Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 32
32
of Transportation, Research and Innovative Technology The top two clusters provided the basis for selecting states
Administration, 2009c.) for the survey and interviews. Both methodologies were
Integrated corridor management projects. (Source: U.S. designed to identify the relationships between these state
Department of Transportation, FHWA, 2009c.) DOTs--in terms of program scope and effectiveness--and
VII demonstration projects. (Source: U.S. Department their business processes and institutional characteristics.
of Transportation, Research and Innovative Technology The purpose of this evaluation was primarily to identify the
Administration, 2009a.) generic characteristics of the more mature states as a group,
Congestion management partnerships. (Source: U.S. as differentiated from the transitioning states.
Department of Transportation, FHWA, 2009b.)
AASHTO Subcommittee on Systems Operations and
Management (SSOM) meetings. (Source: Authors' notes, Step 2: State DOT
20052009.) Management Interviews
· Application of performance measures. (Source: Cambridge and Survey
Systematics et al., 2006.) Brief but structured telephone interviews were carried out
· Institutional issues, including the following:
with eight key state DOT operations staff personnel to attempt
Systems Operations as a Core Function: A Scan of the to identify the business processes and institutional character-
State of the Practice. Interview-based survey of selected
istics that are common among the ten mature states as differ-
state DOTs, conducted for the Virginia DOT, covering
entiated from the transitioning states. Interviews were also
planning, DOT configuration, budgeting, partnerships,
conducted with program management personnel from the
marketing, and operations practices. (Source: Virginia
mature and transitioning states to provide a wider represen-
Transportation Research Council, 2005.)
tative sampling.
Regional transportation operations collaboration and
Business process-related questions included the following:
coordination self-assessment that included a combination
of institutional and process issues. (Source: U.S. Depart-
· Scope of the program as indicated by the program
ment of Transportation, FHWA, 2002a.)
description;
State DOT organization charts that were made available
· Technical processes--status of standard concepts of oper-
by AASHTO.
· States were not ranked, given the varied and unweightable
ations and architecture, documentation of field procedures,
indicators, but were instead divided into the following communications platforms, performance measures report-
three clusters based on the previous seven categories of ing, and use;
· Technology and systems development as reflected in deploy-
information:
Mature states--the 20% of state DOTS with the ment data and participation in applications specific initia-
highest levels of deployment in metropolitan areas, tives; and
highest self-evaluation score, most comprehensive · Use of performance measures.
state legislation, and the highest levels of participation
in the range of national, regional, and association Institutional-related questions included the following:
activities.
Transitioning states--the next 30% of state DOTs, using · Departmental structure--number of districts with trans-
the same clustering scheme. portation management centers (TMCs) and range of strate-
Other states. gies applied;
· Culture and leadership--formality of operations mission,
Ten states appear consistently across the range of indicators relative program priority, expression in policy documents,
and were clearly identifiable as the most active states. These dashboards, degree of senior championship of SO&M at
states were distinguishable as more mature. An additional central office and districts, accountability for operations
15 states, while less clearly distinguishable, fell into the second attainments;
(transitioning) group, where significant progress toward a more · Authorization--existence of state budget category for
comprehensive SO&M program (as measured by the indicators) SO&M, key legal authorities for field activities;
appears to have been made. These states had ongoing plans · Planning and resource allocation--formal resource alloca-
to introduce improved strategy applications and business tion for SO&M, staff positions;
processes supportive of SO&M (such as output performance · Organization--degree of consolidation within central office
measures). The remaining 25 states are in the earlier stages of and districts, executive level of responsibility (compared to
SO&M program development. other programs), core capacities identified; and
