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 8
8 · Resource allocation is without formal accommodation for ITS-related investments. These resources are often viewed as the first place to cut. · Partnerships (interjurisdictional roles and relationships) among operations participants, including PSAs, local governments, MPOs, the private sector, are exacerbated by informal and unstable partner relationships in congestion management activities. Capability Maturity Levels of Institutional Architecture Level 1 is reflected by the many transportation agencies that are transitioning into SO&M as an identifiable, managed activity. At the other end of the maturity scale is Level 3--an ideal agency culture, fully staffed within an efficient organizational structure, a transparent resource alloca- tion process for SO&M, and formal relationships with partners. Between the transitioning situ- ation and the ideal is Level 2, already evident in some state DOTs that are committed to formalizing SO&M as a core program and are making changes to rationalize organization, staffing, resource allocations, and partner relationships toward that end. These relationships reveal a pattern of institutional evolution toward configurations that are increasingly support- ive of effective SO&M processes. The three distinct levels of institutional capability maturity have been defined as follows: · Level 1: Ad hoc. An architecture that reflects a legacy of civil engineering culture in which SO&M activities are accommodated on an ad hoc and informal basis, typically as a subsidiary part of maintenance or capital project arrangements. This level, as exhibited in transitioning states, is reflected in a legacy organizational structure and informal resource allocation, frag- mented SO&M activities, ad hoc project-oriented business processes, and a narrow SO&M program with no clear sense of performance. · Level 2: Rationalized. An architecture exhibited in mature states that reflects an appreciation of SO&M as a distinct activity, with adjustments in arrangements, resources, and roles to accommodate the distinct features of SO&M. · Level 3: Mainstreamed. A hypothetical, fully integrated ideal of an architecture in which SO&M is considered a core mission, with appropriate formal and standardized arrangements (equivalent to other core programs) configured to support continuous improvement. The relationships between the process levels and their capabilities on the one hand and the institution architectures and their supporting features on the other constitute the framework for an institutional capability maturity model for SO&M. Table ES.3 summarizes the concept of the related levels of process and institutional maturity pictured in Figure ES.1. The levels of process maturity for each key process element are directly related to the levels of maturity of the key insti- tutional elements described. The project research provided considerable detail regarding the criteria for the three levels of institutional maturity. (Process maturity is not addressed in detail in this project other than to pro- vide structure for the criteria of levels of institutional maturity.) Table ES.4 presents the criteria that define the institutional architecture levels. Each cell within the table represents either a point of departure or a target for improving architecture to the next level. Transportation agencies can plot their current situation and their targets for improvement. Capability Improvement Strategies at Each Level For each of the four elements of institutional architecture, there is a set of generic strategies that have been and can be used to make the required adjustments to move up a level in institutional maturity. The strategies have their own related tactics associated with each level of maturity. The interpretation of strategies changes with successive levels. The differences reflect the increasingly