Click for next page ( 12

The National Academies | 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 11
Creating or building a team of change agents. This may be specific individuals with specified responsibilities or a task force. Application of the maturity model requires the formation of a team or unit with the responsibility of applying the method with the appropriate units within the agency. Sharing the vision and creating buy-in among the widest possible group of staff members that are needed to understand and support the changes. The Institutional Capability Maturity Model is applied in a self-evaluation context, in which key man- agement and staff evaluate their current situation with regard to the level criteria and develop their own custom-tailored version of the next steps and strategies to get there, which results in an internalized understanding of and buy-in to the changes required. Empowering the change agents with the necessary support, resources, and authority to make the necessary changes. Installing the maturity model as a continuing strategic change process requires both a broad, shared understanding of the objectives and staff capability to manage and monitor the change commitments made for each element in the maturity framework. Each of the level transition strategies is a task to be managed. Using an incremental approach to create visible, early wins to generate momentum and wider support. This is focused on results, not activities. REFERENCE 1. Parsons Brinckerhoff, Delcan, George Mason University School of Public Policy, and Housman and Associates. SHRP 2 Report S2-L06-RW-1: Institutional Architectures to Improve Systems Operations and Management. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., forthcoming. Note After this guide was submitted for publication, the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) decided to support the conversion of this project's research into a web-based tool that would be user friendly, easy to access, and updatable. This work was done under the Transportation Research Board's NCHRP Project 03-94, Transportation Sys- tems Operations and Management Guide. The web tool, Systems Operations and Management Guidance, is available on the AASHTO website at www. 11 GUIDE TO IMPROVING CAPABILITY FOR SYSTEMS OPERATIONS AND MANAGEMENT

OCR for page 11