff. The agency must have an organizational culture that val- ues and encourages the use of technical analysis. The agency must designate or hire a technical champion(s) who has a complete, in-depth understanding of the tool and how it can be applied to answer different types of questions. This champion would educate users and listen and respond to the needs of the user community through ongoing tool enhancements and/or specialized analyses. 2.5 EXPLORATORY DISCUSSIONS Thirty-eight participants (representing the FHWA, AASHTO, NCHRP, NHI, 12 states, 1 province, and 2 uni- versities) attended the NHI Pilot Training Course on Asset Management that was held in Lansing, Michigan, on June 25 and 26, 2002. As part of the course discussions, the partici- pants were asked, “What are the top two asset management decisions that you need better analytic tools to address?” Some of the responses are included the following paragraphs. A representative from the Vermont Agency of Transpor- tation (VTrans) indicated that the agency had sufficient tools with which to manage pavements, bridges, and maintenance activities. VTrans is interested in tools that would enable staff to analyze other modes (e.g., transit, airports, pedestrian paths, rails). A representative from the Pennsylvania DOT suggested the need for a tool that would enable agencies to evaluate the impact of a project or group of projects on system perfor- mance (e.g., if an agency spends $10 million on security proj- ects, what will be the impact on the performance of the pave- ment network?). A representative from the Montana DOT indicated that a tool that analyzes tradeoffs between reactive and capital maintenance activities would be beneficial. A representative from the Province of Ontario identified the need for tools that (1) quantify user costs and benefits for preservation, operations, and maintenance activities and (2) analyze tradeoffs among these three types of actions.

An FHWA representative suggested that the biggest trans- portation issue today is costly congestion delays and that intelligent transportation systems (ITS) were the key to mak- ing progress in this area. He also added that agencies do not need another ITS tool—they need more money so that they can implement existing technologies. A representative from the University of Wisconsin sug- gested that existing analytic tools are too data hungry for widespread implementation by transportation agencies. He proposed that new tools be developed to help DOTs collect/ 22 generate the data required for existing tools. He also sug- gested the need for more sketch-planning tools that are not data intensive. One participant identified the need for a tool that would enable agencies to quantify the benefits of projects developed to address common priority policy areas (e.g., mobility, safety, environment). Currently, agencies develop projects (e.g., traf- fic calming improvements and sound walls) in response to policy priorities but have no means for analyzing the success of these efforts in meeting their objectives.

Next: Section 3 - Review of Existing Tools »
Analytical Tools for Asset Management Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

TRB’s National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 545: Analytical Tools for Asset Management examines two tools developed to support tradeoff analysis for transportation asset management. The software tools and the accompanying documentation are designed to help state departments of transportation and other transportation agencies identify, evaluate, and recommend investment decisions for managing the agency’s infrastructure assets.

The software tools associated with NCHRP Report 545 are available in an ISO format. Links to instructions on buring an .ISO CD-ROM and the download site for the .ISO CD-ROM are below.

Help on Burning an .ISO CD-ROM Image

Download the NCHRP CRP-CD-57.ISO CD-ROM Image

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!