Institutional Architectures to Improve Systems Operations and Management (2012)

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.

Guidance for improving institutional maturity is presented in the Guide to Improving Capability for Systems Operations and Management. In this chapter, the structure of the guide is outlined based on the institutional maturity framework developed in Chapter 6. For further elaboration of the basic strategies for advancing in maturity for each of the elements, refer to the guide. The stepwise process used in the guide is illustrated at the strategy summary level. The complete strat- egy templates are included in the guide. The Institutional Capability Maturity Model The model is designed to identify changes in a transportation agency’s institutional characteristics that will be more sup- portive of the business processes that are required for effective SO&M. The goal of the model is to support mainstreaming of the key business processes that are necessary for effective SO&M, which may differ from those developed for the existing capital and maintenance programs. The institutional archi- tecture must support documented, reliable, consistent, and integrated processes that are based on rational evaluation and performance-driven improvements on a continuous basis. The elements of the institutional dimension and their levels of increasing maturity (in terms of supporting more effective programs) were presented in the previous chapter. Each incre- mental level of maturity within a given element of institutional architecture establishes the basis for the agency’s ability to progress to the next higher level of effectiveness. The follow- ing should be noted: • Levels cannot be skipped. • Each level of business processes needs specific institutional support. • The overall level of maturity for an organization is defined by the element of institutional architecture at the lowest level. The Improvement Strategies For each of the four elements of institutional architecture, there is a set of generic strategies that can be used to make the required adjustments. The generic strategies have their own related tactics associated with each level of maturity. Key strategies associated with each institutional architecture category are outlined below and further broken down in sub- sequent tables. • Culture/Leadership Strategies  Undertake educational inreach/outreach.  Exert senior leadership.  Establish formal core program.  Rationalize transportation agency legal authorities for facility management.  Internalize continuous improvement as agency mode/ ethic. • Organization and Staffing Strategies  Establish top-level SO&M executive structure.  Establish appropriate organizational structure.  Identify core capacities for SO&M.  Determine allocation of responsibility, accountability, and incentives. • Resource Allocation Strategies  Develop program-level budget estimate.  Introduce SO&M as a top-level agency budget line item.  Develop acceptance of sustainable resourcing from state funds.  Develop methodology for trade-offs. • Partnerships Strategies  Agree on operational roles and procedures with PSAs.  Identify opportunities for joint operations activities with local government/MPOs.  Develop procedures that accommodate partners’ goals and maximize mobility (minimum disruption).  Rationalize staff versus outsourcing activities, responsi- bilities, and oversight (business model). C H A P T E R 7 The Institutional Capability Maturity Model as the Structure for Guidance 53

Capability Improvement Strategies at Each Level The interpretation of strategies changes with successive lev- els. The differences reflect the increasingly managed, formal- ized, 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 2 may involve a systematic determina- tion of needs, whereas moving from Level 2 to 3 may involve formal budgeting. There is a parallel progression for all the strategies. Table 7.1 illustrates how the strategies relate to the criteria levels. Basic Guidance Steps For use as guidance in improving SO&M effectiveness, the Institutional Capability Maturity Model is presented in a series of steps and strategy matrices, one for each element. The use of the model is a stepwise process. The general directions for use follow. 54 Table 7.1. Basic Maturity Strategies for Each Institutional Element Criteria for Each Level Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Strategies for Elements Ad Hoc Rationalized Mainstreamed Culture/leadership • Undertake educational program regarding SO&M Mixed, hero driven Championed/internalized Mobility committed as customer service across disciplines • Exert visible senior leadership • Establish formal core program • Rationalize state DOT authority • Internalize continuous improvement as agency mode/ethic Organization/staffing • Establish top-level SO&M executive structure Fragmented, understaffed Aligning, trained Integrated • Establish appropriate organizational structure • Identify core capacities • Determine, allocate responsibility, accountability, and incentives Resource allocation • Develop program-level budget estimate Project level Criteria-based program Sustainable budget • Introduce SO&M as a top-level agency budget line item line item • Develop acceptance of sustainable resourcing from state funds • Develop methodology for trade-offs Partnerships • Agree on operational roles and procedures with PSAs Informal, unaligned Formal, aligned Consolidated • Identify opportunities for joint operations activities with local government/MPOs • Develop procedures that accommodate partners’ goals and maximize mobility (minimum disruption) • Rationalize staff versus outsourcing activities, responsibilities, and oversight

Step 1 Identify the element of interest (culture/leadership, organi- zation/staffing, resource allocation, partnerships, as shown in Table 7.2). Note that all elements are necessary, but the agency 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 deter- mine the point of departure (see Table 7.2). Use the model criteria for each element to determine the agency’s current level of maturity. Step 3 On the Levels and Objectives for Improvement table, identify the target level and inspect the numbered strategies for each element to move up to the next level. Table 7.3 shows an example of the table for Culture/Leadership. Each element has several associated maturity improvement strategies. Deter- mine the priority strategy based on the current circumstances and the amount of change needed to get to the next level. Step 4 Review each general strategy table for guidance to move to next level: Level 1 to Level 2 or Level 2 to Level 3. Following each general strategy table are separate numbered and detailed strategies in a standard format for each element. Figure 7.1 shows an example of a strategy for Culture/Leadership. The strategies include the following: • Relationship to program and process; • Identification of how the institutional change supports improved SO&M business processes and more effective strategy applications; • The points of departure (levels of capability); • Additional criteria/descriptions for the user to determine current level; • Description of the ultimate target level (Level 3); • Capability improvement strategies; • Strategies for moving from Level 1 to Level 2 or from Level 2 to Level 3; and • Responsibilities. 55 Institutional Elements Level 1 Ad Hoc Level 2 Rationalized Level 3 Mainstreamed Culture/ leadership Mixed, hero driven Championed/ internalized across disciplines Commitment to customer mobility Organization and staffing Fragmented, understaffed Aligned, trained Integrated Resource allocation Project level Criteria-based program Sustainable budget line item Partnerships Informal, unaligned Formal, aligned Consolidated Table 7.2. Basic Institutional Capability Maturity Elements and Levels

56 Strategies to Advance Level Level 1 Ad Hoc Level 2 Rationalized Level 3 Mainstreamed 1. Undertake educational program Value of SO&M not yet widely appreciated. Role of SO&M in providing service improvements widely understood. SO&M fully appreciated. From L1 to L2: Role of SO&M in providing service improvements widely understood. Drill down regarding the relevance of operational performance to the DOT customer service mission. From L2 to L3: SO&M fully appreciated. Undertake persuasive “road show” to communicate new DOT focus to customers—policy makers and the public. 2. Exert senior leadership Lack of management priority. Visible senior support agencywide. Stable SO&M leadership. From L1 to L2: Visible senior support agencywide. Exert senior management leadership visibly throughout organization and across disciplines regarding SO&M leverage and cost-effectiveness. From L2 to L3: Stable SO&M leadership. Identify and accept risks associated with expanding and intensifying new mission. 3. Establish formal core program SO&M is a set of ad hoc activities. SO&M is a formal mission and program with supporting policy. New state DOT business model. From L1 to L2: SO&M is a formal mission and program with supporting policy. Update mission in light of SO&M business case for mobility in light of minimum new capacity. From L2 to L3: New state DOT business model. Introduce SO&M as formal core DOT program, at the same level as project development and maintenance. 4. Rationalize transportation agency authority SO&M ambitions limited by legacy assumptions. Effective span-of-control needs identified. Effective span of control negotiated. From L1 to L2: Effective span-of-control needs identified. Identify and describe opportunities to rationalize current presumed legal or regulatory constraints regarding DOT’s activities. From L2 to L3: Effective span of control negotiated. Legitimize SO&M and partner role rationalization via policy and legislative initiatives. 5. Internalize continuous improvement as agency mode or ethic Limited progress orientation. Adoption of continuous progress concept. Continuous improvement approach internalized. From L1 to L2: Adoption of continuous progress concept. Develop concepts of continuous improvement with examples toward achieving performance-driven best practice. From L2 to L3: Continuous improvement approach internalized. Support culture of continuous improvement with clear targets and incentives for individuals and units. Table 7.3. Example of Levels and Objectives for Improvement Table for Culture/Leadership

57 Culture/Leadership Strategy 5: Internalize Continuous Improvement as Agency Mode or Ethic Relationship to Program and Process With an objective of building toward best practices, cost-effective process and program improvements are necessarily incremental. Continuing improvement to and beyond the state of best practice requires development and management of a continuous im- provement process built around performance measurement, analysis, and procedural improvement. Points of Departure (Levels of Capability) and Related Improvement Strategy Level 1: Limited Progress Orientation In a Level 1 organization, activities are started (set and forget) without regard to the potential for improving effectiveness through learning and are likely to plateau at modest levels, given the lack of performance feedback and improvement. Lack of ideal performance measurement often is used as an excuse for business-as-usual approaches. The following strategies can help raise a Level 1 organization to Level 2: based (ultimately). - cluding documentation, performance monitoring and measurement, postevent brief- ing, and process adjustments. Level 2: Adoption of Continuous Progress Concept In a Level 2 organization, the DOT is broadly committed to improving SO&M in terms of both technologies and procedures on a continuous incremental basis. The following strategies can raise a Level 2 organization to Level 3: an individual’s and unit’s performance or innovation. - prove approaches to all services, both in office and in field. Level 3: Continuous Improvement Approach Internalized In a Level 3 organization, the presumption is that continuous improvement is desirable and sustainable. Responsibility This strategy must be initiated in a top-down manner and be a shared approach in- volving all staff. Figure 7.1. Example strategy for Culture/Leadership.