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 50
50
the level of service benefits from modest capacity programs, Process Maturity as a Bridge
and is accompanied by limited knowledge of the potential of to Identifying Levels of Maturity
SO&M and limited interest in, or ability to facilitate change
and capitalize on opportunities offered by external events to Whereas strategies to improve technical and business processes
advance operational capabilities. (Limited knowledge is maturity are not the focus of this project, process levels of
reflected in the low expectations of users and other stakehold- maturity have been used as a device to structure a set of cor-
ers regarding operations potential.) This perspective is often responding levels of institutional maturity. Table 6.2 depicts
reflected in a fuzzy agency mission and the absence of a formal the range of institutional characteristics based on the process
policy commitment to, or stakeholder support for, customer maturity level supported. A characteristic set of institutional
mobility needs, backed by realistic strategies and performance features associated with transitioning process agencies is
accountability. called "ad hoc." A corresponding set of institutional features
The organizational structure is configured for construction is associated with agencies exhibiting more mature processes.
and maintenance project development, often leaving SO&M As described in Chapter 5 and illustrated in Table 6.3, a
functions (e.g., ITS, traffic engineering, and TMC manage- parallel, three-level distinction for institutional maturity
ment), fragmented and in various traditional chains of com- was developed from correlations of institutional maturity
mand, with limited staff capacity in certain technical areas with the three distinct levels of process maturity by add-
necessary to improve operations. ing a third (ideal) level called mainstreamed. Each level of
Resource allocation processes are without formal accom- process maturity is associated with changes in institutional
modation for ITS-related investments. These resources are architecture.
often viewed as the first place to cut. Level 1 is reflected by the many transportation agencies
Partnerships (interjurisdictional roles and relationships) that are transitioning into SO&M as an identifiable managed
among operations participants, including PSAs, local gov- activity. At the other end of the maturity scale is Level 3--an
ernments, MPOs, and the private sector, are exacerbated by ideal agency culture, fully staffed within an efficient organi-
informal and unstable partner relationships in congestion zational structure, a transparent resource allocation process
management activities. for SO&M, and formal relationships with partners. Between
The experience of the more mature states suggests that the transitioning situation and the ideal is Level 2, already
addressing these challenges is essential to the development of evident in some state DOTs that are committed to formaliz-
more effective programs and strategy applications. ing SO&M as a core program and are making changes to
Table 6.3. Correlation between Process Maturity Levels and Institutional Architectural Levels
Program and Process Level 1 Level 2 Level 3
Capabilities Transitioning Mature Integrated
Scoping Narrow and opportunistic Needs based and standardized Full range core program
Technical processes Informal, undocumented Planned, mainstreamed Integrated, documented
Technology and systems Project oriented, qualitative Rational quantitative evaluation Standardized C/E
development systems/platforms
Performance measurement Outputs reported Outcomes used Performance accountability
Institutional
Architecture Level 1 Level 2 Level 3
Elements Ad Hoc Rationalized Mainstreamed
Culture/leadership Mixed, hero driven Championed/internalized across disciplines Customer mobility committed
Organization and staffing Fragmented, understaffed Aligning, trained Professionalized
Resource allocation Project level Criteria-based program Sustainable budget line item
Partnerships Informal, unaligned Formal, aligned Consolidated
OCR for page 51
51
rationalize organization, staffing, resource allocations, and activity, with adjustments in arrangements, resources, and
partner relationships toward that end. These relationships roles to accommodate the distinct features of SO&M.
reveal a pattern of institutional evolution toward configura- · Level 3: Mainstreamed. A hypothetical, fully integrated, ideal
tions that are increasingly supportive of effective SO&M architecture in which SO&M is considered a core mission,
processes. with appropriate formal and standardized arrangements
The three distinct levels of institutional capability maturity (equivalent to other core programs) configured to support
have been defined as follows: continuous improvement.
· Level 1: Ad Hoc. An architecture reflecting a legacy civil In combination, the relationships between the process lev-
engineering culture in which SO&M activities are accom- els and their capabilities, on the one hand, and the institution
modated on an ad hoc and informal basis, typically as a architectures and their supporting features, on the other, con-
subsidiary part of maintenance or capital project arrange- stitute the Institutional Capability Maturity Model. Table 6.4
ments. This level, as exhibited in transitioning states, is presents the criteria that define the institutional architecture
reflected in a legacy organizational structure and informal levels in greater detail. Each cell represents either a point of
resource allocation, fragmented SO&M activities, ad hoc departure or a target for improving architecture to the next
project-oriented business processes, and a narrow SO&M level. It provides criteria for each element at each level, but it
program with no clear sense of performance. does not provide guidance on the strategies for moving to the
· Level 2: Rationalized. An architecture exhibited in mature next level. Transportation agencies can plot their current state
states that reflects an appreciation of SO&M as a distinct of play and targets for improvement.
Table 6.4. Criteria for Institutional Capability Maturity
Levels of Capability Maturity
Level 1 Level 2 Level 3
Elements Ad Hoc Rationalized Mainstreamed
Culture/ Mixed, hero driven Championed/internalized across Commitment to customer mobility
leadership · Operations value not widely appre- disciplines · Customer mobility service com-
ciated (lack of message). · Visible agency leadership citing opera- mitment accepted as formal core
· Middle management heroes tions leverage, cost-effectiveness, program.
promote program. and risks. · Clear legal authority for opera-
· Full legal authority not established. · Customer outreach and feedback. tions roles; actions among trans-
portation agency, public safety
agencies (PSAs), local govern-
ment clarified.
Organization Fragmented, understaffed Aligned, trained Integrated
and staffing · Legacy roles: Some fragmentation · Transportation Management Center · Top-level management position
of key functions and boundaries, (TMC) focus with vertical and horizontal with operations orientation
both horizontally and vertically. authority or responsibility alignment for established in central office
· Hero driven: Reliance on key indi- operations for the life of a project. and districts.
vidual for technical knowledge and · Accountability to top management. · Professionalization and certifica-
champions for leadership. · Core capacities established with knowl- tion of operations core capacity
edge, skill, ability specifications, training, positions including performance
and performance incentives in clear incentives.
career paths.
Resource Project level Criteria-based program Sustainable budget line item
allocation · Resource allocation at project · Budget allocation for operations driven · Operations is a formal, visible, and
level, ad hoc, unpredictable, by transparent criteria on effectiveness sustainable line item in agency's
buried, invisible. and life-cycle needs basis. budget--capital, operating,
· Apparent limited eligibility of · Funding levels based on relationship to and maintenance.
existing funds for operations. identified needs. · Trade-offs between operations and
capital expenditures considered as
part of the planning process.
(continued on next page)
OCR for page 52
52
Table 6.4. Criteria for Institutional Capability Maturity (continued)
Levels of Capability Maturity
Level 1 Level 2 Level 3
Elements Ad Hoc Rationalized Mainstreamed
Partnerships Informal, unaligned Formal, aligned Consolidated
· Nontransportation entities · Rationalization of responsibilities by for- · High level of operations coordina-
unaligned with transportation mal agreements across institutions tion (memorandums of understand-
objectives, procedures relying on (transportation agency, PSAs, private). ing) among owner/operators with
informal personal basis. · Outsourcing revised to meet agency TMC consolidation.
· Outsourcing to private sector used technical, staffing, and management · Outsourcing performance man-
for isolated functions. objectives. aged while maintaining agency's
core capacities.
