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
