Click for next page ( 45

The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement

Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 44
44 CHAPTER 6 Implementation Guidance 6.1 Implementing the Interstate management, but who fail to see the advantages of a separate Asset Management Framework framework for the IHS. An agency in this category may have a well-considered approach to asset management, but simply not The objective of this research effort is to "develop a practi- have a set of assets or organizational structure that lends itself to cal framework for applying asset management principles and making distinctions based on IHS designation. These agencies practices to managing Interstate Highway System (IHS) invest- will presumably continue to apply a common asset manage- ments." The question of whether the uniquely important ment framework to interstate and noninterstate facilities alike. attributes of the IHS warrant a differentiated asset manage- On the surface it may appear that such agencies in the second ment framework will be proven one way or another by the group, by definition, would not implement a differentiated number of IHS owners and key stakeholders who embrace the asset management approach for the IHS. On the other hand, it concepts and implement the principles and practices recom- is conceivable that exposure to the unique framework of asset mended in this report. This section attempts to address the fol- management for the IHS could stimulate new interest and lowing issues related to implementation: potentially serve to transform nonasset management practi- tioners into newfound supporters. It is certainly plausible that Why implement Interstate Asset Management? some nonpractitioners who appreciate the unique importance What are the primary motivating factors? of the IHS system and the value of approaching such IHS issues What are the primary focus areas? Who are the stakeholders--what are the opportunities for as operational management and capital investment needs via collaboration? a systemic and structured asset management approach may Where are the champions? become newly motivated. This leaves a third group of agencies consisting of those who will perceive that the benefits of an Interstate Asset Manage- Implementation--Yea or Nay? ment Framework outweigh the costs and challenges and An initial question an IHS owner must answer in consid- that a differentiated approach for the IHS should be imple- ering how to implement the Interstate Asset Management mented. In most cases these will be IHS "owner" agencies Framework is whether to implement it at all. To understand such as state DOTs and toll authorities. But it is likely that how best to present the case for an Interstate Asset Manage- other stakeholders also will play a role in deciding whether ment Framework, it can be instructive to first address those and how to implement an Interstate Asset Management who are unlikely to immediately implement such a concept. Framework: stakeholders such as MPOs, emergency man- These "nonimplementers" fall into two simple and distinct agement agencies, law enforcement officials, military orga- categories: 1) those who accept and have implemented trans- nizations such as the National Guard or the Department of portation asset management but fail to perceive the need for Defense agency overseeing the national Strategic Highway a distinct approach tailored to the IHS; and 2) those who are Network (STRAHNET), and national organizations with a generally disinterested in implementing transportation asset surface transportation focus such as the American Truck- management practices beyond gathering basic inventory and ing Association, the American Automobile Association, the condition information. American Road and Transportation Builders Association, The first group of nonimplementers would be those who the Highway Users Alliance and the U.S. Department of perceive themselves to be practitioners of transportation asset Transportation.

OCR for page 44
45 Implementation--Motivating Factors factors. The question of whether to embrace a differentiated asset management approach for IHS assets should find reso- There are a number of factors that might drive an agency nance with transportation agency leaders who come to recog- toward implementing an IHS-based asset management nize that among the greatest risks they face are the potentially approach. While in reality a combination of factors likely will dire events that might cause major disruptions in service be at play within any particular agency, it is instructive to look along the most important transportation routes on their sys- at them individually. Implementation efforts may be: tem. Such emergencies can and do occur--fierce storms, fiery crashes, hazardous spills, damaging earthquakes, structural Culture driven; failures--and examples abound that demonstrate how they Leadership driven; are handled by the agency will have a profound and lasting Private sector driven; effect on the reputation of that agency and the tenure of its Stakeholder driven; or leadership. Invariably in the aftermath of catastrophic events Event driven. questions are raised about whether they might have been anticipated in some way and managed more effectively using Culture Driven risk assessment practices and advanced contingency plan- ning. This is why there is a good chance that many trans- Some agencies are more likely to move toward implementa- portation leaders will respond favorably to the notion that the tion because the underlying philosophy as well as the specific IHS and key NHS routes deserve special attention--not to practices of transportation asset management have become the exclusion of other systems but as an overlay that affords a integral to the way they are led, managed, and function day to heightened level of asset management attention to their most day, from headquarters to field units and across functional critical transportation arteries. areas. They are very likely to be those organizations currently In contrast with culturally driven processes, leadership- practicing and gaining significant benefits from applying driven implementation strategies are more likely to focus on transportation asset management principles. They are led and specific aspects of IHS asset management, resulting from the managed by leaders and managers who would find it incon- perceptions and priorities of individual leaders. For obvious ceivable that critically important decisions about allocating reasons, this motivation is the most susceptible to changes in and managing scarce resources could be made any other way. the leadership of an organization. They are organizations populated with staff whose buy-in is so ingrained that changes in leadership and management can occur without jeopardizing the continuity of asset management Private Sector Driven practices. The widespread application of transportation asset A number of states (Virginia and Florida foremost among management in such organizations implies that they would them) have awarded performance-based lump sum contracts tend to be both open and receptive to new and better practices, for various combinations of maintenance, repair, and oper- and therefore will be open to the notion that the IHS ought ational activities along IHS routes. Such contracts typically to be differentiated on the basis of its unique significance. involve a minimum of five years to amortize investments in Implementation actions motivated by the culture of an equipment and facilities that are often required. In addition, organization are most likely to be successful and sustainable some owners (such as the City of Chicago, and the States of since they are more likely to occur within multiple functions Indiana and Texas) have awarded long-term concessions (of and at multiple levels, engaging a broad array of internal stake- anywhere from 50 to nearly 100 years) to private companies holders who will become vested in making it work. The leader- who will manage and collect tolls along IHS and similarly sig- ship of such organizations can be expected to play a facilitative nificant NHS corridors. Both approaches involve the establish- and supportive role, having grasped the benefits of having at ment of a comprehensive suite of specified performance their fingertips a stronger foundation of factual information, standards to provide an objective method to guide and moni- a richer array of policy choices, and an enhanced state of tor the contractor, and to facilitate the transfer of various, pre- readiness to cope with and manage risks that can disrupt the determined risks (from pavement distress to snow removal) to operation of the premier highway network for which they are a private sector entity. responsible--the IHS. Note that worldwide, the most pervasive application of risk- based asset management principles and practices to interstate- type highway systems occurs among private sector managers Leadership Driven and operators governed by performance-based fixed-price Certainly many, if not most, significant changes affecting contracts and driven by financial incentives to minimize organizations are driven or strongly influenced by leadership costs and maximize profitability. The process of pricing such