Click for next page ( 13


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 12
12 documentation from the Future Strategic Highway Research Selected Case Studies Program (F-SHRP), which was the precursor to many of the research efforts currently under way with SHRP 2. Table 2.3 presents the programs and activities that were selected Available literature, including program summaries, per- for further development as case studies of process integration formance monitoring reports, synthesis documents, opera- based on the criteria assessment review. Contacts for each tions manuals, and other resources largely focused on broader agency were identified and interviewed or provided input operations processes. In some cases, outcomes including cap- to the case study development. Case study discussions are turing lessons learned, measures used, and challenges met were included in Chapters 3 through 7. discussed. Information for actual process catalysts, underlying grassroots efforts to implement and effect process change, Interviews with Agency or some of the challenges in institutionalizing those opera- Representatives tional processes are not typically captured as part of pro- gram documentation. A key component of the process documentation was to inter- view representatives from the programs and agencies that were being featured as part of the case studies. While available liter- Case Study Evaluation Criteria ature can provide high-level information about operational The process of narrowing the case study focus required estab- processes, involved agencies or entities, as well as quantitative lishing a general set of criteria from which to assess the wide outputs of the effectiveness of the programs, additional insights range of potential case study options. While the literature were needed to accurately capture key steps, processes, and review yielded some quantitative information about opera- outcomes. Aspects such as catalysts for process change or inte- tional processes and outcomes, the research team assumed gration, barriers or challenges that were experienced and how that much of the qualitative and anecdotal information about they were overcome (or not), and policy needs and impacts how business processes evolved, were coordinated with other were an integral part of the interview strategy. processes, and, in general, how process change was actually Interviews were arranged with one or more representatives instituted would be derived more from interviews with indi- from the agencies or programs, and a brief overview of the L01 vidual agencies than from what had been documented in most research and the guiding questions were provided to each inter- of the publicly available literature. viewee before the discussion. Most interviews were held via tele- An initial list of potential programs and activities was conference, with the exception of two that were conducted in established based on the literature review, the research person. Teleconference interviews were recorded for future ref- team's knowledge of various operations programs, and input erence. Diagrams of each process were then drafted to capture from industry experts. More than 50 programs and activities the process of the case study. They were reviewed by other team were further discussed among the research team for their members to assess whether adequate information was provided potential to serve as case studies for process integration. From or if additional answers were needed from the interviewee. this list, 21 candidate case studies were selected for further evaluation. The 21 candidate case studies included incident National Workshop management programs and policies, work zone management with Key Stakeholders activities, ATM applications from international examples, and nonurban case studies that focused on weather and freight The next step in the research and analysis portion of the project operations. involved a two-day workshop with hand-selected representa- Several criteria were established to guide the assessment tion from across the country (1). It was decided that the indi- and narrow the 21 candidate case studies down to 10 for viduals invited needed to be from a management level within further evaluation; however, a formal scoring process ulti- an organization that had influence on operations, but who mately was not implemented. One of the challenges in were also still closely and integrally involved with operations applying a standardized set of criteria to this assessment was and processes that can affect travel time reliability. The invitees the broad range of potential processes that were reviewed. represented various roles within the multiple agencies where In some cases, processes referred to specific actions within a they worked, including representation from planning, opera- specific sequence; in other cases, processes were linked to tions, program management, and even senior management. overarching programs that influenced specific operational The workshop was held on May 5 and 6, 2009, in Phoenix, areas. To narrow the list of 21 candidate case studies to 10, Ariz. It included a presentation of the L01 project, overviews the research team reviewed the assessment criteria pre- of the case studies, preliminary findings and direction of the sented in Table 2.2. report, and a discussion on the approach for a guide. The