Click for next page ( 39


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 38
PARTNERSHIPS TEMPLATE This section discusses the partnership element of institutional architecture (Table 2.7). Table 2.8 illustrates the levels and the objectives for the next steps to improvement. TABLE 2.7. PARTNERSHIPS: OPERATIONS MATURITY FRAMEWORK Institutional Architecture Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Elements Ad Hoc Rationalized Mainstreamed Culture/leadership Mixed, hero driven Championed/ Commitment to internalized across customer mobility disciplines Organization and Fragmented, Aligned, trained Integrated staffing understaffed Resource allocation Project level Criteria-based Sustainable budget program line item Partnerships Informal, Formal, aligned Consolidated unaligned 38 GUIDE TO IMPROVING CAPABILITY FOR SYSTEMS OPERATIONS AND MANAGEMENT

OCR for page 38
TABLE 2.8. PARTNERSHIPS: LEVELS AND OBJECTIVES FOR IMPROVEMENT Strategies to Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Advance Level Ad Hoc Rationalized Mainstreamed 1. Agreement on Informal unaligned Aligned objectives and Rationalized roles. operational roles and relationships. roles. procedures with PSAs From L1 to L2: Agreements on DOT/PSA From L2 to L3: Rationalized state DOT/PSA roles and responsibilities. roles and responsibilities. Rationalized roles and responsibilities in Formal interagency-level agreement to light of agency priorities, resources, and develop cooperative approach respecting effectiveness. the objectives of all parties. 2. Identify Limited interactions with Cooperative planning, Regional cooperative opportunities for joint local government. programming, and mechanisms in place. operations activities operations. with local government From L1 to L2: Cooperative planning, From L2 to L3: Regional cooperative and MPOs programming, and operations. mechanisms in place. Cooperative interagency plan for Integrated strategies with role adjustments operations (short and long range). for efficiency. 3. Develop procedures Inconsistent application Traffic impact-oriented Aggressive procedures that accommodate of nominal procedures. procedures. to maximize mobility- partners' goals and based performance maximize mobility measurement activity or (minimum disruption) outcome measurement. From L1 to L2: Traffic impact-oriented From L2 to L3: Aggressive procedures to procedures. maximize mobility. Development of (new) concepts of Consistent applications of traffic- operations and related procedures optimized approaches. that minimize delay and disruption, irrespective of conventional approaches. 4. Rationalize staff Inconsistent approach to Basic business model for Clarified, rationalized versus outsourcing outsourcing. service delivery. business model activities, for publicprivate responsibilities, and partnerships. oversight From L1 to L2: Basic business model for From L2 to L3: Clarified, rationalized service delivery. business model for publicprivate Policy on in-house staff roles in service partnerships. delivery versus outsourcing or devolved Consistent approach to outsourcing roles. regarding contracting procedures, performance management, time frame of contracts. 39 GUIDE TO IMPROVING CAPABILITY FOR SYSTEMS OPERATIONS AND MANAGEMENT

OCR for page 38
Partnerships Strategy 1: Agreement on Operational Roles and Procedures with Public Safety Agencies Relationship to Program and Process Effective delivery of key SO&M strategy applications requires close cooperation be- tween DOTs and public safety agencies (PSAs). Cooperation involves shared priorities, clear roles, and consensus practices that can substantially resolve issues with changes in conventional procedures that may support DOT objectives without compromising those of the partners. Points of Departure (Levels of Capability) and Related Improvement Strategy Level 1: Informal Unaligned Relationships In a Level 1 organization, there is a modest level of SO&M cooperation and coordina- tion between the state DOT and PSAs. Roles and procedures are informal, personal, and subject to uncertainty with turnover. The following strategies can help raise a Level 1 organization to Level 2: Conduct regional-level joint workshops to develop consensus on goals, best prac- tices, and general procedures. Conduct co-training in field procedures and protocols. Establish regular debriefings related to major events. Level 2: Aligned Objectives and Roles In a Level 2 organization, there are formal, agency-level agreements regarding roles and procedures. The following strategies can raise a Level 2 organization to Level 3: Develop a formal interagency-level agreement (MOU) for the cooperative ap- proach respecting the objectives of all parties and build it into agency policies and plans (especially incident management, work zone traffic control). Establish policy evolving toward operations centers and possibly co-location of partners. Cooperate with PSAs in support of necessary changes in state law to support im- proved effectiveness of roles and procedures related to congestion and safety. Develop a joint formal commitment to procedural improvement based on perfor- mance (such as application timeline targets). Level 3: Rationalized Roles At Level 3, roles of agencies are organized for maximum strategy effectiveness. Responsibility Some issues can be resolved at the regional level. Major changes in procedures (e.g., Incident Command System or towing) require top management peer-to-peer dialogue supported by examples from other state contexts. 40 GUIDE TO IMPROVING CAPABILITY FOR SYSTEMS OPERATIONS AND MANAGEMENT

OCR for page 38
Partnerships Strategy 2: Identify Opportunities for Joint Operations Activities with Local Government and MPOs Relationship to Program and Process At the state-of-the-art level, most SO&M strategies involve both state and local gov- ernment. An essential component of developing a program in a multijurisdictional environment is a strong and institutionalized working relationship among state, local, and regional entities (MPOs) that supports effective regional SO&M planning, pro- gramming, and implementation. Points of Departure (Levels of Capability) and Related Improvement Strategy Level 1: Limited Interactions with Local Government In a Level 1 organization, there is a modest level of SO&M cooperation and coordina- tion between state and local governments (uneven, informal) in terms of developing regional operations solutions and in terms of the capacity (fiscal, technical) of local jurisdictions to play a significant role. The following strategies can help raise a Level 1 organization to Level 2: Develop an interagency task force on SO&M at appropriate geographic levels (region, corridor). Prepare a cooperative interagency plan for phased improvement of operations (short and long range). Execute agency-level formal agreements with local governments and MPOs regarding rationalized roles and responsibilities in cooperative delivery of SO&M-related services. Standardize cooperation mechanisms on a statewide basis. Level 2: Cooperative Planning, Programming, and Operations In a Level 2 organization, SO&M is included in the MPO regional plan and programs. Active regional task forces focus on operations issues. The following strategies can raise a Level 2 organization to Level 3: Pursue reorganization of federal and state funding categories and responsibilities at the regional level to include operations. Develop multijurisdictional programs (interlocal) for funding and operating non- state facilities and for integrated corridors. Consider use of state funds, cost sharing, and technology transfer to incentivize regional cooperation. Share or consolidate real-time operational coordination and oversight via TMC, co-location, and staffing. Level 3: Regional Cooperative Mechanisms in Place At Level 3, there is an integrated SO&M program at the regional level. 41 GUIDE TO IMPROVING CAPABILITY FOR SYSTEMS OPERATIONS AND MANAGEMENT

OCR for page 38
Responsibility The district level has the lead responsibility for planning and programming, with sup- port from headquarters. 42 GUIDE TO IMPROVING CAPABILITY FOR SYSTEMS OPERATIONS AND MANAGEMENT

OCR for page 38
Partnerships Strategy 3: Develop Procedures That Accommodate Partners' Goals and Maximize Mobility (Minimum Disruption) Relationship to Program and Process Nominal applications of SO&M strategies--based on narrow roles, mixed priorities, traditional roles, limited ITS--are likely to have little impact on performance. Points of Departure (Levels of Capability) and Related Improvement Strategy Level 1: Inconsistent Application of Nominal Procedures In a Level 1 organization, there is a lack of agreed-on concepts of operations for all strategy applications and no consistent effort to measure and improve effectiveness. The following strategies can help raise a Level 1 organization to Level 2: Develop external stakeholder (system users) support for substantial improvements in congestion-related procedures and protocols. Develop (new) concepts of operations and related procedures that minimize delay and disruption and are beyond conventional roles and practices. Agree with partners (e.g., PSAs, local governments) to commit to continuous improvement. Level 2: Traffic Impact-Oriented Procedures In a Level 2 organization, there is agreement among partners (public and private) on improved procedures, with performance-based benchmarking against best practice. The following strategies can raise a Level 2 organization to Level 3: Identify and analyze state-of-practice procedures for strategy applications and commit to apply traffic-optimized approaches. Develop a mechanism to maintain awareness of industry best practice and new developments beyond existing conventions. Cultivate DOT partners' willingness to modify traditional approaches to achieve minimal disruption via demonstrated payoffs in cost, safety, and mobility. Level 3: Aggressive Procedures to Maximize Mobility-Based Performance Measurement Activity or Outcome Measurement At Level 3 there is acceptance of a performance-driven process of refinement and up- grading of procedures. Responsibility The responsibility should be developed on a statewide basis, although individual dis- tricts can take the lead. 43 GUIDE TO IMPROVING CAPABILITY FOR SYSTEMS OPERATIONS AND MANAGEMENT

OCR for page 38
Partnerships Strategy 4: Rationalize Staff Versus Outsourcing Activities, Responsibilities, and Oversight Relationship to Program and Process Efficient organizational planning is dependent on a clear business model regarding the role of the public and private sectors--including the roles in relation to in-house staff and the approach to managing outsourced activities to meet DOT objectives. Outsourcing may be considered as a strategy to increase or maintain SO&M in light of staffing or hiring constraints. The private sector may possess unique technol- ogy, cost advantages, or management capabilities. Points of Departure (Levels of Capability) and Related Improvement Strategy Level 1: Inconsistent Approach to Outsourcing In a Level 1 organization, the DOT uses outsourcing without clear policy or strate- gic context regarding the impact on retention of core competencies and without the special skills or procedures needed to manage outsourcing. The existing outsourcing arrangements may lack consistency, performance orientation, and clear interagency understanding. The following strategies can help raise a Level 1 organization to Level 2: Identify issues and options regarding outsourcing (TMC, service safety patrol, towing and recovery, asset management, private data) to meet overall agency techni- cal, staffing, and management objectives and core capacity retention. Develop policy on in-house staff roles in service delivery versus outsourcing or devolving roles. Level 2: Basic Business Model for Service Delivery In a Level 2 organization, essential core agency capabilities have been identified and a consistent statewide performance management approach to outsourced services has been developed. The following strategies can raise a Level 2 organization to Level 3: Establish a consistent statewide approach to outsourcing with regard to procure- ment, contracting procedures, performance management, and time frame of contracts. Identify and develop a sustainable business model regarding field activity roles (state personnel versus external) that considers all factors of cost, core capacity, ac- countability, and so forth. Level 3: Clarified, Rationalized Business Model for PublicPrivate Partnerships At Level 3, the DOT has a clear and sustainable business model regarding in-house versus outsourced roles and how they are managed. Responsibility The central office is responsible for this strategy. 44 GUIDE TO IMPROVING CAPABILITY FOR SYSTEMS OPERATIONS AND MANAGEMENT