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.

74 Table B.1. SHRP 2 L06 Systems Operations State-of-Play State DOT Survey: Questions and Prompts Indicators as Observed in State DOTs (Bulleted Items Are Prompts for Interviews) L-1: Architecture Supporting Transition L-2: Architecture Supporting Transition Dimensions: from Ad Hoc to Managed from Managed to Integrated General Questions (Activities Initiated on Agencywide Basis) (Establishment of Integrated Program) A P P E N D I X B State DOT Process and Institutional Interviews Background • Number of districts • Number of districts with TMC (big vs. little) • Number of TMCs with full range of strategies A. Culture • Is operations mainstreamed as a key DOT mission? • Where does operations stand in the mind of agency management in terms of its relative importance as an activity and as a responsibility?  In terms of public documents  In terms of dashboard  In terms of mobilization B. Leadership • Is there a leader or champion of ITS/ operations—within the central office or at the district level? • Is the district engineer/administrator held responsible for progress in improving operations? C. Authorization • Does the state budget have a formal operations program? • Does the state DOT have the authorities needed for incident management? • The potential service leverage (value) of operations is not widely appreciated in the DOT • Operations is not yet specifically identified in standard public DOT policy documents along with capacity improvements, safety, and maintenance • There is no DOT dashboard—or if there is, traffic level-of-service is not publicly reported on the dashboard • Systems operations is not yet recognized as a specific discipline but is done by mainte- nance or other staff • TMCs and safety service patrols (SSP) do not exist—or not in all metro areas and/or not 24/7 • There is no champion of ITS and operations in central office (at either the CEO or first-tier division head level) • District administrators/engineers are not champions for operations, nor are they accountable to the central office regarding systems performance • There is not a defined (published) operations program for systems operations at the statewide level • The state does not have a driver move-it law or quick clearance authority • The value of operations is widely understood in the DOT • DOT commitment to operations is clear at the agency level and made public in a policy document that shows it as equally important as construction, safety, and maintenance (such as mobility management) • There is a dashboard and operations per- formance reported as outcomes (reductions in delay due to operations) • Systems operations is recognized as a distinct discipline (job specs, training) • Incident management and SSP operate 24/7 • The CEO is a champion of ITS and operations as evidenced in public statements and memos to staff or • A division head in the central office is the champion • Some or all districts have operations programs • District engineers held accountable for improving operations program in reporting to CEO • There is a defined (published) operations program for systems operations at the statewide level • The state has driver move-it law and DOT has quick clearance authority (continued on next page)

75 D. Resource Allocation Process • Is the budget for operations mainstreamed on the same terms as the budgeting for construction and maintenance (needs development, allocations based on need, visible in the normal process)? • Has the central office made slots available to build operations staff? E. Organization • Are previously fragmented activities related to systems operations (ITS, systems, TMCs, traffic engineering) now consolidated with the central office? • Is the responsibility/authority for systems operations a second-, third-, or fourth-tier responsibility within the central office (as compared with the counterpart maintenance and project development/ construction responsibility)? • At what level within the district hierarchy is the highest–level, full time operations manager (Assistant DE, deputy assistant DE, or lower)? • Have core capacities for operations staff been formally identified (and job spec’d)? F. Technical Capacities/Processes • Has each major district developed and documented (key) operations for IM, traveler information? • Have statewide standards and existing architectures? • Are procedures and protocols documented for each major SO&M activity (standardized)? • Has technology for communications and field devices been standardized? • Do the major districts report incident clearance times by type? Do any districts report incident first response time? G. Partnerships (public service agencies, local government, private sector) • Do formal written agreements exist between PSAs and DOT for incident management (for clearance time targets and for on-site and office procedures)? • Where TMC or SSP functions are outsourced, has the concept of performance management been adopted? Table B.1. SHRP 2 L06 Systems Operations State-of-Play State DOT Survey: Questions and Prompts (continued) Indicators as Observed in State DOTs (Bulleted Items Are Prompts for Interviews) L-1: Architecture Supporting Transition L-2: Architecture Supporting Transition Dimensions: from Ad Hoc to Managed from Managed to Integrated General Questions (Activities Initiated on Agencywide Basis) (Establishment of Integrated Program) • There is no statewide plan for operations at the statewide level that indicates specific strategies to be developed • Funding is ad hoc and unpredictable. There is no statewide operations budget. Budget resources for operations are an ad hoc process from year to year, with funds com- ing out of maintenance and construction budgets, federal earmarks, etc. • Staffing is a problem for lack of slots • Highest level central office manager with 100% SO&M responsibility is two or three lev- els down from the CEO (and not responsible for maintenance or project development). • Within both central office and districts, ITS, operations, and traffic engineering are sepa- rate responsibilities • District level operations activities are the responsibility of a manager two or three levels down from the district engineer/ administrator • Core capacities for operations have not been identified, nor job specs developed • Some but not all of the incidents and emer- gencies at the district level are handled in a TMC • Technical expertise rests principally in a few individual champions (without any clear suc- cession) • Operational concepts, procedures, and pro- tocols for incident management, traveler information, and freeway operations are not documented at the district level or standard- ized by central office • Districts do their own thing regarding selec- tion of technology • DOT has informal working relationships with police and fire entities—principally at the dis- trict level—regarding incident management (not written) • DOT outsources some operations functions (TMC, SSP) but doesn’t really have a performance-based contract • There is an up-to-date document describ- ing the statewide operations program— a statewide systems operations plan (please send) • ITS/operations have a separate multiyear budget (at least for some activities) that is part of the normal agency budgeting process—and visible as a line item (tell me what it is). Operations funds are allocated statewide by central office. • Staffing slots are available to add opera- tions staff to central office and districts • Highest-level manager with 100% respon- sibility for operations reports directly to CEO, chief engineer, or COO • Within the central office, operations, traffic engineering, and ITS have been consoli- dated into systems operations • At district level, there is coordinated planning, budgeting, and maintenance related to ITS/operations under a single manager who reports to the district engineer • Core capacities have been identified in terms of an integrated staff capability for systems operations planning, design, implementation, and maintenance • All regional real-time operations, including emergencies, are handled out of the TMCs • Core capacities have been identified in a document. Job specs, training, and certifi- cation exist for key operations positions at central office and districts. • Documented, formal operational concepts exist for all the operations activities • Technology for communications and con- trol devices has been standardized statewide • DOT has formal co-training, written agree- ments with police and fire entities regard- ing basic incident management procedures and targets • DOT is in its second/third generation of outsourcing some operations functions (TMC, SSP) and has evolved a performance- based contract