National Academies Press: OpenBook

Guide to Improving Capability for Systems Operations and Management (2011)

Chapter: 1 THE INSTITUTIONAL CAPABILITY MATURITY MODEL

« Previous: Front Matter
Page 1
Suggested Citation:"1 THE INSTITUTIONAL CAPABILITY MATURITY MODEL." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Guide to Improving Capability for Systems Operations and Management. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14513.
×
Page 1
Page 2
Suggested Citation:"1 THE INSTITUTIONAL CAPABILITY MATURITY MODEL." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Guide to Improving Capability for Systems Operations and Management. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14513.
×
Page 2
Page 3
Suggested Citation:"1 THE INSTITUTIONAL CAPABILITY MATURITY MODEL." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Guide to Improving Capability for Systems Operations and Management. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14513.
×
Page 3
Page 4
Suggested Citation:"1 THE INSTITUTIONAL CAPABILITY MATURITY MODEL." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Guide to Improving Capability for Systems Operations and Management. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14513.
×
Page 4
Page 5
Suggested Citation:"1 THE INSTITUTIONAL CAPABILITY MATURITY MODEL." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Guide to Improving Capability for Systems Operations and Management. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14513.
×
Page 5
Page 6
Suggested Citation:"1 THE INSTITUTIONAL CAPABILITY MATURITY MODEL." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Guide to Improving Capability for Systems Operations and Management. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14513.
×
Page 6
Page 7
Suggested Citation:"1 THE INSTITUTIONAL CAPABILITY MATURITY MODEL." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Guide to Improving Capability for Systems Operations and Management. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14513.
×
Page 7
Page 8
Suggested Citation:"1 THE INSTITUTIONAL CAPABILITY MATURITY MODEL." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Guide to Improving Capability for Systems Operations and Management. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14513.
×
Page 8
Page 9
Suggested Citation:"1 THE INSTITUTIONAL CAPABILITY MATURITY MODEL." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Guide to Improving Capability for Systems Operations and Management. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14513.
×
Page 9
Page 10
Suggested Citation:"1 THE INSTITUTIONAL CAPABILITY MATURITY MODEL." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Guide to Improving Capability for Systems Operations and Management. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14513.
×
Page 10
Page 11
Suggested Citation:"1 THE INSTITUTIONAL CAPABILITY MATURITY MODEL." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Guide to Improving Capability for Systems Operations and Management. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14513.
×
Page 11
Page 12
Suggested Citation:"1 THE INSTITUTIONAL CAPABILITY MATURITY MODEL." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Guide to Improving Capability for Systems Operations and Management. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14513.
×
Page 12

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

1The purpose of this guide is to support transportation agencies in developing institu- tional arrangements suitable to the special demands of congestion management, now emerging as a new transportation agency priority. In particular, the strategy conven- tions appropriate to effective management of nonrecurring congestion (NRC) present new challenges for agency policy, organization and staffing, resources, and partner- ships, as well as for basic agency culture and leadership. This guide focuses on these special institutional challenges in the form of a change management tool called the Institutional Capability Maturity Model. The background to the development of the guide is presented in the accompanying SHRP 2 research report, Institutional Architectures to Improve Systems Operations and Management (1). The guide is based on real-world experiences of transporta- tion agencies, especially state departments of transportation (DOTs), across a range of levels of application of the conventional strategies that focus on NRC, which is responsible, on average, for about 50% of delays in metropolitan areas. The research included a review of key features of the typical congestion management program activ- ities and the technical and business processes that characterize the more effective pro- grams. From this analysis, the institutional preconditions most supportive of the more effective programs were identified and incorporated into the guide. The guide structure is based on an adaptation of the Capability Maturity Model widely used in the information technology industry to improve product quality and reliability. The basic concepts were adapted to provide transportation agency manage- ment with a tool to improve congestion management capabilities. The model starts with agency self-evaluation to determine the current state of play and provides related appropriate incremental strategies for evolving toward institutional arrangements most supportive of congestion management. The rationale and structure of the Institu- tional Capability Maturity Model used in this guide are described briefly below. 1 THE INSTITUTIONAL CAPABILITY MATURITY MODEL

2GUIDE TO IMPROVING CAPABILITY FOR SYSTEMS OPERATIONS AND MANAGEMENT FOCUS ON INSTITUTIONAL SUPPORT FOR NONRECURRING CONGESTION STRATEGY APPLICATIONS To minimize the impacts of NRC, the key congestion management strategy applica- tions involve active systems operations and management (SO&M). The guide em- phasizes that SO&M strategies present special challenges owing to their real-time, event-responsive nature and the need to combine technology, adopted procedures, and organized interagency roles. The strategies include the following: • Incident management in response to crashes, breakdowns, hazardous mate- rial spills, and other emergencies, including multijurisdictional integrated corridor management; • Road weather management in response to heavy rain, wind, snow, and ice; • Work zone traffic management focused on traffic control plans to minimize the impacts of reduced capacity; • Special events planning and management to accommodate event patrons with minimal traffic disruption; and • Active traffic management employing lane-use and speed control, as well as the management of diversions, to minimize flow disruption and incidents. ELEMENTS OF INSTITUTIONAL CAPABILITY MATURITY Research conducted as part of Institutional Architectures to Improve Systems Op- erations and Management (1) indicates that key institutional features are important determinants of a transportation agency’s ability to improve the outcomes associated with these strategy applications. It indicated that agencies with more comprehensive strategy applications—increasingly integrated and standardized—are distinguished from agencies with less well-developed SO&M activities in terms of the following four elements of institutional capability maturity: • Culture/leadership related to the level of understanding and potential leverage of SO&M, as reflected in values, mission, leadership, and related legal arrangements and strategy applications, and as demonstrated by leadership; • Organization and staffing related to how structure aligns responsibilities and ac- countabilities vertically and horizontally, consistent with capabilities and incentives at the staff level; • Resource allocation for operations and capital, and the degree of transparency and sustainability in relationship to program improvement; and • Partnerships in terms of degree of alignment and stability in objectives, proce- dures, roles, and relationships.

3GUIDE TO IMPROVING CAPABILITY FOR SYSTEMS OPERATIONS AND MANAGEMENT The guide focuses on these substantial (nontechnical) institutional elements that describe whether, how, and with whom an agency pursues SO&M. Therefore, it is important to distinguish between business and technical processes (such as planning, programming, systems and technology, performance measurement) and the program (consisting of strategies to address NRC, as listed above). RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TECHNICAL AND BUSINESS PROCESSES AND INSTITUTIONAL ARCHITECTURE The guide is based on the premise that the effectiveness of SO&M strategy applica- tions is dependent on business and technical processes that are, in turn, substantially dependent on the degree of support provided by the institutional elements listed above. The configurations, relationships, and arrangements that relate the four elements are called the “institutional architecture.” As determined in the research, there are some architectures that appear to be supportive of a higher level of institutional capability maturity. Figure 1.1 diagrams this basic concept of the model, showing the relation- ships between process and institutional characteristics. The figure also illustrates in- creasing levels of institutional capability maturity in support of SO&M programs of increasing comprehensiveness and effectiveness. Figure 1.1. Relationship between more effective processes and supportive institutional architecture. Planned, standardized program Formal processes Informal opportunistic program Transitioning processes Performance- driven, integrated program and processes Improved architecture (Rationalized) Target architecture (Mainstreamed) Current architecture (Ad hoc)

4GUIDE TO IMPROVING CAPABILITY FOR SYSTEMS OPERATIONS AND MANAGEMENT LEVELS OF INSTITUTIONAL CAPABILITY MATURITY An examination of the experience of transportation agencies (particularly state DOTs) indicates that the four elements of institutional architecture tend to evolve together to- ward institutional frameworks increasingly supportive of SO&M. The following three distinct combinations of features, in levels of increasing capability to support effective SO&M, have been identified (see also Table 1.1): • Level 1: Ad Hoc. An architecture reflecting a legacy 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, as reflected in the transitioning states. This state of play is reflected in a legacy organizational struc- ture and informal resource allocation, fragmented 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 reflecting an appreciation of SO&M as a distinct activity with related adjustments in arrangements, resources, and roles to ac- commodate the distinct demands of SO&M, as reflected in the mature states. • Level 3: Mainstreamed. An architecture (hypothetical) in which SO&M is consid- ered a core mission, with appropriate formal and standardized arrangements (equiva- lent to other core programs) configured to support continuous improvement as an ideal target. The point of departure for this spectrum of levels is Level 1, reflected by the many state DOTs 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 allocation process for SO&M, and formal relationships with partners. Between the transitioning situa- tion and the ideal is Level 2, already evident in state DOTs committed to formalizing SO&M as a core program and who are undertaking changes to rationalize organiza- tion, staffing, resource allocation, and partner relationships toward that end. TABLE 1.1. BASIC INSTITUTIONAL CAPABILITY MATURITY ELEMENTS AND LEVELS Institutional Elements Level 1 Ad Hoc Level 2 Rationalized Level 3 Mainstreamed Culture/ leadership Mixed, hero driven Championed/ internalized across disciplines Commitment to customer mobility Organization and staffing Fragmented, understaffed Aligned, trained Integrated Resource allocation Project level Criteria-based program Sustainable budget line item Partnerships Informal, unaligned Formal, aligned Consolidated

5GUIDE TO IMPROVING CAPABILITY FOR SYSTEMS OPERATIONS AND MANAGEMENT Criteria for the Levels For purposes of guidance to change to a more process-supportive institutional archi- tecture, additional specification is necessary. Table 1.2 presents the criteria that define the institutional capability maturity levels for each of the four elements in greater detail. Each cell represents either a point of departure or a target for improving archi- tecture to the next level. The table provides criteria for each element at each level, but it does not provide guidance on the strategies for moving to the next level. Transporta- tion agencies can plot their current position and targets for improvement. Capability Improvement Strategies at Each Level For each of the four elements of institutional architecture, there is a set of generic strat- egies that has been, and can be, used to make the required adjustments. The generic 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 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 resource allocation, moving from Level 1 to 2 may involve a systematic determination of needs, whereas moving from Level 2 to 3 may involve formal budgeting. There is a parallel progression for all the strategies. Key strategies associated with each institu- tional architecture category are shown in Table 1.3. Within the model framework, four standard rules of maturity models have been developed: • Each incremental level of maturity within a given element of institutional architec- ture establishes 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. MANAGING IMPROVEMENTS IN INSTITUTIONAL MATURITY This guide, through the templates on the following pages, indicates what needs to be done institutionally to provide a supportive basis for more effective SO&M programs and processes. However, how these changes will be implemented is an additional chal- lenge that will vary from context to context and be highly dependent on circumstances and leadership. Changes in institutional architecture that are supportive of the im- proved SO&M process and programs are not likely to happen without a deliberate change in management strategy.

6GUIDE TO IMPROVING CAPABILITY FOR SYSTEMS OPERATIONS AND MANAGEMENT TABLE 1.2. CRITERIA FOR INSTITUTIONAL CAPABILITY MATURITY Elements Levels of Capability Maturity Level 1 Ad Hoc Level 2 Rationalized Level 3 Mainstreamed Culture/ leadership Mixed, hero driven • Operations value not widely appreciated (lack of message). • Middle management heroes promote program. • Full legal authority not established. Championed/internalized across disciplines • Visible agency leadership citing operations leverage, cost-effectiveness, and risks. • Customer outreach and feedback. Commitment to customer mobility • Customer mobility service commitment accepted as formal core program. • Clear legal authority for operations roles; actions among transportation agency, public safety agencies (PSAs), local government clarified. Organization and staffing Fragmented, understaffed • Legacy roles: Some fragmentation of key functions and boundaries, both horizontally and vertically. • Hero driven: Reliance on key individual for technical knowledge and champions for leadership. Aligned, trained • Transportation Management Center (TMC) focus with vertical and horizontal authority or responsibility alignment for operations for the life of a project. • Accountability to top management. • Core capacities established with knowledge, skill, ability specifications, training, and performance incentives in clear career paths. Integrated • Top-level management position with operations orientation established in central office and districts. • Professionalization and certification of operations core capacity positions including performance incentives. Resource allocation Project level • Resource allocation at project level, ad hoc, unpredictable, buried, invisible. • Apparent limited eligibility of existing funds for operations. Criteria-based program • Budget allocation for operations driven by transparent criteria on effectiveness and life-cycle needs basis. • Funding levels based on relationship to identified needs. Sustainable budget line item • Operations is a formal, visible, and sustainable line item in agency’s budget—capital, operating, and maintenance. • Trade-offs between operations and capital expenditures considered as part of the planning process. Partnerships Informal, unaligned • Nontransportation entities unaligned with transportation objectives, procedures relying on informal personal basis. • Outsourcing to private sector used for isolated functions. Formal, aligned • Rationalization of responsibilities by formal agreements across institutions (transportation agency, PSAs, private). • Outsourcing revised to meet agency technical, staffing, and management objectives. Consolidated • High level of operations coordination (memorandums of understanding) among owner/operators with TMC consolidation. • Outsourcing performance managed while maintaining agency’s core capacities.

7GUIDE TO IMPROVING CAPABILITY FOR SYSTEMS OPERATIONS AND MANAGEMENT TABLE 1.3. BASIC MATURITY STRATEGIES FOR INSTITUTIONAL ELEMENTS Strategies for Elements Criteria for Levels Level 1 Ad Hoc Level 2 Rationalized Level 3 Mainstreamed Culture/leadership • Undertake educational program on SO&M as customer service. • Exert visible senior leadership. • Establish formal core program. • Rationalize state DOT authority. • Internalize customer service performance as ethic. • Commit to continuous improvement as agency mode. Mixed, hero driven Championed/ internalized across disciplines Commitment to customer mobility Organization and staffing • Establish top-level SO&M executive structure. • Establish appropriate organizational structure. • Identify core capacities. • Determine and allocate responsibility, accountability, and incentives. Fragmented, understaffed Aligned, trained Integrated Resource allocation • Develop program-level budget estimate. • 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. Project level Criteria-based program Sustainable budget line item Partnerships • 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. Informal, unaligned Formal, aligned Consolidated

8GUIDE TO IMPROVING CAPABILITY FOR SYSTEMS OPERATIONS AND MANAGEMENT As discussed in Institutional Architectures to Improve Systems Operations and Management (1), change may happen in an evolutionary way without a significant change in management initiative. However, it is important to recognize the barriers and constraints that inhibit change; the principal ones are indicated in Table 1.4. There are two main types of change: managed change, which stems from internal agency management, and externally driven change. Managed Change Managed change, in which leadership within an organization makes deliberate changes in program, process, or institutional arrangements, represents a departure from the ex- isting legacy arrangements and is openly acknowledged as such. The drivers to these more discrete changes tend to be a combination of professional predisposition and agency leadership who articulate the need for change in a way that makes the need more widely apparent. They also tend to oversee a program of appropriate changes (as specified in the transition to a higher level). The following briefly describes the types of managed change: • Middle management–led change. Committed professionals can have a significant impact from the inside out and up. • Top management–led change. In a few instances, SO&M has been encouraged by new CEO leadership mandating or authorizing a department-wide process to im- prove SO&M. This can involve consolidating and strengthening the systems opera- tions functions at a statewide program level, in central offices as well as key regions. TABLE 1.4. BARRIERS TO INSTITUTIONAL CHANGE Change Elements Barriers Culture/leadership • Limited public and elected-leader support. • Significant capacity construction program. • Limited internal middle management support. • Fuzzy legislative authority. Organization and staffing • Absence of experienced SO&M manager(s). • Shortfall or turnover in qualified staff. • Staffing-level constraints. Resource allocation • State funding ineligible for SO&M. • Competition for resources from other program backlogs. • No performance outcome measures. Partnerships • Conflicting partner priorities.

9GUIDE TO IMPROVING CAPABILITY FOR SYSTEMS OPERATIONS AND MANAGEMENT Externally Driven Change Events outside the control of management have been the key drivers of change in SO&M. The following types of change have been observed among state DOTs regarding significant increments in attention to SO&M: event driven, incident driven, constraint driven, federal program incentives, and new regional institutional configurations. Event-driven change occurs when anticipated major traffic impacts in response to major external events stimulate significant change. Major one-time or annual sports events (e.g., Olympics or auto races) and conferences are the two most prevalent types of events for which extensive planning is undertaken to preserve general mobility and minimize disruption while accommodating the event. These anticipated events have required significant improvements in operational capacity, including new infrastruc- ture, new special procedures, and new relationships. Incident-driven change happens when major unplanned events causing major disruptions bring about across-the-board improvements in SO&M. These incidents include natural disasters, major weather events such as snowstorms, and major traffic incidents ranging from crashes to extensive seasonal recreation congestion. With the disruption, delay, and loss of system reliability associated with such major NRC events—especially those with high public and policy visibility—the need for specific changes in one or more operations activities becomes compelling, with strong public and policy support or imperatives. Immediate action is usually required as a matter of agency credibility, including the need to demonstrate visible change and positive outcomes. Although the response is often limited to a specific activity, there are a few cases in which the response to a particular event and location has been extended by management to the statewide program level and is often accompanied by changes in process and institutional arrangements. In the face of constraints such as financial or environmental limitations, expensive capital projects to increase highway capacity are often infeasible. SO&M then gains credibility as a relatively inexpensive way to improve the efficiency of the existing roadway. This driver of change becomes most apparent where congestion levels are extremely high and capacity improvement opportunity limitations are openly acknowl- edged by the transportation agency and accepted by traditional highway stakeholders. Federal funds from program incentives have been used to introduce planning and systems architecture requirements and are increasingly focused on performance mea- surement. FHWA has also promoted research, technical exchange, and definitions of current best practice. FHWA also provides dedicated funding. These actions have increased the visibility and legitimacy of intelligent transportation systems (ITS) and SO&M within transportation policy and encouraged state and local involvement. New regional institutional configurations can also drive change. There are a num- ber of substate entities (e.g., local governments, MPOs) that have taken the initia- tive to develop cooperative regional efforts for interagency collaboration in improving SO&M, with state DOTs as one of several cooperative entities. It should be noted that there are often multiple drivers of change—or a sequence of drivers—that provide impetus for increased focus on SO&M.

10 GUIDE TO IMPROVING CAPABILITY FOR SYSTEMS OPERATIONS AND MANAGEMENT BUILDING ON CHANGE-DRIVEN MOMENTUM In response to some of the major external events, key external stakeholders, policy makers, and the public have developed expectations that a specific transportation agency response will minimize the potential impact of similar events in the future. It is no surprise, therefore, that major external events have been associated with enabling, if not forcing, change associated with nearly all of the significant progress made by several of the state DOTs with the more mature programs. The events reduce the bar- riers to otherwise difficult or expensive organizational changes, increased funding, and changed relationships with external partners (such as law enforcement). Transporta- tion change managers—middle or top management—can capitalize on the opportunity to institute such important changes that otherwise might not be possible. However, effectively capitalizing on such events requires that the agency have a general strategy in place to seize these windows of opportunity to standardize and extend the specific event-driven program and organizational changes into improved day-to-day SO&M across the agency as a whole. Even in constrained contexts, it can be extremely valuable to have an improvement program on the shelf to use when cir- cumstances permit focusing on the key elements most directly implicated, as well as to use to seize the momentum for more general improvements. CHANGE MANAGEMENT TACTICS The Institutional Capability Maturity Model is not the complete recipe for change management; it provides a framework for determining what needs to be done and the strategies for making institutional changes in a direction that is more supportive to aggressive congestion management. However, the strategies themselves must be man- aged and carried out by appropriate staff. The guide is not intended to provide gen- eral change management tactics. There is substantial existing strategic management literature, including approaches such as process engineering, balanced scorecards, and Baldrige criteria. Each of these approaches includes a version of the standard, generic steps of change management that would be generally applicable to all the components of the guide. They typically include the following: • Joint (consensus) identification of the problem, opportunity, or challenge within the change manager’s span of control or influence to create a sense of urgency. This activity is clearly relevant to institutional maturity in congestion management; the focus of an agency culture shifts toward operations—based on both the constraints facing alternative service improvement options and the potential of congestion man- agement opportunities. An understanding of these technical issues is an essential point of departure. • Developing a vision and defining the general changes needed and the specifics for priority components, which may be limited by the change manager’s span of control (see below). This activity corresponds to the adoption of the Institutional Capability Maturity Model as the template for managed change and the development of a com- mitment to use it on a continuing basis as a component of formal strategic planning.

11 GUIDE TO IMPROVING CAPABILITY FOR SYSTEMS OPERATIONS AND MANAGEMENT • 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. aashtosomguidance.org.

Next: 2 GUIDANCE TEMPLATES »
Guide to Improving Capability for Systems Operations and Management Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

TRB’s second Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP 2) Report S2-L06-RR-2: Guide to Improving Capability for Systems Operations and Management examines the way transportation agencies should be organized to successfully execute operations programs that improve travel time reliability.

After the guide was submitted for publication, the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) converted the SHRP 2 Reliability Project L06 research into a web-based tool that is designed to be user-friendly, easy to access, and updatable. The web tool, Transportation Systems Management and Operations Guidance , is available on the AASHTO website at http://www.aashtosomguidance.org.

An e-book version of this report is available for purchase at Google, iTunes, and Amazon.

The same project that produced SHRP 2 Report S2-L06-RR-2 also produced SHRP 2 Report S2-L06-RR-1: Institutional Architectures to Improve Systems Operations and Management.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!