Cover Image

Not for Sale

View/Hide Left Panel
Click for next page ( 8

The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine
500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001

Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement

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 7
7 Integrated processes Managed processes Ad hoc Ideal processes architecture Supportive Level 3 architecture Level 2 Current architecture Level 1 Figure ES.1. Institutional architecture maturity relationship to increasing process capability. 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.