National Academies Press: OpenBook

Institutional Architectures to Improve Systems Operations and Management (2012)

Chapter: Chapter 5 - Research Findings: Processes That Need Institutional Support

« Previous: Chapter 4 - Survey Research Methodology
Page 34
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 5 - Research Findings: Processes That Need Institutional Support." 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 34
Page 35
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 5 - Research Findings: Processes That Need Institutional Support." 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 35
Page 36
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 5 - Research Findings: Processes That Need Institutional Support." 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 36
Page 37
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 5 - Research Findings: Processes That Need Institutional Support." 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 37
Page 38
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 5 - Research Findings: Processes That Need Institutional Support." 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 38
Page 39
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 5 - Research Findings: Processes That Need Institutional Support." 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 39
Page 40
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 5 - Research Findings: Processes That Need Institutional Support." 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 40
Page 41
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 5 - Research Findings: Processes That Need Institutional Support." 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 41

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.

34 This chapter presents the conclusions drawn from the inter- views, surveys, and literature regarding the relationships between effective programs and the supportive business and technical processes. These relationships then form the basis for the institutional architecture guidance. The central hypothesis of this research, as set forth in Chapter 2, is that there is a traceable relationship between effective NRC strategy applications—via the business and technical processes needed to develop, implement, and sustain the strategies—and a supportive institutional framework. An analysis was made of key features of the strategy applications in terms of the needed process functions and their institu- tional implications. Strategy Application Features That Impact Performance Improving the effectiveness of SO&M means improving the effectiveness of the individual strategy applications. Effective NRC strategy applications have a range of characteristics, which are more or less satisfied and which determine the per- formance impact of the strategy. Example characteristics of the strategies are discussed in this section. Incident Management Incident management in response to crashes, breakdowns, hazmat spills, and other emergencies is improved by wide- spread deployment of surveillance and detections technology, faster detection of incidents and improved information about the nature of incident based on improved surveillance and detection technology, around-the-clock manned TMCs rapid arrival of first responder based on effective interoperable inter- agency (center-to-center and center-to-field and field-to-field) communications and dispatch, correct identification of needed response resources based on prepared procedures, effective traffic control based on clear interagency incident command, effective systems for dissemination of incident information to other jurisdiction and the public, pre-agreed-upon diversion plans for various incident locations, quick clearance based on appropriate partnerships with private towing and recovery and/or prepositioned equipment, cooperative interagency after-action analysis and shared performance objectives. Road Weather Management Improvement of road weather management in response to heavy rain and wind, snow and ice is based on contracts for acquisition and data feeds of weather predictions, deployment of environment-sending stations and microconditions moni- toring, analysis of pretreatment routines for varying condi- tions, standards protocols for equipment standby and callout, clear authority and procedures for alert levels, and appropriate contract with local and/or private contractors for treatment and clearance. Work Zone Traffic Management Focused on traffic control plans to minimize the impacts of reduced capacity, work zone traffic management is based on clear state specifications and guidance for contractor traffic control plan; forecasts of potential traffic impacts; integra- tion of TCP with corridor ITS systems; contractor training; state–contractor decision systems and coordination mecha- nism; availability of standby law and enforcement and towing, as appropriate; preestablished contract limits; effective enforce- ment of hours of capacity-impacting activities; availability of public information; and coordination among jurisdictions regarding simultaneous capacity-constraining events. Special Events Planning and Management Special events planning and management to accommodate event patrons with minimum traffic disruption is based on C H A P T E R 5 Research Findings: Processes That Need Institutional Support

the development of a standard template for recurring events, establishment of an interagency task force and command struc- ture, appropriate roles for traffic and law enforcement entities, availability of temporary traffic control devices, advanced warn- ing of the public, elected officials and specific stakeholder groups, development of advanced interagency planning teams, forecasting of travel impacts, development of diversion plans, integration of multiple traffic control devices on an areawide and inter-jurisdictional basis, postevent reviews for future involvement. Active Traffic Management Active traffic management, using lane use and speed control to minimize flow disruption and incidents and managing diversions and the operation of diversion routes, is based on interagency working group among both transportation and law enforcement, interoperable interagency communi- cations, clear operations command at TMC level across jurisdictions, clarity in legal authority, predicted traffic response based on archived data, multijurisdictional TMC, real-time performance measurement and analytics for con- trol regimes, deployment of appropriate control informa- tion infrastructures, preeducation of users, preplanning of advisory messages. Common Parameters of Performances Through inspection of the NRC strategies and the require- ments for effectiveness as stated, it is apparent that, despite individual strategy differences, there are a few key parameters of strategy application common across all the strategy applica- tions that determine the degree of effectiveness. This strategy- neutral set of characteristics includes the following: • Responsiveness to event: Speed with which the principal remedial action is taken (reflected in response or clear- ance time). • Targeting of application: Accuracy of determining prob- lem and application of correct strategy where needed. • Aggressiveness of application: Strength of application in meeting the requirements on site in most efficient manner. • Integration among strategy applications: Coordination of activities required for full synergistic effectiveness. • Coverage and density of strategy applications: Availability of strategy components geographically. Improving common characteristics is dependent on the conduct of certain key technical and business processes. These processes, in turn, are supported more or less by key features of the agency’s institutional framework. Relationships Among Strategy Effectiveness, Needed Processes, and Supportive Institutional Features Table 5.1 illustrates examples of these relationships and indi- cates that there is traceability between institutional features and effectiveness of strategy applications. This form of traceability between program effectiveness and institutional framework is at the core of this project. It is important to note, however, that the relationships are not strategy application-specific; that is, the elements of the insti- tutional architecture discussed in this report are those that apply commonly to all the strategies. Key Findings Related to Process The types of relationships described provided the basis for the general hypothesis relating program to process and process to institutional framework. This basic concept was used to review the potential contributions of organizational develop- ment theory and quality assurance practice, as well as lessons from observable international practice, and, in combination, to identify and describe the few institutional characteristics that seem to be most closely related to more effective programs and related business processes. Taken together, these analyses indicated four key crosscut- ting aspects of processes required for development: • Scope of applications in the field: Program scope and responsiveness to the array of NRC problems experienced in various geographic and network contexts. • Technical processes: Includes planning and programming process, systems engineering (including concept of opera- tions), project development and ITS asset management (in terms of the ability to implement and maintain systems supporting key operations), and development of field pro- cedures in support of systematic and comprehensive pro- gram development. • Systems and technology development: Availability of effec- tive platforms to provide the needed situational awareness, control devices, communications and basic information resource, and technology deployment in terms of standard- ization and effectiveness costs. • Performance monitoring, measurement, and analysis: Especially concerns the use of outcome measures to evalu- ate procedures, projects, and overall program. 35

36 Program Scoping Definition This aspect encompasses the range of SO&M strategy appli- cations intended to maintain and improve levels of service and safety for the highway system. The strategy applications are based on well-understood conventions of systems engi- neering and related procedures and protocols—for which both state-of-the-practice guidance and best practice exam- ples exist. Indicators and Range The key parameters that have an impact on effectiveness relate to the why, the where, and the how of the implementa- tion of strategy applications: • Whether the applications are targeted and configured accu- rately to the problem and context. Few state DOTs or local or regional transportation agencies have conducted a sys- tematic analysis of potentially cost-effective SO&M appli- cations by problem, function, geography, network, and travel type. The 22 transitioning agencies typically exhibit strategy applications focused on the most seriously disrup- tive causes (incident management in heavily congested areas, RWIS in major snow and ice belts, and construction) and only in selected or congested regions. There appears to be only modest corridor-level consistency as facilities go across jurisdictional lines and between urban and rural areas. A small number of DOTs have somewhat more fully developed programs for coverage of all congested freeways (as indicated in the BTS semiannual ITS deployment sur- vey). Few are developing arterial applications. Table 5.1. Relationships among Effective SO&M Applications, Supportive Processes, and Their Institutional Implications Characteristics of Effective Examples of Needed Support Examples of Institutional Implications Applications from Processes of Process Requirements Responsiveness to 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 standardized applications • Integration into the planning process • Staff capable of analysis • Aligned partners with regard to concept of operations (ConOps) • Adequate resources for necessary infrastruc- ture 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

• Application aggressiveness. The ability of applications, as revealed in concepts of operations, ITS architectures, procedures and protocols, and so forth, to achieve full, effective, and responsive implementation in terms of the intended objective. The level of impact in NRC reduction is difficult to determine without the utilization of per- formance measures. Several of the mature state DOTs are now using outcome measures related to travel time and several measures specific to intermediate performance, such as incident response time. • Comprehensiveness and consistency. The applications are systematically related to user problems encountered by location (i.e., regions), consistent on both a network and condition basis, and appropriate to all functional classes. A few states identify safety “black spots” or winter- weather-sensitive locations for positioning of permanent or temporary equipment. However, there has been little development of warrants that would provide guidance for consistent applications. The range of SO&M deployed by region varies widely: 35–40% of metropolitan freeways have some kind of surveillance and about 40% are covered by safety service patrols (U.S. Department of Transporta- tion, Research and Innovative Technology Administra- tion, 2009b). Technical Processes Definition Technical processes are the replicable, routine activities under- taken to define, develop, manage, support, and implement any program. They include the conventions of planning, program- ming, budgeting, engineering, project development, procure- ment, and deployment or implementation. Indicators and Range In most major transportation agencies, conventional capital and maintenance project development are supported by well- defined technical processes. A parallel set of processes for SO&M must be defined and standardized. In addition, such processes must be documented to ensure consistency and sustainability and to reduce the dependence on individuals and special relationships as the basis for efficient implemen- tation. In the transitioning states, the standardization of tech- nical processes for SO&M improvements is in the early stages. Key indicator levels include formal mission, vision, and goal establishment; SO&M integration into the planning/design process; regular programming and budgeting of SO&M within agencywide activities; project development and pro- curement processes development and documentation; and ITS asset management systems. Formal Mission, Vision, and Goal Establishment A leadership decision to make a major program adjustment may require a change in the agency’s formal statements of organizational intent. Several of the state DOTs surveyed in this project have made changes in their public and external expressions or orientation. In some cases, these changes have occurred as part of a formal strategic planning process involving significant reconsideration of agency roles in a changing context for transportation improvements. In a few instances, an increased orientation to customer and per- formance (leading to greater attention to operations) has emerged out of formal process reengineering and quality methods, such as business process reengineering, balanced scorecards, and Baldrige certification. SO&M Integration into the Planning/Design Process For the most part, statewide comprehensive planning does not include facility-level specificity. As a result, the few statewide ITS or SO&M plans have been limited to the most mature programs, despite the general requirements in plan- ning for federal aid investments. There have also been only a few metropolitan ITS/operations plans, typically MPO-led efforts. However, even the mature states have done limited planning. Systems engineering consistency also varies widely. The mature states have largely completed statewide architec- tures to comply with federal requirements, but in the absence federal aid requirements, many states and districts within states lack formal architectures and agreed-upon concepts of operations. There is considerable standardization and guid- ance in systems design, developed with the systems engineer- ing process and required for federal aid projects through the FHWA systems engineering and ITS architecture guidance. Regular Programming and Budgeting of SO&M within Agencywide Activities SO&M capital budgeting is typically ad hoc and project or ini- tiative specific, conducted alongside the agency process or on an as-needed basis. Only two states address SO&M as a stand- alone, multiyear, and annual budgeting process at the same level of formality as other core programs. Even in those states with the more formal resource allocation process, the scopes are limited to freeway applications and do not include arterial investments. Project Development and Procurement Processes Development and Documentation SO&M capital improvements are typically developed on an ad hoc basis (by project champions), often on a firefighting 37

basis or piggy-backed on the transportation agency’s existing project development process for conventional traffic engineer- ing improvements. Project development in ITS presents a set of challenges relating to collaboration, resource adequacy, and planning/engineering integration that require an organized management approach. Federal aid and industry guidance is available for systems integration and software development, and several states have developed an ITS project develop- ment process in this fashion. However, this process is often inappropriate to the scale of SO&M projects and the tech- nologies involved. ITS Asset Management Systems Initial investments in ITS technology are typically in a high- maintenance mode and often in need of replacement or upgrading. While systematic asset management is being insti- tutionalized for highway assets, the ITS components are just being introduced on a limited basis, often integrated with other highway assets. Technology and Systems Development Definition SO&M is dependent on a framework of systems platforms and supporting ITS devices to achieve situational awareness, com- munications, analysis, information dissemination, archiving, and operation of field control devices. Indicators and Range Systems platform robustness and consistency, as well as tech- nology evolution, are indicators of technical capability. Key indicator levels include standardized platform capabilities and systematic technology selections. Standardized Platform Capabilities At the statewide level, standardized, integrated operating platforms are essential to interoperability and to achieving situational awareness and communication. In the mature states, systems platforms are becoming increasingly stan- dardized and technical staff capabilities are improving. The transitioning state DOTs have often deployed basic, first- generation ITS technology (surveillance, detection, and com- munication), but applications are not statewide and full integration has not been established. In many cases, there is variation in the systems between early deploying and later- deploying metropolitan areas. There are also concepts of operations or architectures, systems platforms, and devices that are not standardized. Key issues include lack of com- mon data definitions, archiving capabilities, and ability to accept external inputs. The legacy of unique systems is a barrier to cost-effective management and upgrading. This lack of consistency constrains functionality and interoper- ability across the state and limits the degree of state-level sit- uational awareness and archiving. Systematic Technology Selections State DOTs and other transportation agencies vary in the cur- rency of their technologies, as has already been indicated. Until recently, technology selection has been qualitative or price-based, without systematic, quantitative evaluation. A standard approach to selecting and upgrading systems is a key reflection of an organized approach. A few states, especially those with fewer metropolitan districts, have a rationalized approach to technology evaluation. Performance Measurement Definition Performance measurement is the determination of a strategy application’s effectiveness in terms of reduction in delays and travel times, travel time reliability, severity of crashes, and quality of traveler information. Performance measure- ment and reporting are used internally as a management tool to improve applications and to guide cost-effective invest- ments, and they are used externally to evaluate the overall program impact and for communication with customers and elected officials. Indicators and Range The status of performance measurement for improved operations is a key reflection of the transportation agencies’ understanding of and commitment to SO&M. The interviews and survey conducted for this project, while not detailed in this area, indicated that there is a set of key issues that are necessarily related: • Commitment to continuous improvement; • Development of strategy applications affects evaluation for the purpose of benchmarking improvement; • Development of outcome measures; 38

• Reporting of and accountability for performance; and • Evaluation of staff performance. The range exhibited includes development of standards, use of outcome measures, and performance-related data acquisition process. Development of Standards There have been some self-evaluation instruments for SO&M, such as for signal operations and incident management. How- ever, there are no accepted standards or warrants for the appli- cations’ performance. Benchmarking efforts are generally informal. An FHWA survey indicates that the mature states identified in this project’s survey had developed measures that were oriented to meeting the SAFETEA-LU performance reporting requirements, including some outcome measures related to speed and travel time, incident numbers and dura- tion, and some operations activities output data. In addition, a few districts in a few states are measuring incident-related times for procedural improvements. However, the current lack of common definitions and uniform means of recording and archiving the information substantially reduces the util- ity of much of the available data and makes it virtually impos- sible to manage a program toward improved effectiveness. A recently completed NCHRP study developed the needed stan- dards, but few states are considering their adoption. Use of Outcome Measures Only outcome measures (i.e., impact on service levels) are true measures of program improvement and success, but with very few exceptions (and those on a pilot basis), performance data are not being used to tune strategy applications in the context of a commitment to continuous improvement. A few of the mature states use output data to improve their activity effec- tiveness. The development of performance measures, systems, data, and the analytics to utilize them requires a considerable time frame. Performance-Related Data Acquisition Process The increasing focus on performance data both for strategy applications analysis and improvement and for accounta- bility reporting—internally and externally—places a signif- icant burden on the acquisition, development, and analysis of performance data—both outputs and outcomes. Whereas output measures (such as the event time-stamping in inci- dent response) can be helpful in tuning up procedures, the performance metrics related to reliability are related as well to travel time and delay measurement. Some travel- time data can be modeled, using volume and capacity rela- tionships assumptions and facility-level detection (where available)—especially over long time periods—but real- time analysis on a regional or corridor basis is increasingly seen as dependent on vehicle speeds and travel time and variance measurements, requiring either extensive loop detector deployment and maintenance or vehicle probe data (that must be acquired from the private sector). The costs of extensive detection (especially on arterials and out- side congested areas) must be weighed against its advan- tages in discrete areas and provision of volume data. In both cases, there are complex analytics that require exper- imentation and experience to produce useful data. Very few states have made this investment. Process Maturity as a Bridge to Defining Improvements in Institutional Architecture In this report, the concept of capability maturity is applied to both process and institutional characteristics based on the recognition that those aspects of process essential for program effectiveness must be present at defined levels of criteria-based maturity to be effective. Process maturity levels are identified for the purposes of indicating the types of change needed to advance toward increasingly supportive institutional architec- ture related to culture, organization and staffing, and resources and partnerships. It should be noted that whereas the maturity model approach is used to structure the relationship between process maturity and supportive institutional architecture, the guid- ance is focused on improving institutional architecture—not on business or technical processes. Levels of Process Maturity The range of process capabilities determined in the survey and interviews can be defined into three capability maturity levels. The lowest level (Level 1, or L1) is identified with the state of SO&M associated with a transitioning transportation agency. A logical increment (Level 2, or L2) has been observed in the more mature transportation agency practice and represents current best practice, as determined from project research. The highest level of capability (Level 3, or L3) is not directly observable among transportation agencies, but is extrapolated as the presumed ideal outcome of the vectors of improvement in capability established by L2. 39

Level 1: Transitioning The point of departure for most state DOTs determined by the survey performed by this project was in a situation where SO&M strategy applications were becoming some- what standardized, but on an ad hoc basis. At this level, SO&M is recognized as an issue. Individuals are charged with certain specific projects or activities at the project level. The process is siloed and hero-driven. This state of play is illustrated by many of the transitioning transporta- tion agencies. What is often missing are the formalizing and documentation of plans and procedures, the full range of professional capacities that provide for institutionalizing good practices, standardization of systems, and perfor- mance monitoring, all of which provide the basis for improving program effectiveness. Level 2: Mature SO&M is recognized as an agency activity and is beginning to be managed as a program. Business processes are being developed and standardized. Capabilities are being devel- oped at the unit level, but are program-unstable and dependent on particular staff. This state of play is illustrated by many of the “mature” state DOTs and other transporta- tion agencies. What is missing at this level is often statewide coverage and consistency, a clearly understood appropriate project development process, full integration into pro- gramwide resource allocation decisions, and the use of out- come measures to support the appropriately expanded role of SO&M within the agency’s overall mobility improve- ment portfolio. Level 3: Integrated Providing a best practice-defined benchmark for each of the business processes (often defined by current best practice or analogies in other industries) is Level 3. At this level, SO&M is established as a program with predictable outcomes. Activ- ities are developed using standard processes (e.g., planning, systems engineering, project development, budgeting) and effectiveness is measured and used to support a program of continuous process improvement. Best practices are installed and measured consistently within the program framework that characterizes the mature states described. Table 5.2 presents SO&M processes in an operations matu- rity framework at the conceptual level used in the model, illustrating the four key aspects of business processes, the lev- els of maturity, and the general descriptions of each level. As part of the determination of institutional architecture, a further breakdown of the business processes into specific activ- ities was developed. Table 5.3 further defines the criteria that distinguish among the three levels of capability. These criteria indicate the capabilities at each level and suggest the types of actions that must be taken to advance to the next level of capa- bility, such as documentation, training, and performance mea- surement. Although process levels are not a direct focus of the guidance, the definitions of process levels provided the basis for determining the necessary institutional characteristics for each aspect needed to move processes up in level. 40 Table 5.2. The Process Maturity Framework Used in the Model at a Conceptual Level Level of Capability Maturity Level 1 Level 2 Transitioning Mature Level 3 Getting organized: Developing methods and Integrated unique ad hoc processes: capabilities Best practice integrated, activities at project developed at the strategy documented and measured level, siloed, application level, consistently within Key Aspects hero driven but unintegrated program framework Program scoping Technical processes Technology and systems development Performance measurement Narrow and opportunistic Informal, undocumented Project oriented; qualitative evaluation Outputs reported Needs based and standardized Planned, mainstreamed Implementation using a rational process for evaluating and prioritizing Outcomes used Full-range core program Integrated, documented Standardized, cost-effective systems/platforms Performance accountability

41 Table 5.3. The Criteria for Process Maturity Levels of Capability Maturity Business Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Process Transitioning Mature Integrated Program scoping Technical processes Technology and systems development Performance measurement Narrow and opportunistic • Mission vague—ad hoc operations activities based on regional initia- tives, with limited central office support • Narrow/ITS-project based, low- hanging fruit • Absence of statewide service standards Informal, undocumented • Projects/issues handled on firefight basis with only modest formal regional/district planning (but no standard template) • Minimal concepts of operations and architecture, procedures ad hoc/no consistency, National Incident Management procedures compliance • No/limited documentation Qualitative, opportunistic • Technologies selected at project level (“big bang”) • Limited understanding of operating platform needs • Mixed data items • Lack of appropriate procurement process Outputs reported • Concept of continuous improvement absent • Projects lack objectives: measure- ment of outputs only with limited analysis/remediation • Output measures reported • Limited after-action analysis Needs based and standardized • Operations business case made as needed; mobility-based multistrat- egy application program • Consistent statewide strategy appli- cations related to specific problems, desired outcomes by function, geography, network Planned • Strategic planning and budgeting of staged improvements including maintenance and construction implications (“exercising the plan”) • Concepts of operations and related processes developed, including major communications structure • Procedures and protocols fully exploit systems Evaluated platforms • Basic stable technology for exist- ing strategy applications, evalu- ated on qualitative basis and incremental • Identification of standardized, statewide interoperable/integrated operating platforms and related procurement procedures • Continuity of operations plans in place Outcomes used • Procedures exercised • Outcome measures developed and used for improvement • Outcome measures reported Full-range core program • Full-staged program of synergizing functionalities • Operations as key trade-off invest- ment with other improvements in terms of mobility management • Program extended to lower jurisdictions Integrated and documented • Integrated operations-related plan- ning, budgeting, staffing, deploy- ment, and maintenance both within operations and with statewide and metropolitan area planning • Full documentation of key concepts of operations, procedures and pro- tocols Standardized, interoperable • Systematic evaluation/application of best available technology/ procedure combinations with evolution • Standard technology platforms developed/maintained • Assets inventoried Performance accountability • Continuous improvement perspec- tive adopted (requires intra- and interagency after-action analysis) • Accountability and benchmarking at unit and agency level via regular outcome performance reporting— internal and public

Next: Chapter 6 - Research Findings: Institutional Architecture Characteristics That Support Effective Programs »
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!