Integrating Business Processes to Improve Travel Time Reliability (2011)

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.

C H A P T E R 8 Analysis and Applicability to Other AgenciesWhen this project was initiated, the intent was to identify clearly defined integration points in successful business processes that demonstrate a link to improved travel time reliability. As the case studies evolved, two distinct aspects to process integration came to be identified as being criti- cal to supporting reliability-focused operations: process integration at the operations level and at the institutional or programmatic level. Each poses different challenges in terms of process implementation, execution, and overall integration. At the operations level, various processes and activities evolve and are coordinated among those who are responsible for overseeing or carrying out operational initiatives (such as steps a traffic management center operator takes to initiate notification to travelers). There is often a direct link between the process and the outcome (although it might take a collec- tive set of processes to result in a significant outcome). Process integration at the programmatic level is a much more complex undertaking. Not only are there different constraints to be worked through at the institutional level, there is also a much less direct relationship between those programmatic processes and their contribution to travel time reliability. Yet, institutionalizing processes so that they influence training, staffing and resource management, planning, programming, and policy are essential enablers to effective business process integration. This section is intended to aggregate the data collected through this research and present findings that can be applied by other agencies. The observations look at key players or stakeholders that are important to the effective- ness of a process, trends that are present within multiple agencies, gaps identified by the participants, and lessons learned from the agencies studied. The Guide to Integrating Business Processes to Improve Travel Time Reliability pro- vides unique insights into how agencies can apply some of the findings from the research to examine their own process72implementation and integration at both operations and institutional levels (1). Influences to Process Initiation, Change, and Integration Based on the analysis of the case studies and the feedback from participants at the L01 workshop (2), influences on business processes could be categorized into specific groups according to the event or directive that initiated the process change or process development. The categories were developed into three tiers, as follows: • Major directive, or “top-down,” approach: Includes leg- islative requirement or management-level goal or directive that requires implementing new processes or examining and revising existing approaches. Top-down directives can greatly accelerate the priority and pace of process change within an agency or among partners. • Event-driven influence: There is a specific event or hazard that has prompted the need for improving operations, such as to support a large-scale event or breakdowns in operational processes during catastrophic events such as a hurricane evacuation or massive winter storm. • Needs-based, or “bottom-up,” approach: Processes that are initiated or coordinated at the operations level, often in response to specific activities or needs, such as day-to- day management of incidents, traffic signal operations, or enabling information exchanges for more effective real- time system management. The range of influences makes it challenging to point to a specific catalyst or type of catalyst that is often the most suc- cessful in influencing processes and process change. Table 8.1 summarizes the three tiers and the types of influences that were identified as part of the case studies.

73Table 8.1. Summary of Influences from Case Studies Tier 1: Major Directive (Top Down) WSDOT/WSP Joint Operations Policy Statement NCDOT Traffic and Safety Operations Committee Kansas Speedway Special-Event Traffic Management Plan Tier 2: Event-Driven—Political, Public Relations Michigan DOT Work Zone Modeling I-80 State Line Closures Tier 3: Needs Based/Opportunity Based/Grassroots FDOT Road Rangers The Palace of Auburn Hills Event Management Strategies MTC Regional Signal Timing Program AZTech Regional Data Server UK Active Traffic Management The executive leadership of WSDOT and WSP led the development of the Joint Operations Policy Statement (JOPS) Agreement. The leadership is responsible for review and signature of the JOPS Agreement each year. The JOPS Agreement also provided the basis for WSDOT and WSP to respond to the governor’s request for top–down performance reporting on incident response and clearance times. Based on the Federal Rule for Work Zones Traffic Control, DOTs are required to evaluate and manage work zones to minimize the impact on capacity and safety. This committee is one of the initiatives started in response to the rule. With the construction of a new raceway facility, there was a need to develop a coordinated strategy to effectively manage event traffic. KDOT received a directive from the governor of Kansas to develop a plan and provide funding for the necessary infrastructure improvements to support access to the Speedway location. Michigan DOT needed a strategy to identify impacts on the Detroit-area freeway network resulting from a major reconstruction program on I-75. Periodic closures of I-80 at the California/Nevada state line and limited available truck parking and storage on the Nevada side has prompted a series of operational responses by Nevada DOT aimed at providing advance notification to freight traffic about the closures. Expansion of a localized freeway service patrol program to a statewide program through public-private partnerships The Auburn Hills Police Department coordinated with the RCOC, MDOT, and the Palace to develop a comprehensive traffic management plan that decreased the required load-out time for the facility. The MTC RSTP was developed to provide funding for local agencies with limited traffic engineering resources with regionally significant corridors that cross through their jurisdiction. With multiple traffic operations centers in the Phoenix metropolitan area managing several cross-jurisdictional corridors, a regional database was established to provide a central repository for agencies to provide and access information about real-time road network operations. The ATM was developed based on a safety analysis of key corridors in the UK and potential mitigation strategies to address those concerns.Obstacles to Process Change Whatever the influence, all agencies encounter varying obsta- cles when they begin to evaluate, implement, or modify a process. Some of these obstacles are common among agencies, whereas others are unique to individual agencies. Some of the obstacles can be conquered through modifications to the process; others may require institutional changes. The follow- ing obstacles were identified from the interviews and from con- versations with the L01 workshop attendees. They represent a large sampling of the issues experienced by agencies across the country. • Departments of transportation historically are focused on construction and maintenance and not on operations, although the operations focus is gaining more ground. Processes that tend to affect multiple divisions or groupswithin a DOT can often be difficult to change. Processes evolve differently among different divisions, even if they are part of the same overall organization. Communication among these groups varies; direct communication among divisions largely depends on their respective roles and how often they must interact in response to day-to-day opera- tions needs. For instance, improvements to a process that involves traffic management center operational procedures and dispatching the DOT’s in-house incident response team are likely to be much easier to achieve because the enti- ties involved can collaborate on how to change or improve specific steps. When process change or improvement is dependent on upper-level divisions making modifications to resource management or allocation strategies in response to what the field response team needs to better support its oper- ational activities, there are likely to be more justifications, research, or approvals required to implement process

74change. It is not a reflection of the change not being viewed as critical, but likely more attributed to the distance between these two divisions. • Although reliability is emerging as an important metric among agencies, often it does not have an impact on process implementation or integration. Most, if not all, state DOTs have an overarching agency goal or directive to provide a system that supports mobility and provides safety for users, and these can translate into tangible operations improve- ments and programs. Travel time reliability and mitigat- ing the effects of variability on the transportation network have not yet become engrained into the operations culture for many DOTs, although many of their activities for traffic management, traveler information, incident response, and weather hazard response all contribute to reliability. One exception identified within the case studies is WSDOT’s 90-min incident clearance goal. The need to meet this goal has become such a critical part of both the DOT and the state police that tangible activities and processes have been imple- mented with the specific purpose of meeting this top-down directive. • Because there are a range of agency stakeholders or partners that often contribute to reliability-focused strategies, it is important to consider that each will likely have a different motivation for process implementation or, more impor- tantly, for process change. For a stakeholder to have a vested interest in modifying or changing operational processes, there needs to be a tangible benefit from the stakeholder’s perspective. In some cases, broad objectives, such as reduc- ing the time to clear a major event venue parking lot, can be a motivator, but often it will need to be an outcome that is closer to the division or agency, such as reducing the num- ber of field staff by 75% to manage event venue parking lot clearance, which has a direct impact on resources, cost, overtime, training, and other factors. Understanding the unique language of the various stakeholder agencies can be important when trying to communicate the benefits of process change. WSDOT brought in a retired WSP district commander to serve as its incident response program man- ager. With his background in law enforcement, he was able to discuss incident management process change and imple- mentation with WSP and communicate the benefits in a way that was more meaningful. Top-down directives also provide a certain level of motivation for process change, as there is typically a level of accountability associated with these directives. • The process modeling that has been mapped out in the case studies may not be at a level that is typical of how a DOT, transportation agency, or other stakeholder would view individual operational processes. There is often a challenge in identifying critical gaps or breakdowns within specific processes because agencies might not typically approachassessing their operational activities with a supply-chain or business process perspective. In fact, a key challenge experi- enced by the research team was helping to align the concept of business processes to transportation operations during the interview process. Evaluations of operational programs, such as incident response and clearance times or before- and-after studies of throughput, will yield valuable informa- tion about whether processes are effective or not at a higher level, but might not provide enough information about spe- cific steps that might need to be modified or about oppor- tunities for more effective integration of processes. Elements of Process Development and Integration Process integration needs to occur at the operations level (in the field, in the center) and within the institution for it to extend to planning, programming, training, procurement, and other organization-level activities. Creating positive impacts to travel time reliability, or minimizing the negative impacts to variability in travel times, is rarely the result of operational processes from one source or one agency. As demonstrated through the case studies, there are multiple entities that carry out one or more steps in the process, and each individual step is an enabler to the success of the overall process. Case studies presented in the research represent a range of potential processes and integration strategies. Each region or program profiled in the case studies has worked through unique institutional and operational factors, and processes have developed and evolved in response to different catalysts, many of them extremely localized. There are, however, bene- fits to be derived from these case studies that could be applied in other areas. Guidance from the workshop participants indi- cated that there would be more benefit in generalizing out- comes and deriving common elements from across the profiled processes. Figure 8.1 presents the generalized steps for map- ping out business processes.Influences: Each process description within the case studies was the result of a different catalyst or influence. There was either a top-down directive or a specific need that required the development of a solution. Defining the Specific Reliability Goal: Feedback from the workshop stressed the importance of focusing on a specific problem that needs to be solved before focusing on the processes that would be required. Establishing a goal, such as incident clearance times, or identifying a need, such as mitigat- ing truck queuing on an interstate, provides the benchmark by which specific stakeholders, actions, resources, and measures can then be derived. Reliability has not yet emerged as a com- mon goal for transportation operations. There is a substantial focus on safety and mobility, as these can translate into much

75Figure 8.1. Business process mapping steps.more tangible goals for departments of transportation and the public. Mobility can be difficult to capture in the context of a specific goal; supporting goals will often refer to improvements to travel time or reductions in delay, but even these may be dif- ficult to convey to the public. The traveling public understands the big-picture concept of reliability because it directly affects their daily travel, but communicating system reliability and establishing reliability goals in a way that is meaningful to the public is a challenge. Identify and Document Current Business Processes: This step is a gap in most current operational process assessments. Private-sector processes and industrial engineering often will focus on gathering information about current processes and flows and on identifying where the strengths and weaknesses are in the chain of events. Not completing this step risks over- looking roles, available resources, or operational activities that might be critical enablers to a more efficient process. Critical assessment can draw out important integration points (either existing integration points or potential integration strategies). It also provides a starting point for process documentation. Examples of BPMN have been included for each of the case studies profiled. Implement Process: At the operations level, process devel- opment and implementation often occur as the result of grass- roots efforts by staff and champions that are closest to the operational activities. Implementing or modifying current practices, coordinating with other agencies, and recommend- ing more efficient systems to support operations, are all ele- ments of process implementation. Often, as was demonstrated by the I-80 closures or the special-event management strate- gies, certain processes become engrained into a broader oper- ations strategy. When processes need to be implemented upstream or are dependent on management from one or moredivisions or agencies to support, a more formal approach to implementation will be needed. It is important during process integration that all the appro- priate stakeholders are involved. There needs to be buy-in from those who will provide inputs into the process and those who are affected by the process. In the MDOT case study, one of the challenges was coordinating changes that occurred in the field during construction with those responsible for doing the work zone traffic control modeling. The stakeholders in the field were critical and their input needed to be integrated into the overall process. Measuring Outcomes Against Reliability Goals: Not all the case studies documented specific measures by which they eval- uated their overall processes. Some have specific and formal- ized measures; others rely on less formal evaluations. Often, the directive or influence will have a direct impact on how the goal is measured. For operational processes, incremental or system measurements will indicate whether a process is working well or is not working at all. At the programmatic or institutional level, measuring process effectiveness in an incremental fash- ion might not translate into whether overall agency reliability goals are being achieved. Different measures might need to be applied at the programmatic or institutional level that consider trends, as well as the culmination of many subprocesses. Measuring effectiveness or outcomes also provides an opportunity to periodically evaluate the effectiveness of vari- ous business processes and modify or change elements of the process if needed. Document New Process: The case studies presented an option for how to take a critical look at modeling and assessing various processes for congestion management strategies. Not all agencies will want to make the investment in preparing detailed process models for all their operational activities,

76but documenting the key steps, relationships, information exchanges, and other factors can yield several benefits. This can be achieved through developing informal MOUs or more for- mal intergovernmental agreements to document roles, respon- sibilities, objectives, and expected outcomes. Operations manuals provide another mechanism for capturing details. Integrate Process: Processes become integrated either through deliberate efforts or as a result of evolution over time. For a process to become part of day-to-day operations or to jus- tify a change in current processes, there needs to be a demon- stration of tangible benefits, both at the operations level (on the ground) and at the programmatic and institutional levels. Implementation can be a challenge but so is evolution and institutionalizing process change. Once a process is developed, modifications may be needed to make it more tangible and meaningful to other entities that it could directly benefit. The MDOT Work Zone modeling case study provides an example of modifying a tool that was devel- oped by the planning group into a tool that can be used by the construction engineer. Although the work zone model, devel- oped using a microsimulation application, and the outputs are valuable and intuitive to planners and can provide important information to support better work zone scheduling, the tool is not in a format that the construction engineer can easily use to identify changing impacts in a work zone. MDOT has looked into how to translate the work zone model’s planning product and outputs into a more usable tool for the construc- tion engineering group, which would allow them to make modifications based on changing work zone configurations or schedules (at the time this report was prepared, this had not been completed). The ability to transfer that process demon- strates an important integration point and establishes a link between two divisions (planning and construction) that typi- cally have limited coordination in the context of a large-scale reconstruction project. Institutionalizing Business Processes: The final step to successful process integration is the ability to translate it into a core process within the organization. This requires more than adopting operational activities or processes and is dependent on buy-in and support by agency leaders. The next section describes the complexities of institutionalizing processes in more detail. Institutionalizing Business Processes The case studies suggest that implementing a process change and integrating various processes often occur at the opera- tional level, but institutionalizing the process typically requires the participation and support from higher levels within an organization. Proven processes can benefit the organization and the participants for a few years, but institutionalizing aprocess is important to guarantee that it will sustain and evolve beyond the current players and champions. This section dis- cusses the enablers used in many of the case studies to integrate successful business processes that affect travel time reliability. The senior-level managers within an organization require certain motivators and incentives to implement a process change. Because DOT agencies are held accountable to the public, clearly identified performance measures and results can provide valuable tools for promoting the success of an agency. These performance measures also support the implementa- tion of new processes by providing anticipated benefits to the public. Evaluation methods and reporting abilities on the effective- ness of operations are critical. The ability to demonstrate that benefits are connected with specific actions or activities assists in building support and buy-in for the implementation of a process change. Access to documentation of proven processes and their associated performance measures allows management to more easily support new processes within an organization. Improved business processes can have high-level impacts for an organization, such as better resource management (including streamlining of staffing needs through partnering and automat- ing of processes). Many programs undergo an evolutionary process as they grow. They start small and with a limited scope and, over time, may expand in the services they offer and their geographic scope. Unlike processes that start on a large scale with wide- ranging objectives, programs that start small and evolve can sometimes be more easily institutionalized because there is not a great deal of mass to get moving and accepted into an insti- tution. The FDOT Road Ranger case study provides a good example of a program that started locally and expanded over time. The program that was initially implemented in a single district has evolved into a statewide program that is now insti- tutionalized at both the local and statewide levels. It is noted that formal agreements may not directly con- tribute to the success of process integration, but the devel- opment of a formal agreement does provide strong support through documentation of the participating agencies’ com- mitments. As personnel change, this documentation aids in maintaining the relationship between the players, thereby strengthening the relationships. WSDOT and AZTech both use formal agreements to document the commitment from the participating agencies. WSDOT requires an annual approval and signature from the directors of the DOT and state police for the JOPS Agreement. This reaffirms the commitment from the agencies and promotes consistency as directors change. AZTech uses agreements as agencies join the regional database to clearly state the expectations and requirements placed on each agency. Updates to the agreements are only required if the roles and responsibilities change. The MTC Regional Sig- nal Timing Program requires the approval of the MTC board.

77Since this program includes a funding mechanism for local agencies to access, it is understandable that the Board’s approval is required. At the time this report was written, the program planned to sunset in late 2009 and the program would once again need to be supported by the MTC board members. Approval of the program demonstrates to the staff members that the organization is in support of the program. Institutionalization is the final stage for implementing a process change. It should include clear documentation of the process, the roles and responsibilities of the players, and the performance metrics used to evaluate the effectiveness. The level of documentation will be unique to each organization, but should reflect the complexity of the business process and the level of commitment from senior management. Benefits As noted, process integration can be divided into two dis- tinct aspects: the operational level and the institutional level. Through the case study development process, unique benefits were identified that result from process integration at both the operational level and the programmatic and institutional lev- els. Benefits can include increased efficiency, savings in finan- cial and staff resources, increased scalability and flexibility of systems, and, ultimately, processes that are more integrated into an institution. For any process to remain beneficial, the process should be developed in such a way that it allows for innovation to be inte- grated into the process. Processes that are not flexible and remain static may be effective initially in improving travel time reliability, but as travel conditions, travel patterns, and other factors that affect reliability change over time, a process that is static may lose its effectiveness. Operational Level Process integration can improve an agency’s ability to effec- tively use its resources and provide financial savings as a result of improved cooperation, reduced capital expenditures, and efficient use of staff. For example, in Florida, the Road Ranger program’s integration with private sector tow providers has reduced the need for FDOT to purchase towing equipment and bring on permanent staff to support the Road Ranger pro- gram. FDOT’s use of private sponsors to support the Road Ranger program reduces their overall capital expenditures. In Kansas, the Highway Patrol relies on portable DMS that KDOT brings in from around the state to support major events. By using existing DMS, both agencies realize a cost savings and efficiency is increased because KDOT is more familiar with the operation of portable DMS than KHP. In Nevada, NDOT works closely with the Highway Patrol during winter closures of I-80 to set up truck-turnaround locations and ensure thattrucks do not park on I-80 during closures of the Nevada/ California border. Process integration can allow agencies to plan for an inte- grated system that can be implemented in a scalable format that can grow commensurate with needs. By integrating agen- cies and processes early in the planning process, agencies are less likely to miss opportunities for integration and more likely to build systems that can expand to meet future needs. In Phoenix, the AZTech Regional Archived Data Server was designed using input gathered at the start of the process from the AZTech partner agencies. Not all agencies immediately used the server; however, because of its scalable design, it can grow and allow additional partners to join as needed. The formal documentation of a process and any changes to the process will allow agencies to identify any correlation that might exist between changes to the process and performance metrics. As changes are made to a process, it is important to determine if those changes result in measurable differences in performance. By documenting a process and resulting changes, agencies can record the processes they follow and compare changes in the process with changes in performance metrics. Programmatic/Institutional Level By developing an integrated process, agencies can define clear responsibilities that can improve cooperation and trust, because each agency and department understands its role and its partner agency’s role in effectively carrying out a process. If these roles and responsibilities are documented, an additional benefit can be provided because it keeps a record of roles and responsibilities that should not change even if personnel change. In the case study for the Kansas Speedway, both KDOT and the Highway Patrol noted that one of the reasons for the success of their special-event traffic management was that both agencies clearly understand their roles and responsibilities and how these affect all their partner agencies. Buy-in from higher-level management at agencies is also a key to establishing a process that is effective and remains in place. Processes that have support from the upper levels of management are more likely to remain in place and be viewed as a high priority by all levels of staff within an agency. In Washington State, the JOPS Agreement between WSDOT and WSP formalizes roles of staff at the DOT and State Patrol and is signed each year by the WSDOT secretary of transportation and the chief of WSP. The agreement assigns individuals from WSDOT and WSP to lead each program covered by the agree- ment and makes them accountable for its success. National Action The interviews for the case study and discussion held during the L01 workshop clearly showed that there were many benefits

78to developing integrated processes (2). At both the operational and programmatic levels, agencies were able to improve process efficiency, decrease costs, and implement changes that resulted in measurable travel time reliability improvements. The challenge that remains is to take the lessons learned from the case studies and workshop and use them to assist other agencies in examining their own business processes and looking for gaps (or opportunities) in process integra- tion. It was evident through the case studies that there is no one-size-fits-all approach to business process integration. The influences that led to process changes varied among three categories: major directives, event-driven, or needs-based. The differences in the organizations of agencies throughout the country, institutional arrangements, political climate, and many other variables mean that process integration will hap- pen in different ways and at different paces in different areas. Greater focus should be placed on assisting agencies with integration of business processes at the institutional or pro- grammatic level rather than at the operational level. At the operational level, processes vary and are usually coordinated among those who are responsible for carrying out operational initiatives. An example was provided earlier in this chapter of the steps a traffic management center operator takes to initiate notification to travelers. Changes to an operational process such as this typically involve fewer agencies and people and can be more easily evaluated to determine if a change that has been made is effective and of value. Institutional- or programmatic-level changes to processes tend to be more challenging to implement, as well as more chal- lenging to institutionalize. In the L01 workshop in Phoenix, the participants were particularly interested in how agencies made the transformation of implementing and institutionalizing programmatic-level changes (2). The actual process itself was not as useful, because processes will vary throughout the country based on specific needs and goals for travel time reli- ability. But how a process was implemented and institution- alized can provide valuable information to other agencies and enable them to more successfully implement and institution- alize their own programmatic changes. A training course or workshop based on case studies across the country with a focus on the elements that led an agency to implement and institutionalize a programmatic change could be one forum to help elevate process integration withinagencies. The workshops could be designed to provide both general case study reviews and focus on specific needs in a region. Action plans for implementing and institutionalizing specific business processes for better travel time reliability could be the result of the workshops. As part of the workshops, a method of documenting business processes, such as the BPMN presented in Chapter 2 could be taught. Use of BPMN is certainly not required to implement processes, but it does provide a useful method of documenting existing processes and developing future processes that provide the level of inte- gration necessary to improve travel time reliability. A training course or workshop should also emphasize the enablers that led to the institutionalization of business pro- cesses that are presented in this chapter (Institutionalizing Business Processes). Enablers included evaluation methods that allow an agency to determine the impact of a process change, performance measurement programs that allow an agency to track the benefits of a change, and formal agree- ments that document a process change and specify the role of each agency’s involvement. The course can also emphasize the role of business processes in developing regional ITS architec- tures and systems engineering analysis. Both the architecture and the system engineering analysis efforts can be effective methods of assisting agencies in developing more efficient and integrated processes. Ultimately, the successful integration of business processes will depend on the staffs of various agencies at all levels work- ing together toward a common goal of improved travel time reliability. Presenting examples of successfully integrated busi- ness processes, as well as providing assistance through work- shops to develop action plans for agencies, may serve as a catalyst for a region. These types of workshops will not provide instant results but could help agencies throughout the country to move further along on their own path toward optimizing their systems and providing improved travel time reliability. References 1. Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., and PB Consult. SHRP 2 Report S2-L01-RR-2: Guide to Integrating Business Processes to Improve Travel Time Reliability. Transportation Research Board of the National Acad- emies, Washington, D.C., forthcoming. 2. SHRP 2 L01 Workshop: Integrating Business Processes to Improve Travel Time Reliability. Phoenix, Ariz. May 5–9, 2009.