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 9
9
Table ES.3. Correlation between Process Maturity Levels and
Institutional Architectural Levels
Program and Process Level 1 Level 2 Level 3
Capabilities Transitioning Mature Integrated
Scoping Narrow and Needs based and Full range core program
opportunistic standardized
Technical processes Informal, Planned, mainstreamed Integrated,
undocumented documented
Technology and systems Project oriented, Rational quantitative Standardized C/E
development qualitative evaluation systems/platforms
Performance measurement Outputs reported Outcomes used Performance
accountability
Institutional
Architecture Level 1 Level 2 Level 3
Elements Ad Hoc Rationalized Mainstreamed
Culture/leadership Mixed, hero driven Championed/ Customer mobility
internalized across committed
disciplines
Organization and staffing Fragmented, Aligning, trained Professionalized
understaffed
Resource allocation Project level Criteria-based program Sustainable budget line
item
Partnerships Informal, unaligned Formal, aligned Consolidated
managed, formalized, 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 Level 2
may involve a systematic determination of needs, whereas moving from Level 2 to Level 3 may
involve formal budgeting. There is a parallel progression for all the strategies. Key strategies asso-
ciated with each institutional architecture category are shown in Table ES.5.
Using the Model as Guidance
For use as guidance in improving institutional maturity, the above strategies for transitioning from
one level of maturity to the next are presented in a series of steps and strategy matrices. In devel-
oping the detailed guidance framework, the four standard rules of maturity models are applied:
· Each incremental level of maturity within a given element of institutional architecture estab-
lishes the basis for the agency's ability to progress to the next higher level of effectiveness.
· Levels cannot be skipped.
· Each level of technical and business processes needs specific institutional support.
· The overall level of maturity for an organization is defined by the lowest level of institutional
maturity of any element.
The Guide to Improving Capability for Systems Operations and Management (Parsons
Brinckerhoff et al., 2011) is presented in a series of tables that allow the user to define
the agency point of departure. The tables indicate the next logical step in maturity in terms
OCR for page 10
10
Table ES.4. Criteria for Institutional Capability Maturity
Levels of Capability Maturity
Level 1 Level 2 Level 3
Elements Ad Hoc Rationalized Mainstreamed
Culture/ Mixed, hero driven Championed/internalized Commitment to
leadership · Operations value not across disciplines customer mobility
widely appreciated · Visible agency leader- · Customer mobility
(lack of message). ship citing operations service commitment
· Middle management leverage, cost- accepted as formal
heroes promote effectiveness, core program.
program. and risks. · Clear legal authority
· Full legal authority not · Customer outreach for operations roles;
established. and feedback. actions among trans-
portation agency, pub-
lic safety agencies
(PSAs), local govern-
ment clarified.
Organization Fragmented, Aligned, trained Integrated
and staffing understaffed · Transportation · Top-level manage-
· Legacy roles: Some Management Center ment position with
fragmentation of key (TMC) focus with ver- operations orientation
functions and bound- tical and horizontal established in central
aries, both horizontally authority or responsi- office and districts.
and vertically. bility alignment for · Professionalization
· Hero driven: Reliance operations for the life and certification of
on key individual for of a project. operations core
technical knowledge · Accountability to top capacity positions
and champions for management. including performance
leadership. · Core capacities estab- incentives.
lished with knowledge,
skill, ability specifica-
tions, training, and
performance incen-
tives in clear career
paths.
Resource Project level Criteria-based program Sustainable budget
allocation · Resource allocation at · Budget allocation for line item
project level, ad hoc, operations driven by · Operations is a formal,
unpredictable, buried, transparent criteria visible, and sustain-
invisible. on effectiveness and able line item in
· Apparent limited eligi- life-cycle needs agency's budget--
bility of existing funds basis. capital, operating, and
for operations. · Funding levels based maintenance.
on relationship to · Trade-offs between
identified needs. operations and capital
expenditures consid-
ered as part of the
planning process.
Partnerships Informal, unaligned Formal, aligned Consolidated
· Nontransportation · Rationalization of · High level of operations
entities unaligned with responsibilities by coordination (memo-
transportation objec- formal agreements randums of under-
tives, procedures across institutions standing) among
relying on informal (transportation owner/operators with
personal basis. agency, PSAs, TMC consolidation.
· Outsourcing to private private). · Outsourcing perfor-
sector used for iso- · Outsourcing revised mance managed while
lated functions. to meet agency maintaining agency's
technical, staffing, core capacities.
and management
objectives.
OCR for page 11
11
Table ES.5. Basic Maturity Strategies for Institutional Elements
Criteria for Levels
Level 1 Level 2 Level 3
Strategies for Elements Ad Hoc Rationalized Mainstreamed
Culture/leadership Mixed, hero driven Championed/ Commitment to
· Undertake educational program on internalized customer
SO&M as customer service. across mobility
· Exert visible senior leadership. disciplines
· Establish formal core program.
· Rationalize state DOT authority.
· Internalize customer service
performance as ethic.
· Commit to continuous improvement
as agency mode.
Organization and staffing Fragmented, Aligned, trained Integrated
· Establish top-level SO&M executive understaffed
structure.
· Establish appropriate organizational
structure.
· Identify core capacities.
· Determine and allocate responsibility,
accountability, and incentives.
Resource allocation Project level Criteria-based Sustainable
· Develop program-level budget program budget
estimate. line item
· Introduce SO&M as a top-level
agency budget line item.
· Develop acceptance of sustainable
resourcing from state funds.
· Use performance and life-cycle costs
as resource allocation tool.
· Develop methodology for trade-offs.
Partnerships Informal, unaligned Formal, aligned Consolidated
· Agree on operational roles and
procedures with PSAs.
· Identify opportunities for joint
operations activities with local
government/metropolitan planning
organizations (MPOs).
· Develop procedures that
accommodate partners' goals
and maximize mobility (minimum
disruption).
· Rationalize staff versus outsourcing
activities, responsibilities, and
oversight.
of (a) the criteria for each level of each strategy and (b) the steps to move to the next level.
The general directions for using the guide and the steps used in the guide are as follows:
· Step 1. Identify the element of interest (culture/leadership, organization and staffing, resource
allocation, or partnerships). Note that all elements are necessary, but the state DOT 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 determine the point of departure
(current level). Use the model criteria for each element to determine the agency's current level
of maturity.
