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 37
37
The "desired state" for most highway agencies in regard to Areas for Improvement
railroad project agreements could be summarized in the fol-
lowing considerations: The best practices ranked by the highway agencies and rail-
roads obviously provide opportunities for improvement in
· Timeliness. Exasperated pleas for timely reviews, timely
the highwayrailroad project agreement process. Any agency
that has not adopted a full array of the best practices is likely
responses, timely meetings, and timely decisions are the most
to improve its agreement process by doing so.
common requests from highway agencies consulted for
Although the cited best practices are proven tactics, they do
this study. In their desired state, firm and predictable time
not completely make up a strategic and methodical approach to
frames would exist for when they could expect responses
the agreement process. The adoption of process-improvement
on requests, reviews, and agreements.
models has been become standard in many professional fields
· Reliability. Consistent information is desired about what
and can be drawn on for improving the highwayrailroad
railroads want in terms of right-of-way widths, construction
agreement process as well. Four common frameworks for
windows, vertical and lateral clearances, and other such
process-improvement are summarized below. The intent is
basic design and construction detail. The railroads have pro-
to illustrate that many disciplines have elevated process-
duced a substantial number of standard drawings, which
improvement to a systematic framework that continuously
are consistently used. However, the differences in terrain,
improves the process outcome. Drawing on these frameworks
elevation, curvature, geometry, and available rights-of-way
provides models that could be adopted or modified for the
create the need for exceptions to the standard drawings. railroadhighway agreement processes.
Knowing promptly and consistently what the long-term
track and right-of-way needs of railroads are at specific proj-
ect locations is frequently cited as a highly desired outcome. Project Management Institute
· Reasonable insurance limits. Railroads have increased The ongoing development of highway and railroad project
their insurance requirements above the federal minimum agreements bears attributes to the disciplines of project man-
levels. The current federal levels include $2 million for agement and process management. Project management has
general liability and $6 million for Railroad Protective been defined as "the application of knowledge, skills, tools and
Liability Insurance. However, highway agencies report techniques to project activities to meet project requirements"
frequent insistence of insurance for $25 million or more (22). Projects have been defined as temporary undertakings
for projects in urbanized areas. Such limits can be allowed that result in a distinct product. The ongoing management of
under federal rules with justification. Consistent, reasonable collections of projects has been defined as program or port-
justification for high levels has often been requested by the folio management (22). Project and program management
highway agencies, as well as flexibility for lesser amounts for have developed their own professional standards of conduct,
minor projects. best practices, and even ethical behavior. Professional study
· Predictable force account timelines. Railroad forces are and training in project and program management can be
generally required by union contract to perform any work obtained from the Project Management Institute, through
needed on the railroad right-of-way as a result of changes various professional organizations, and trade associations.
caused by a highway project. Highway agencies have com- The collective body of knowledge acquired by these groups
plained about contractor delay if the railroad is not prompt provides analogous lessons that the highway agencies can
and reliable. The agencies desire assurances as to force apply to their interactions with the railroads. The Project
account time frames. Management Institute categorizes sound project and program
· Availability. Having a reliable and empowered point of con- management as requiring the following general skills:
tact who can provide dependable information--particularly
early in the design process--has been repeatedly cited by · Knowledge of basic project management tools, such as
highway agencies as a highly desired condition. critical path scheduling;
· Collaboration on simple at-grade crossing rehabilita- · Subject matter expertise in the specialty area, such as railroad
tion projects. Having a simple "cookie-cutter" approach operations;
to rehabilitating at-grade crossings--with simple standard · Understanding of the project environment, such as the
agreements and schedules--has been cited as a desirable attitudes within highway agencies and railroads;
practice. · General management skills; and
· Reasonable right-of-way pricing. Having reasonable nego- · Interpersonal and communication skills.
tiated costs for rights-of-way is sought. This may include
faster mediation and an improved process for appraising Although volumes of materials are produced on sound proj-
values. ect and program management, several of the key strategies from
OCR for page 38
38
those disciplines are particularly relevant to the highway frameworks for managing processes. These voluntary stan-
railroad agreement process. These include the following: dards are developed by more than 200 technical committees
with membership from more than 150 companies. "ISO
· Clearly identifying stakeholders in the approval process Certified" means that an organization has been evaluated
and identifying what their requirements are; and its processes comply with these internationally recognized
· Clearly identifying cost, scope, and schedule for all deliv- processes for quality assurance.
erables and sharing them with the stakeholders; DOTs in Illinois, Pennsylvania, and Florida have adopted
· Monitoring performance of the schedules and deliverables; the ISO framework for several core business processes. The
· Creating analysis or feedback processes so that stakehold- Florida and Pennsylvania DOTs rely on the ISO process to
ers examine underlying causes for not meeting standards ensure their materials testing processes are sound. Illinois has
of scope, cost, and schedule; and used ISO processes for project management and other man-
· Adopting a "continuous improvement" ethos in which both agerial functions.
parties agree to continue innovating until they regularly Like the other systems considered here, ISO provides a
achieve their shared customer requirements. strategic managerial system that can be applied to processes
for managing almost anything, including project agreements.
Its principles include the following:
Six Sigma
Six Sigma is a widely used process-improvement framework · Customer focus. The organization begins with an under-
that relies on continuous analysis of process defects. When a standing of its customers' needs and focuses all subsequent
component or process fails to meet its desired specifications, it activities toward meeting them.
is analyzed for root causes of failure, which are then addressed. · Involvement of people. The organization actively engages
Six Sigma began at Motorola in the 1980s. Engineers deter- all process participants to contribute to solutions.
mined they could dramatically reduce manufacturing defects · Process approach. Internal processes are reconfigured to
by carefully controlling production processes. They aimed achieve desired results.
for a virtually error-free manufacturing process that sought · Systems approach to management. Interrelated processes
a 99.9997% success rate in producing products that met are viewed as parts of a system and as such must operate in
specifications. complementary and mutually supportive ways.
Six Sigma is expressed in statistical terms and appeals to per- · Continuous improvement. Continuous improvement of
sons with a statistical or engineering background. Its concepts the organization's performance is a permanent objective.
rely heavily on the "continuous improvement" and "insti- · Fact-driven decision making. Basing decisions on data
tutional learning" practices of other process-improvement and analysis is a key corporate attribute.
systems. It trains a workforce in how to statistically and · Mutually beneficial supplier relationship. Producers and
methodically evaluate the cause of defects and then to contin- suppliers rely on one another and should have a relation
uously improve production processes until they are virtually that increases value for both of them.
eliminated.
It combines quantified analysis of results with workflow
Partnering
process-improvement techniques. It is widely accepted in
manufacturing sectors, and it contains many elements that Program Management, Six Sigma, and ISO are applicable for
would be relevant to the interactions of highway and railroad recurring projects or programs. They are less applicable for
organizations. If the "product" is defined as a review or agree- cities or counties that only occasionally interact with the rail-
ment that is to be approved within a given time frame, the roads. In the case of a small city, it may only pursue a com-
tracking of agreements that fail to meet "specifications" pro- plex railroad project once in a decade.
vides both parties with data for root-cause analysis of process Another strategy that can be applicable to a stand-alone proj-
failure. Six Sigma trains practitioners to categorize the defects ect as well as to ongoing programs is the "partnering" process.
and to determine their root causes, and then to correct those This process was first articulated by the U.S. Army Corps of
root causes. Engineers in addressing its large civil works projects. It also has
been encouraged by FHWA, some state DOTs, and their asso-
ciated contracting companies. In partnering, both parties
ISO
Founded in 1947, the International Organization for Standard- · Define what a successful outcome would be;
ization (ISO) has produced more than 17,000 international · Formally agree that each wants to assist the other in achiev-
standards, which include quality-control and quality-assurance ing this common success;
OCR for page 39
39
· Develop a level of service agreement that spells out what each · Adopt formal concurrence points that both parties moni-
expects from the other in terms of service and timeliness; tor for progress on the project.
· Identify escalation paths for each to follow when problems · Provide dedicated personnel to focus on reviews and
cannot be resolved at the lowest level; agreements.
· Identify a dispute resolution path for when escalation fails; · Hold preconstruction meetings so that the contractors,
· Agree to remain in constant communication to ensure that highway agencies, and railroads have common expectations
problems are identified early and to monitor whether mile- for the construction project.
stones have been achieved; and · Jointly develop standard plan notes or contract provisions
· Periodically, through the course of the project, analyze what that are minimum standards of performance on the job site
went right, what went wrong, and what can be learned for to ensure safety and the protection of rail operations.
the future. · Schedule regular review meetings in which both sides review
successes and issues.
· Hire only experienced engineering firms recognized by the
Strategic Framework with
railroads for the development of project plans.
Continuous Improvement
· Adopt standard billing agreements that reduce the adminis-
A major conclusion of this study to date is that a systematic, trative costs of both the railroads and the highway agencies.
ongoing, continuously improving formal structure adopted · Adopt master agreements in which both parties agree to
by both the highway agency and the railroad can significantly standard provisions within all projects to streamline the
improve both parties' perception of the project agreement project agreement process.
process. When the two institutions formalize their expecta-
tions, definitions, avenues of communication, and ongoing
Funded Staff Positions
collaboration, a greater degree of satisfaction by both parties
becomes evident. Anecdotally, it seemed clear that state offi- Another area of improvement that should be examined by
cials whose processes included elements of partnering were state highway agencies is either to fund positions at railroads
among the most satisfied with the agreement process. Other or to support additional task-order positions at engineering
officials complained of recurring problems. The process- firms dedicated to highway reviews. WSDOT has funded a
improvement frameworks of Six Sigma, ISO, PMI, and part- position at BNSF, and it reports positive results.
nering are intended to identify such recurring problems and AASHTO reports that 34 state transportation agencies
to focus both parties' efforts on solving them. fund positions at environmental resource agencies (23). These
positions are dedicated to processing permits and conduct-
ing reviews for the highway agencies. The practice began in
Data Needs
the 1990s and accelerated after the Transportation Equity
All these process-improvement frameworks rely on data. With- Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) was enacted in 1998. Sec-
out data, formal root-cause analysis is weakened. Having tion 1309(e) of TEA-21 gave DOTs the option to spend federal-
project-tracking systems are an essential component of aid highway dollars to fund positions at other agencies in order
improving the project agreement process. to meet cooperatively determined time frames, if such amounts
are "necessary . . . to meet the time limits for environmental
review" and "if such time limits are less than the customary
Tactical Improvements
time necessary for such review."
Even if adopting a strategic framework seems impractical to This authority was extended and broadened in 2005 with the
highway and railroad officials, the best practices cited by the enactment of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Trans-
states and railroads offer clear areas for agencies to improve portation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU). The
their practices. The following best practices include many ele- law retained and broadened the funding authority, allow-
ments of partnering and appear to be widely embraced by ing transportation agencies to support activities outside the
both highway agencies and the railroads: National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process.
A survey of AASHTO members who are funding positions
· Ensure ongoing and continuous communication channels at resource agencies produced a set of recommendations for
between the railroad and the highway agency. this practice that are similar to some of the recommendations
· Have one empowered central point of contact at the rail- made for this project. They include the following:
road who can coordinate reviews.
· Have one empowered point of contact at the highway agency · Devote sufficient DOT effort to prioritizing projects and
to coordinate submittals. ensuring funded position attention to those priorities.
