Click for next page ( 6

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 5
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. 5 GUIDE TO IMPROVING CAPABILITY FOR SYSTEMS OPERATIONS AND MANAGEMENT

OCR for page 5
TABLE 1.2. 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 customer leadership O perations value not across disciplines mobility widely appreciated (lack of V isible agency leadership C ustomer mobility service message). citing operations leverage, commitment accepted as M iddle management cost-effectiveness, and formal core program. heroes promote program. risks. C lear legal authority for F ull legal authority not C ustomer outreach and operations roles; actions established. feedback. among transportation agency, public safety agencies (PSAs), local government clarified. Organization Fragmented, understaffed Aligned, trained Integrated and staffing L egacy roles: Some T ransportation Management T op-level management fragmentation of key Center (TMC) focus with position with operations functions and boundaries, vertical and horizontal orientation established in both horizontally and authority or responsibility central office and districts. vertically. alignment for operations for P rofessionalization and H ero driven: Reliance on the life of a project. certification of operations key individual for technical A ccountability to top core capacity positions knowledge and champions management. including performance for leadership. C ore capacities established incentives. with knowledge, skill, ability specifications, training, and performance incentives in clear career paths. Resource Project level Criteria-based program Sustainable budget line item allocation R esource allocation at B udget allocation for O perations is a formal, visible, project level, ad hoc, operations driven by and sustainable line item in unpredictable, buried, transparent criteria on agency's budget--capital, invisible. effectiveness and life-cycle operating, and maintenance. A pparent limited eligibility needs basis. T rade-offs between of existing funds for F unding levels based on operations and capital operations. relationship to identified expenditures considered as needs. part of the planning process. Partnerships Informal, unaligned Formal, aligned Consolidated N ontransportation R ationalization of H igh level of operations entities unaligned with responsibilities by formal coordination (memorandums transportation objectives, agreements across of understanding) among procedures relying on institutions (transportation owner/operators with TMC informal personal basis. agency, PSAs, private). consolidation. O utsourcing to private O utsourcing revised to O utsourcing performance sector used for isolated meet agency technical, managed while maintaining functions. staffing, and management agency's core capacities. objectives. 6 GUIDE TO IMPROVING CAPABILITY FOR SYSTEMS OPERATIONS AND MANAGEMENT

OCR for page 5
TABLE 1.3. 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 U ndertake educational program on internalized across customer mobility SO&M as customer service. disciplines Exert visible senior leadership. Establish formal core program. Rationalize state DOT authority. I nternalize customer service performance as ethic. C ommit to continuous improvement as agency mode. Organization and staffing Fragmented, Aligned, trained Integrated E stablish top-level SO&M executive understaffed structure. E stablish appropriate organizational structure. Identify core capacities. D etermine and allocate responsibility, accountability, and incentives. Resource allocation Project level Criteria-based Sustainable budget D evelop program-level budget program line item estimate. I ntroduce SO&M as a top-level agency budget line item. D evelop acceptance of sustainable resourcing from state funds. U se performance and life-cycle costs as resource allocation tool. Develop methodology for trade-offs. Partnerships Informal, unaligned Formal, aligned Consolidated A gree on operational roles and procedures with PSAs. I dentify opportunities for joint operations activities with local government/metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs). D evelop procedures that accommodate partners' goals and maximize mobility (minimum disruption). R ationalize staff versus outsourcing activities, responsibilities, and oversight. 7 GUIDE TO IMPROVING CAPABILITY FOR SYSTEMS OPERATIONS AND MANAGEMENT

OCR for page 5
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. 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. 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 managementled change. Committed professionals can have a significant impact from the inside out and up. Top managementled 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. 8 GUIDE TO IMPROVING CAPABILITY FOR SYSTEMS OPERATIONS AND MANAGEMENT

OCR for page 5
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 t raffic 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. 9 GUIDE TO IMPROVING CAPABILITY FOR SYSTEMS OPERATIONS AND MANAGEMENT