National Academies Press: OpenBook
« Previous: Front Matter
Page 1
Suggested Citation:"Executive Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Institutional Architectures to Improve Systems Operations and Management. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14512.
×
Page 1
Page 2
Suggested Citation:"Executive Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Institutional Architectures to Improve Systems Operations and Management. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14512.
×
Page 2
Page 3
Suggested Citation:"Executive Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Institutional Architectures to Improve Systems Operations and Management. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14512.
×
Page 3
Page 4
Suggested Citation:"Executive Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Institutional Architectures to Improve Systems Operations and Management. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14512.
×
Page 4
Page 5
Suggested Citation:"Executive Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Institutional Architectures to Improve Systems Operations and Management. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14512.
×
Page 5
Page 6
Suggested Citation:"Executive Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Institutional Architectures to Improve Systems Operations and Management. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14512.
×
Page 6
Page 7
Suggested Citation:"Executive Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Institutional Architectures to Improve Systems Operations and Management. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14512.
×
Page 7
Page 8
Suggested Citation:"Executive Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Institutional Architectures to Improve Systems Operations and Management. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14512.
×
Page 8
Page 9
Suggested Citation:"Executive Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Institutional Architectures to Improve Systems Operations and Management. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14512.
×
Page 9
Page 10
Suggested Citation:"Executive Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Institutional Architectures to Improve Systems Operations and Management. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14512.
×
Page 10
Page 11
Suggested Citation:"Executive Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Institutional Architectures to Improve Systems Operations and Management. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14512.
×
Page 11
Page 12
Suggested Citation:"Executive Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Institutional Architectures to Improve Systems Operations and Management. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14512.
×
Page 12
Page 13
Suggested Citation:"Executive Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Institutional Architectures to Improve Systems Operations and Management. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14512.
×
Page 13
Page 14
Suggested Citation:"Executive Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Institutional Architectures to Improve Systems Operations and Management. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14512.
×
Page 14
Page 15
Suggested Citation:"Executive Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Institutional Architectures to Improve Systems Operations and Management. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14512.
×
Page 15
Page 16
Suggested Citation:"Executive Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Institutional Architectures to Improve Systems Operations and Management. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14512.
×
Page 16

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.

Background on Research and Guidance Many transportation agencies explicitly recognize the idea that we can’t build our way out of con- gestion. However, few state departments of transportation (DOTs) or local government trans- portation entities have focused effectively on how to continue to fulfill their mobility mission in an environment of capacity and financial constraints. If the full-service potential of an investment in an existing network (especially the freeway network) is to be realized, then state DOTs and local and regional transportation entities, together with their partner public safety agencies (PSAs), must move beyond capacity provision and maintenance to engage in active systems operations and management (SO&M) of the network’s available capacity, including aggressive minimization of disruptions. The SHRP 2 Reliability focus area addresses the root causes of unreliable travel and identifies the role of performance measures, strategies, planning integration, and institutional issues related to supporting improved reliability. The L06 project focuses on nonrecurring congestion (NRC) as the principal source of delay and unreliability on the nation’s roads. SO&M is defined by a set of conventional strategies that focus on responding to various causes of the unpredictable but highly disruptive losses of service associated with NRC. The project includes both research and guidance relating to the institutional preconditions for effective management of NRC. The objective of the project is to identify the preconditions to institutionalizing SO&M as a continuously improving formal agency program. The key features of this project include the following: • Evaluation of the current range of SO&M program effectiveness among state DOTs and the key process and institutional features that are associated with the more effective programs; • Analysis of the apparent relationships and interactions among three dimensions: program effectiveness, required technical and business processes, and supportive institutional and organizational arrangements; • Development of a capability maturity model to systematically relate increasing levels of technical and business process maturity and the key institutional changes that support those levels; and • Provision of self-evaluation–based guidance for agencies to guide managed changes within their institutional architecture that will support more effective SO&M programs. Purpose of the Project The purpose of the project is to identify strategies by which existing transportation agencies can adjust their institutional architecture—including culture, organization and staffing, resource allocation, and partnerships—to support more effective SO&M. The report identifies new models that can be applied in the future. Executive Summary 1

The report develops and provides the basis for the Guide to Improving Capability for Systems Operations and Management (Parsons Brinckerhoff et al., 2011), including an examination of current state DOT practice and insights from other sectors with strong operational orientations. It establishes a systematic guidance framework based on the traceable relationships between the technical and business process features most supportive of effective SO&M and the institutional architecture that supports such processes. Systems Operations and Management The concept of congestion management has evolved since the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) in 1991. Whereas recurring (peak-period) congestion has long been the focus of congestion management activities, an improved understanding of the causes of traffic delay and disruption has led to a new focus: the unpredictable delay and disruption of nonrecur- ring events such as major crashes, weather, construction, and special-event disruptions—NRCs that are responsible for over half of all delay (as well as for most system unreliability). Intelligent transportation systems (ITS) technology has matured to support improved communication, analysis, and controls; furthermore, a set of increasingly well-understood SO&M procedures and protocols has evolved, capitalizing on this technology, and demonstrating significant leverage to reduce the impacts of NRC. There are several excellent best-practice examples of SO&M applica- tions by state DOTs in a few major metropolitan areas in the United States. Effective SO&M Applications to Reduce NRC The applications that have been developed for NRC are typically centered within the larger high- way jurisdictions—state DOTs, toll entities, and large local government transportation agencies— together with their public safety partners. Although their focus is often on highways, these applications are also used for major arterials and rural routes. These conventional strategy applications include the following: • Incident management, including multijurisdictional, integrated corridor management in response to crashes, breakdowns, hazardous material spills, and other emergencies that are responsible for up to 30–35% of delay—and most unreliability—in major metropolitan areas; • Road weather management in response to heavy rain and wind and snow and ice, which can constitute from 5–10% of delay in some areas; • Work zone traffic management focused on traffic control plans to minimize the impacts of reduced capacity, constituting anywhere from 10–20% of total delay; • Special-events planning and management to accommodate event patrons and bystanders with minimum traffic disruption; and • Active traffic management using lane use and speed control to minimize flow disruption and incidents, as well as managing diversions and the operation of diversion routes, in response to both recurring and nonrecurring congestion. Table ES.1 outlines the benefits of SO&M strategy applications. Despite the proven benefits of SO&M, the state of the practice is modest and uneven. A few states have demonstrated the payoffs from aggressive SO&M applications. In many other states, however, while some ITS tech- nology has been deployed, there is a limited commitment to implementing best-practice proce- dures and developing the partnerships required to capitalize on the technology. Even within individual states, the levels of application are uneven across metropolitan areas, reflecting the limited commitment at the statewide policy level. Unique Process and Institutional Demands of SO&M Implementing effective congestion management applications places demands on a transporta- tion agency’s institutional environment that are at odds with those of capacity development, 2

Table ES.1. Systems Operations Benefits Energy/ Benefits and Safety Mobility Environmental Benefit–Cost Ratios Impact Impact Impact Traffic incident management • Safety service patrols • Surveillance and detection Road weather information systems Traveler information dynamic message signs Work zone management Active Traffic Management Source: U.S. Department of Transportation, Intelligent Transportation Systems Joint Program Office, 2009. safety, and maintenance that constitute the legacy context. This is especially true for NRC—as reflected in the common and characteristic features of SO&M applications that determine effec- tiveness. SO&M applications are typically • Reactive and responsive to unpredictable events on a 24/7 basis; • Dependent on situational awareness and communications technology; • Applied at the corridor scale or network level; • Based on teamwork; • Communications intensive; • Dependent on performance monitoring and are evaluated through the impact on system per- formance measured in real time; • Using dynamic high technology and systems engineering; and • Dependent on outside partners not under the control of a transportation agency, including PSAs and local government. These unique features establish a set of specific preconditions for the achievement of an effective SO&M program and indicate the need for certain technical processes, systems, and performance- tracking measures that are tailored to address these characteristics. The processes, in turn, cannot be established without a supportive institutional framework. The Importance of Institutional Architecture It is increasingly clear that the current modest focus on SO&M is almost entirely a product of the conventional legacy context of many transportation agencies today—a civil engineering culture, an inherited organization structured for construction and maintenance, the existing capital programs’ claims on scarce resources, and difficulties in forging the necessary partnerships with outside enti- ties. Culture, leadership, priorities, organization and staffing, resources, and relationships make up the institutional setting for change in existing transportation agencies. 3 Incident duration reduced 30–50% 2:1 to 42:1 8:1 2:1 to 10:1; crash rates reduced from 7–80% 3% decrease in crashes; 5–15% improve- ment in on–time performance 2.1 to 40.1; system delays reduced up to 50% Throughput increased by 3–7%; decrease in incidents of 3–30% High High High High Low High High High High High High High Medium High High High High High Low Medium Medium

In this project, institutional architecture will focus on these substantial nontechnical features that describe whether, how, and with whom an agency pursues SO&M. It is therefore impor- tant to distinguish institutional architecture from technical and business processes (such as planning/programming, systems development, and performance measurement) and from the program of SO&M applications (such as incident management or road weather information). The research in this report includes the determination of the common aspects of the programs and the technical and business processes of the states that appear to have more effective opera- tions, but only to the extent that those processes identify the needed institutional architecture. For example, an effective incident management program requires an interrelated sequence of planning, systems engineering, resource allocation, procurement, project development and implementation, and procedural coordination. All these processes, in turn, depend on key ele- ments of a supportive institutional setting (i.e., leadership, legal authorization, organized respon- sibilities, staff capabilities, available resources, and working partnerships). Basic Hypothesis and Study Methodology The central hypothesis of the research for this project is that there is a traceable relationship from effective NRC applications, through the technical and business processes that are needed for their implementation, to the characteristics of a supportive institutional framework. In order to develop a more structured understanding of these relationships, this research was conducted in three parts: • Identification of the more effective transportation agencies through the evaluation of their program characteristics (done with available statistics and program descriptions); • Determination of the technical and business process features that are utilized to support pro- gram effectiveness (through interviews and secondary materials); and • Identification of the institutional characteristics that appear to be essential in the development, support, and sustainment of the key process features. The conclusions from a survey and other research methods identified the key variables of SO&M-related technical and business processes essential to effective programs—and were docu- mented as the basis for determining the features of institutional architecture needed to support such processes. These have been structured into a capability maturity model form. The analysis was supported by a review of organizational development research literature focused on the insti- tutional characteristics of operations versus product-oriented organizations in the private sector and the change management strategies being used to improve organizational effectiveness. Application of the Capability Maturity Model The most relevant of the private-sector change management approaches is the capability maturity model (CMM), developed in the information technology industry to help companies produce quality software. The CMM is based on the recognition that specific process features—such as per- formance measurement and documentation—are essential for program effectiveness and that they must be present at defined levels of criteria-based maturity to achieve industry-acceptable levels of effectiveness. The CMM provides a self-managed, systematic approach to making process improvements that support increasingly consistent, repeatable, reliable, and efficient outcomes. The key features of the CMM approach include the following: • Goals: The conditions that must exist for key process areas/elements to be achieved in an effec- tive and lasting way. • Maturity levels: Levels of achievement defined by specific criteria. They advance toward a desir- able end-state in which processes are managed by continuous improvement, typically structured from the ad hoc, through increasing levels of definition and reliability, to fully manageable. 4

• Process elements: The related categories of activities that, if performed well, will achieve the goals. • Strategies/practices: The means by which higher maturity levels are achieved for each process element. In CMM applications in IT and other process areas, improved levels of maturity are based on self-evaluation and on identifying strategies to reach the next criteria-defined level. The model has been used as the basis for standardized steps, commandments, or stages as problem-solving recipes in several application areas. Research Findings: Processes and Their Institutional Support Implications In this project, the concept of capability maturity has been adapted and extended to fit the trans- portation service context. Both process and institutional elements are addressed, defined, and structured to fit transportation agency practice and context. The key elements have been defined through the research, with incremental levels of improvement benchmarked to current average and best SO&M practice today for all process and institutional elements. Importantly, the research identified the apparent correlation between process improvements associated with increased pro- gram effectiveness and related, supportive institutional configurations (also called levels). Table ES.2 illustrates examples of the relationships as suggested by the research. The examples indicate a strong correlation between institutional features and the effectiveness of SO&M appli- cations. As indicated, there are specific relationships between key business and technical processes for effective SO&M and supportive institutional features. The key processes and their institutional implications include the scope of operations in the field; technical processes; sys- tems and technology development; and performance monitoring, measurement, and analysis. The scope of applications in the field includes the scope of the program and its responsiveness to the array of NRC problems experienced in various geographic and network contexts. The more fully developed, long-standing programs are in transportation agencies where the limits on capacity enhancement have been acknowledged in policy; where senior leaders have consis- tently supported a standardized, expanding, and sustainable SO&M program; and where capa- ble staff is evident, resources rationally relate to key needs, and partner relationships are somewhat formal. Technical processes include planning and programming, systems engineering (including con- cept of operations), project development and ITS asset management (in terms of the ability to implement and maintain systems supporting key operations), and development of field proce- dures in support of systematic and comprehensive program development. Process development requires upper management recognition of the need to formalize SO&M at a statewide level, with a full set of standardized activities in parallel with those of other core programs, such as plan- ning, programming, project development, and maintenance. It also requires the identification of the organizational units responsible, an accountability mechanism, supporting resources, and appropriate professional capacities. Systems and technology development requires the availability of effective platforms to pro- vide the needed situational awareness, control devices, communications, and basic information resources, as well as technology deployment in terms of standardization and cost-effectiveness. Without a formal, managed SO&M program and experienced systems engineering staff (at both DOT central office and district levels), achieving standardization, a rational systems platform, and technology improvement and upgrading are not possible. In addition, since some SO&M applications involve external players in their concepts of operations, there is a need for external systems coordination, which is unlikely without a level of formal partnering. Performance monitoring, measurement, and analysis are necessary, especially in the use of outcome measures to evaluate procedures, projects, and the overall program. Performance 5

6Table ES.2. Relationships among Effective SO&M Applications, Supportive Processes, and Their Institutional Implications Characteristics of Examples of Examples of Effective Applications Supportive Processes Institutional Implications Responsiveness to an event • Situational awareness system • Amount of prepositioned equipment Targeting of application • Quality of surveillance and reporting information (discrimination) • Level of forecasts, analytics Aggressiveness of application • Coordination/cooperation level among parties • Use of performance measures to improve • Assertion of jurisdiction regarding ability to employ best practice • Agreed-upon ConOps among partners Integration among applications • Interoperability/integration of communications and systems • Common standards and protocols • Integration with external data sources (e.g., road weather) Coverage and density of applications • Full needs-based program scope— including all relevant strategies, urban and rural—based on planning/budgeting • Level of deployment, areawide and per unit area • Program scoping • Integration into planning and programming • ITS project development and implementation • Availability of data • Outcome performance measurement • Full realization of ConOps • Documentation of current practice as basis for improvement • Systematic platform and technology development • Systems engineering process • Shared ConOps and architecture • Development of standard- ized applications • Integration into the planning process • Staff capable of analysis • Aligned partners with regard to concept of opera- tions (ConOps) • Adequate resources for necessary infrastructure and staff • Coordinated organizational units (central office and districts) • Customer-service performance culture • Staff capable of analysis • Culture oriented to customer service and performance measurement • Continuous-improvement orientation • Accountability of individuals, units for performance • Full legal authority • Degree of interagency integration • Adequate resources from a needs-based, multiyear life- cycle budget—predictable, sustainable • Mission focus on entire network measurement is the basis for a transportation agency’s accountability for any mission related to mobility and safety, including increases in reliability. Policy remains merely assertion, and accountability meaningless, without the ability to determine the impacts of investments and actions. Thus, performance measurement plays a fundamental role in the culture and business model of an operations-committed transportation agency. The review, survey, and analysis of SO&M in a selected sample of state DOTs suggested a spectrum of process effectiveness— from an ad hoc approach where SO&M is not considered as a program with distinct process and organizational arrangements to agencies where SO&M is considered as a key part of the agency mission, with its own tailored business and technical process and distinct organizational arrangements. These relationships can be calibrated in terms of levels of maturity per the CMM con- ventions, showing how improved processes are related to changes in institutional architecture,

toward a target of fully integrated processes with the appropriate ideal architecture (see Figure ES.1). Key Findings Related to SO&M Institutional Architecture Within the concept of increasing maturity of SO&M processes, the research suggested the fol- lowing combination of four categories of key institutional elements to be addressed to provide a supportive institutional context for SO&M: • Culture/leadership; • Organization and staffing; • Resource allocation; and • Partnerships. Each of these four elements can be represented on a spectrum of maturity as reflected in the state DOT analysis and suggested in Figure ES.1. The current architecture in many transportation agen- cies is Level 1. At Level 1, the four categories of institutional elements can be described as follows: • Culture and leadership have a strong civil engineering orientation, including legal authority and leadership and program structure substantially focused on construction and maintenance pro- grams. This legacy orientation includes unrealistic assumptions about the level-of-service ben- efits from modest capacity programs, and is accompanied by limited knowledge of the potential of SO&M, by limited interest in opportunities offered by external events to advance operational capabilities, and by limited ability to facilitate change and capitalize on such opportunities. (Lim- ited knowledge is reflected in the low expectations of users and other stakeholders regarding operations potential.) This perspective is often reflected in a fuzzy agency mission and in the absence of a formal policy commitment to, or stakeholder support for, customer mobility needs backed by realistic strategies and performance accountability. • Organization and staffing are configured for construction and maintenance project develop- ment, often leaving SO&M functions (i.e., ITS, traffic engineering, TMC management) frag- mented and in various traditional chains of command, with limited staff capacity in certain technical areas necessary to improve operations. 7 Supportive architecture Level 2 Ideal architecture Level 3 Current architecture Level 1 Integrated processes Managed processes Ad hoc processes Figure ES.1. Institutional architecture maturity relationship to increasing process capability.

• Resource allocation is without formal accommodation for ITS-related investments. These resources are often viewed as the first place to cut. • Partnerships (interjurisdictional roles and relationships) among operations participants, including PSAs, local governments, MPOs, the private sector, are exacerbated by informal and unstable partner relationships in congestion management activities. Capability Maturity Levels of Institutional Architecture Level 1 is reflected by the many transportation agencies that are transitioning into SO&M as an identifiable, managed activity. At the other end of the maturity scale is Level 3—an ideal agency culture, fully staffed within an efficient organizational structure, a transparent resource alloca- tion process for SO&M, and formal relationships with partners. Between the transitioning situ- ation and the ideal is Level 2, already evident in some state DOTs that are committed to formalizing SO&M as a core program and are making changes to rationalize organization, staffing, resource allocations, and partner relationships toward that end. These relationships reveal a pattern of institutional evolution toward configurations that are increasingly support- ive of effective SO&M processes. The three distinct levels of institutional capability maturity have been defined as follows: • Level 1: Ad hoc. An architecture that reflects a legacy of civil engineering culture in which SO&M activities are accommodated on an ad hoc and informal basis, typically as a subsidiary part of maintenance or capital project arrangements. This level, as exhibited in transitioning states, is reflected in a legacy organizational structure and informal resource allocation, frag- mented SO&M activities, ad hoc project-oriented business processes, and a narrow SO&M program with no clear sense of performance. • Level 2: Rationalized. An architecture exhibited in mature states that reflects an appreciation of SO&M as a distinct activity, with adjustments in arrangements, resources, and roles to accommodate the distinct features of SO&M. • Level 3: Mainstreamed. A hypothetical, fully integrated ideal of an architecture in which SO&M is considered a core mission, with appropriate formal and standardized arrangements (equivalent to other core programs) configured to support continuous improvement. The relationships between the process levels and their capabilities on the one hand and the institution architectures and their supporting features on the other constitute the framework for an institutional capability maturity model for SO&M. Table ES.3 summarizes the concept of the related levels of process and institutional maturity pictured in Figure ES.1. The levels of process maturity for each key process element are directly related to the levels of maturity of the key insti- tutional elements described. The project research provided considerable detail regarding the criteria for the three levels of institutional maturity. (Process maturity is not addressed in detail in this project other than to pro- vide structure for the criteria of levels of institutional maturity.) Table ES.4 presents the criteria that define the institutional architecture levels. Each cell within the table represents either a point of departure or a target for improving architecture to the next level. Transportation agencies can plot their current situation and their targets for improvement. Capability Improvement Strategies at Each Level For each of the four elements of institutional architecture, there is a set of generic strategies that have been and can be used to make the required adjustments to move up a level in institutional maturity. The strategies have their own related tactics associated with each level of maturity. The interpretation of strategies changes with successive levels. The differences reflect the increasingly 8

managed, formalized, and mainstreamed status achieved in the movement from one level to the next. There is a logical sequence to the focus of each element of institutional architecture to reach the next level of capability. For example, regarding resources, moving from Level 1 to Level 2 may involve a systematic determination of needs, whereas moving from Level 2 to Level 3 may involve formal budgeting. There is a parallel progression for all the strategies. Key strategies asso- ciated with each institutional architecture category are shown in Table ES.5. Using the Model as Guidance For use as guidance in improving institutional maturity, the above strategies for transitioning from one level of maturity to the next are presented in a series of steps and strategy matrices. In devel- oping the detailed guidance framework, the four standard rules of maturity models are applied: • Each incremental level of maturity within a given element of institutional architecture estab- lishes the basis for the agency’s ability to progress to the next higher level of effectiveness. • Levels cannot be skipped. • Each level of technical and business processes needs specific institutional support. • The overall level of maturity for an organization is defined by the lowest level of institutional maturity of any element. The Guide to Improving Capability for Systems Operations and Management (Parsons Brinckerhoff et al., 2011) is presented in a series of tables that allow the user to define the agency point of departure. The tables indicate the next logical step in maturity in terms 9 Table ES.3. Correlation between Process Maturity Levels and Institutional Architectural Levels Program and Process Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Capabilities Transitioning Mature Integrated Scoping Technical processes Technology and systems development Performance measurement Institutional Architecture Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Elements Ad Hoc Rationalized Mainstreamed Culture/leadership Organization and staffing Resource allocation Partnerships Needs based and standardized Planned, mainstreamed Rational quantitative evaluation Outcomes used Championed/ internalized across disciplines Aligning, trained Criteria-based program Formal, aligned Full range core program Integrated, documented Standardized C/E systems/platforms Performance accountability Customer mobility committed Professionalized Sustainable budget line item Consolidated Narrow and opportunistic Informal, undocumented Project oriented, qualitative Outputs reported Mixed, hero driven Fragmented, understaffed Project level Informal, unaligned

10 Table ES.4. Criteria for Institutional Capability Maturity Levels of Capability Maturity Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Elements Ad Hoc Rationalized Mainstreamed Culture/ leadership Organization and staffing Resource allocation Partnerships Mixed, hero driven • Operations value not widely appreciated (lack of message). • Middle management heroes promote program. • Full legal authority not established. Fragmented, understaffed • Legacy roles: Some fragmentation of key functions and bound- aries, both horizontally and vertically. • Hero driven: Reliance on key individual for technical knowledge and champions for leadership. Project level • Resource allocation at project level, ad hoc, unpredictable, buried, invisible. • Apparent limited eligi- bility of existing funds for operations. Informal, unaligned • Nontransportation entities unaligned with transportation objec- tives, procedures relying on informal personal basis. • Outsourcing to private sector used for iso- lated functions. Championed/internalized across disciplines • Visible agency leader- ship citing operations leverage, cost- effectiveness, and risks. • Customer outreach and feedback. Aligned, trained • Transportation Management Center (TMC) focus with ver- tical and horizontal authority or responsi- bility alignment for operations for the life of a project. • Accountability to top management. • Core capacities estab- lished with knowledge, skill, ability specifica- tions, training, and performance incen- tives in clear career paths. Criteria-based program • Budget allocation for operations driven by transparent criteria on effectiveness and life-cycle needs basis. • Funding levels based on relationship to identified needs. Formal, aligned • Rationalization of responsibilities by formal agreements across institutions (transportation agency, PSAs, private). • Outsourcing revised to meet agency technical, staffing, and management objectives. Commitment to customer mobility • Customer mobility service commitment accepted as formal core program. • Clear legal authority for operations roles; actions among trans- portation agency, pub- lic safety agencies (PSAs), local govern- ment clarified. Integrated • Top-level manage- ment position with operations orientation established in central office and districts. • Professionalization and certification of operations core capacity positions including performance incentives. Sustainable budget line item • Operations is a formal, visible, and sustain- able line item in agency’s budget— capital, operating, and maintenance. • Trade-offs between operations and capital expenditures consid- ered as part of the planning process. Consolidated • High level of operations coordination (memo- randums of under- standing) among owner/operators with TMC consolidation. • Outsourcing perfor- mance managed while maintaining agency’s core capacities.

of (a) the criteria for each level of each strategy and (b) the steps to move to the next level. The general directions for using the guide and the steps used in the guide are as follows: • Step 1. Identify the element of interest (culture/leadership, organization and staffing, resource allocation, or partnerships). Note that all elements are necessary, but the state DOT may be at a higher level of maturity in certain elements. Priority focus should be on the element at the lowest level of maturity. • Step 2. Self-evaluate the agency’s current level of maturity to determine the point of departure (current level). Use the model criteria for each element to determine the agency’s current level of maturity. 11 Table ES.5. Basic Maturity Strategies for Institutional Elements Criteria for Levels Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Strategies for Elements Ad Hoc Rationalized Mainstreamed Culture/leadership Mixed, hero driven Championed/ Commitment to • Undertake educational program on internalized customer SO&M as customer service. across mobility • Exert visible senior leadership. disciplines • Establish formal core program. • Rationalize state DOT authority. • Internalize customer service performance as ethic. • Commit to continuous improvement as agency mode. Organization and staffing Fragmented, Aligned, trained Integrated • Establish top-level SO&M executive understaffed structure. • Establish appropriate organizational structure. • Identify core capacities. • Determine and allocate responsibility, accountability, and incentives. Resource allocation Project level Criteria-based Sustainable • Develop program-level budget program budget estimate. line item • Introduce SO&M as a top-level agency budget line item. • Develop acceptance of sustainable resourcing from state funds. • Use performance and life-cycle costs as resource allocation tool. • Develop methodology for trade-offs. Partnerships Informal, unaligned Formal, aligned Consolidated • Agree on operational roles and procedures with PSAs. • Identify opportunities for joint operations activities with local government/metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs). • Develop procedures that accommodate partners’ goals and maximize mobility (minimum disruption). • Rationalize staff versus outsourcing activities, responsibilities, and oversight.

• Step 3. Identify the target level and inspect the numbered strategies for each element to move up to the next level. Each element has several associated maturity improvement strategies. Determine the priority strategy based on the current level and the amount of change needed to get to the next level. • Step 4. Review each general strategy template for guidance to move to the next level: Level 1 to Level 2, or Level 2 to Level 3. For each element, there is a separate, detailed guidance tem- plate in a standard format. These steps are further illustrated in Chapter 7. Managing Improvements in Institutional Maturity The guide provides the steps that must be taken to improve institutional maturity toward archi- tectures more supportive of effective SO&M. However, the opportunities to take the steps recom- mended will vary widely by agency and context—as well as with the span of control of the agency’s leadership. It is apparent from experience that opportunities for change vary from limited and incremental to more significant, often in response to external factors. There are often multiple drivers of change—or a sequence of drivers—that provide impetus for increased focus on SO&M. It is important to recognize the barriers and constraints that inhibit change. Table ES.6 indicates the principal barriers to change. Managed Change Managed change, in which leadership within an organization makes deliberate changes in pro- gram, process, or institutional arrangements, represents a discontinuity with the existing legacy arrangements and is openly acknowledged as such. The drivers for these more discrete changes tend to be a combination of professional predisposition and agency leadership—to articulate the need for change in a way that makes the need more widely apparent and to oversee a program of appropriate changes (as specified in the transition to a higher level). Each of these types of managed change is described briefly below: • Middle-Management-Led Change. Committed professionals can have a significant impact from the inside out and up. • Top-Management-Led Change. In a few instances, SO&M has been encouraged by new CEO leadership that institutes new policy mandating or authorizing a department wide process to 12 Table ES.6. Barriers to Institutional Change Change Elements Barriers Culture/leadership • Limited public and elected-leader support. • Significant capacity construction program. • Limited internal middle management support. • Fuzzy legislative authority. Organization and staffing • Absence of experienced SO&M manager(s). • Shortfall or turnover in qualified staff. • Staffing-level constraints. Resource allocation • State funding ineligible for SO&M. • Competition for resources from other program backlogs. • No performance outcome measures. Partnerships • Conflicting partner priorities.

improve SO&M that involves consolidating and strengthening the systems operations func- tions at a statewide program level in both the central office and key districts. Externally Driven Change Events outside the control of management have been the key driver of change in SO&M. Several versions have been observed among state DOTs regarding significant increments in attention to SO&M. These include event-driven change, incident-driven change, constraint-driven change, federal program incentives change, and new regional institutional configuration. • Event-Driven Change. Anticipated major traffic impacts in response to major external events have been a common stimulus to significant change. Major one-time or annual sports events (e.g., Olympics or auto races) and conferences are the two most prevalent types of events for which extensive planning is undertaken to preserve general mobility and minimize disruption while accommodating the event. These anticipated events often require signifi- cant improvements in operational capacity, including new infrastructure, special procedures, and new relationships. • Incident-Driven Change. Major unplanned events causing major disruptions have been the most common cause of across-the-board improvements in SO&M. These incidents include natural disasters (e.g., earthquakes, hurricanes, floods), major weather events such as snowstorms, and major traffic incidents, ranging from crashes to extensive seasonal recre- ation congestion. With the disruption, delay, and loss of system reliability associated with such major NRC events—especially those with high public and policy visibility—the need for specific changes in one or more operations activity becomes compelling, with strong public and policy support or imperatives. Immediate action is usually required as a matter of agency credibility, including the need to demonstrate visible change and positive out- comes. Although the response is often limited to a specific activity, there are a few cases where the response to a particular event and location has been extended by management to the statewide program level, and often accompanied by changes in process and institu- tional arrangements. • Constraint-Driven Change. In the face of financial or environmental limitations, expensive cap- ital projects to increase highway capacity are often infeasible. SO&M then gains credibility as a relatively inexpensive way to improve the efficiency of the existing roadway. This driver of change becomes most apparent where congestion levels are extremely high and capacity improvement opportunity limitations are openly acknowledged by the transportation agency and accepted by traditional highway stakeholders. • Federal Program Incentives Change. The use of federal funds has introduced planning and systems architecture requirements that have increasingly focused on performance mea- surement. FHWA has also promoted research, technical exchange, and definitions of cur- rent best practice and provided dedicated funding. These actions have increased the visibility and legitimacy of ITS and SO&M within transportation policy and encouraged state and local involvement. • New Regional Institutional Configuration. Some substate entities (e.g., local governments, MPOs) have taken initiatives involving cooperative regional efforts for interagency collaboration in improving SO&M and have involved state DOTs as one of several cooperative entities. Building on Change-Driven Momentum Effectively capitalizing on such events requires that the agency have a general strategy in place to seize these opportunities to extend and standardize specific program and organizational changes into improved day-to-day SO&M across the agency as a whole. Even in constrained contexts, it can be extremely valuable to have an improvement program ready for potential utilization as 13

circumstances permit, focusing on the key elements most directly implicated by any externally driven change but also using the momentum for more general improvements. Institutional Innovation and Alternative Models There are many examples of transportation agencies finding innovative ways to address the chal- lenges of SO&M. Following are examples of innovation within existing transportation agencies, as well as alternative models for delivery of SO&M strategies. Innovation within Existing Transportation Agencies Over the last 15 years, many states have built transportation management centers (TMCs), installed ITS technologies over increasing segments of their major networks, deployed safety service patrols, and developed interagency approaches to incident management and traveler information. Several states have established benchmarks for the state of the practice in certain of the basic NRC-oriented strategy applications (Table ES.7). 14 Table ES.7. Institutional Best Practice Examples • An increasing number of states have quick clearance laws to support the removal of stopped vehicles from obstructing the road. Florida DOT (FDOT), for example, carried out an aggressive statewide campaign of signage, radio spots, billboards, and brochures to inform the public about the law and its benefits. • Both the FDOT Rapid Incident Scene Clearance (RISC) program and Georgia DOT Towing and Recovery Incentive Program (TRIP) are public–private partnerships that use both incentive payments and disincentive liquidated damages to ensure shortened clearance times for heavy vehicle wrecks; these programs have reduced the average clearance times by 100%. • Oregon DOT has used a set of unique contractor requirements (staged tow trucks, traffic supervision, and public advisories) as part of effective work zone traffic control. • Detroit metropolitan area transportation agencies are part of a regional multiagency coalition that tracks and manages weather problems and treatment strategies, including flexible interjurisdictional boundaries for efficient operations. • The 16-state I-95 Corridor Coalition has supported an operations academy, which is a two-week residential program designed to provide middle and upper managers in state DOTs with a thorough grounding in various aspects of SO&M state of the practice. • The Maryland DOT Coordinated Highways Action Response Team (CHART) is a formal, multiyear budgeted ITS and operations program with an advisory board that provides oversight and strategic direction. It is chaired by the deputy administrator/chief engineer for operations and includes district engineers, the direc- tor of the Office of Traffic and Safety, the director of the Office of Maintenance, the Maryland State Police, the Maryland Transportation Authority, the Federal Highway Administration, the University of Maryland Center for Advanced Transportation Technology, and various local governments. • Washington State DOT (WSDOT) has formalized interactions among units and managers involved in its SO&M program. TMC managers from around the state meet every 6 weeks to coordinate with regional Inci- dent Response Program managers, who in turn meet quarterly for operations coordination with the state patrol. TMC managers and incident response managers coordinate activities and issues by meeting with the statewide traffic engineers group and the maintenance engineers group. • The Oregon Transportation Commission moved some capacity funding to the operations program to create an Operations Innovation Program that awards funding to projects selected on a competitive basis for their potential to demonstrate innovative operations concepts related to congestion mitigation and freight mobility. • Virginia DOT has reorganized its senior management to include a deputy director for operations and main- tenance responsible for all SO&M activities, as well as maintenance resources. • WSDOT has made a strong and transparent commitment to performance measurement as evidenced by the quarterly Gray Notebook, which tracks performance based on five WSDOT legislative goals, including mobility/congestion, and includes regular updates on progress in the application of operations strategies such as incident management and HOT lanes.

Alternative Models In addition to incremental change, the project evaluated a wide range of alternative institutional models from existing sources in the United States and through discussion with key profession- als. Descriptive information of some models was also derived from international sources. The four models are activity outsourcing, program outsourcing (public–private partnerships), new cooperative operating collaboration, and the public utility model. Activity Outsourcing This model assumes systematic outsourcing of certain SO&M functions at the activity level, such as safety service patrols, TMC operations, and asset management—per current practice in a few states, but with the transportation agency maintaining program and individual activity contract management responsibility. While several states outsource TMC operations and safety service patrols in some metropolitan areas, only two states have substantially outsourced most of these activities on a statewide basis. Program Outsourcing (Public–Private Partnerships) This model is presumed to apply to a statewide program, although components can occur at dif- ferent rates on a regional basis. This is distinguished from activity outsourcing by its inclusion of an entire set of activities (e.g., all real-time operations activities) into a single contract, with a program manager reporting to a separate public–private entity, and including management of other service providers on a large-scale geographic basis. There is no statewide U.S. example (although such PPP models are in use for some U.S.-tolled facilities), but the U.K. Highway Authority has established subnational regions (like state DOT districts) under which most oper- ational and related maintenance functions are performed by a combination of dedicated staff and contractors. New Cooperative Operating Collaboration New regional operations relationships have been established either through a consolidation of the SO&M responsibilities (state and local) of existing public agencies into a new entity or through a new set of planning and operations collaborative relationships. These types of orga- nizations reflect willingness on the part of state DOTs to devolve complex metropolitan or regional multijurisdictional operating activities rather than lead such efforts themselves. Some have coordinated planning functions and one or more real-time operations functions, such as traffic conditions analysis and dissemination (e.g., TransCom in the New York City metropoli- tan area); TMC; and arterial or freeway operations, such as Las Vegas Freeway and Arterial Sys- tem of Transportation (FAST), the Denver Region Traffic Signal System Improvement Program (TSSIP), and the Niagara International Transportation Technology Coalition (NITTEC) in New York and Ontario. Similarly, there are organizations for incident management and high- occupancy toll (HOT) lane operations (e.g., TranStar in Houston); bridge and tunnel operations coordination and resource allocation (e.g., Bay Area Toll Authority in the San Francisco region); and weather information development and dissemination (e.g., the Clarus Initiative). Public Utility Model This model, presumed to apply to a statewide program, is by definition privately managed and funded by user fees, under public policy and regulatory oversight. There is no known example in highway-related SO&M. The closest examples are regional transit authorities that provide transit operations at the metropolitan (or regional) scale with professional management and 15

local and state government boards of directors. These authorities are not self-supporting from user fees and depend on state and local tax sources. An emerging version of a public utility model may be public authority or private HOT and toll road development and operations at the net- work level. This represents a high level of operational control over a limited set of facilities, but examples already exist where SO&M applications are managed by such entities including, in some cases, control of the law enforcement function. This model has limited relevance at the present time in the absence of a separate financial base via user fees and a pricing orientation. In the long run, the introduction of mileage fees, possibly combined with publicly regulated pri- vate operating franchises, might approximate this model. Bringing the Future Forward Faster It is the premise of the report that all major transportation infrastructure owner agencies—state, regional, and local—will undergo a major shift in mission toward a greater emphasis on real-time SO&M if they are to maintain their relevance in maintaining and improving mobility. This shift is an inevitable consequence of the limitations to capacity enhancement and the promise of intelli- gent transportation technology. It is likely that the potential of aggressive SO&M has not yet been conceived, because new concepts and improved systems and strategies continue to evolve. Yet it is clear that the key features of the institutional context—as set forth in this project—constitute the principal barrier to realizing the full promise of SO&M. Evolving more supportive institutional architecture is not really discretionary—it is inevitable. 16

Next: Chapter 1 - Introduction »
Institutional Architectures to Improve Systems Operations and Management Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

TRB’s second Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP 2) Report S2-L06-RR-1: Institutional Architectures to Improve Systems Operations and Management examines a large number of topics concerning organizational and institutional approaches that might help transportation agencies enhance highway operations and travel time reliability.

The same project that produced SHRP 2 Report S2-L06-RR-1 also produced SHRP 2 Report S2-L06-RR-2: Guide to Improving Capability for Systems Operations and Management.

An e-book version of this report is available for purchase at Google, iTunes, and Amazon.

An article on SHRP 2 Report S2-L06-RR-1 was published in the January-February 2013 issue of the TR News.

  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!