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.
CHAPTER 3. RESULTS OF AGENCY SURVEYS Introduction To supplement Me pertinent information contained In We literature and to determine the extent and nature of maintenance quality programs currently being practiced by highway agencies, a series of surveys and field reviews were conducted. This work effort consisted of an initial "feeler" questionnaire survey of many State highway and local roads agencies, a more ~n-dep~ questionnaire survey of selected respondents to the first survey, and on-site interviews win some of Me more experienced and focused agencies. The first questionnaire survey was a 2-page mailing designed to determine The size of an agency's maintenance budget, the areas of maintenance included in the budget, and the existence of QA programs for each of the maintenance areas. ~ all, 50 States (and Washington D.C. and Puerto Rico), 9 Provinces, 4 ton authorities, 106 counties, and 107 cities were solicited in this survey. The local roads agencies Included in the mailing were selected on a semi-random basis, win larger counties and municipalities receiving greater consideration Man smaller ones, Me logic being Mat Me larger agencies have a greater likelihood of having QA programs in place. Responses to Me first survey were received from 35 States (including Puerto Rico), 4 Provinces, 23 counties, and 20 cities, resulting in a total of 82 responses. About one- quarter of the respondents-mostly States-indicated having an in-place QA program In at least two areas of roadway maintenance. A second, more detailed questionnaire was developed and sent out to those agencies having a formal QA program. This questionnaire contained various questions on Me existence and use of LOS rating systems, QC practices, QA and Ql programs, and MMS's. Definitions of the above terms accompanied Me questionnaire so as to ensure consistent interpretations of Me systems and programs being practiced. The agencies solicited In this second survey consisted of Me following: - .L States /Provinces Flonda Towa Guiana Maryland Ohio Oregon, Region 4 Pennsylvania 1 exas Virginia Wisconsin British Columbia Counties Calcasieu Parish, LA Kern County, CA Ramsey County, MN Washoe County, NV 37 Cities Casper, WY Sioux Falls, SD Wichita, KS T ittle Rock, AR Virginia Beach, VA
Thirteen (13) agencies responded to Me survey, of which the following 7 were identified for further investigation of Weir QA programs through on-site reviews: · Florida. · Maryland. · Pennsylvania. . c, , · Washoe County, NV. · Oregon, Region 4. · British Columbia. Virginia Beach VA. The on-site reviews consisted primarily of personal interviews win key maintenance personnel at each agency. Dunng these I-day interviews, Me critical information tendered by these agencies in Me project surveys was confirmed, and more detailed inquiries were made of Weir LOS criteria and QA/QC processes. To ensure a consistent analysis of each agency, the same detailed inquiries were made in each interview. Initial Survey Results of Me initial project survey are summarized In this section. The object of this survey was to determine the magnitude of Me surveyed agencies budget, the types of maintenance performed by the agency, and Me existence of OA Programs within Me ~. ~. . _ An, v agency for the various areas ot maintenance. As previously mentioned' 82 responses were received for this survey: 35 States (including Puerto Rico), 4 Provinces, 23 counties, and 20 cities. Appendm B contains a sublunary table of all of Me crucial survey responses. Size of Agency The ~rutial survey was Intended to generate responses from a number of agencies of varying size and responsibility. ~ this way, a better understanding could be reached concerning Me ability of smaller agencies to foster quality programs. As seen in table 3, the annual maintenance budget, number of employees, and number of lan~miles maintained were much larger for State and Provincial respondents than for city and county respondents. For States and Provinces, the average total budget for maintenance was $217 minion, win a high of $760 million and a low of $22 million. For cities and counties, Me average total maintenance budget was $8.5 million, with a high of $30.7 million and a low of $~.0 million. 38
Table 3. Summary of respondent agencies' sizes and maintenance avocations. .. . Number of States and Number of Cities and Provincesa Counties ___- ~¢ 1~ - ~D o o . Stole lOto25 25 to 50 50 to 100 100 to 250 2SO to 500 >500 Amount of roadway maintained, lane-miles, <1,000 1,000 to 2,500 2,500 to 5,000 5,000 to 10,000 10,000 to 25,000 25,000 to 50,000 >50 000 , Number of employees <25 25 to 50 1 7 6 o o 20 o o o 12 9 Amount of maintenance contracted to pnvate ins 'ustry, $ million 1 50 to 100 - 100 to 500 500 to 1,000 15 12 12 2 o o o o - 9 8 4 0 0 0 4 3 13 19 1,000 to 2,000 - 2,000 to 3,000 > 3,000 O.ltol lto5 5to25 25 to 100 100 to 250 1 ~ Includes Puerto Rico 3 5 13 7 6 ~ 250 . b 1 mi = 1.61 km o - o - 6 20 5 - o o 4 39
The average amount of highway maintained by State and Provincial respondents was 37,400 lane-miles (60,210 km). The lowest number of lane-m~les maintained was 260 (419 km) (Hawaii), and the highest was 13S,000 (302,680 km) (Texas). The low and high observations for cities and counties were 107 and 7,100 lane-miles (172 km and 11,431 km), respectively, with an average of 2,077 lane-miles (3,344 km) of roadway maintained. There was also a great deal of variation among Me surveyed agencies win respect to We number of employees, the types of tasks performed, and Me percentage of work contracted out. Me number of employees in State and Provincial maintenance organizations ranged from 130 to 8,500, with an average of 2,203. For cities and counties, Me range was 13 to 505, win an average of 121 employees. Although State and Provincial agencies were largely involved in pavement and bridge maintenance, mowing and landscaping, drainage, snow and ice removal, and traffic services, only a handful of cities and counties performed roadside maintenance, and a much higher percentage of these agencies indicated pavement resurfacing and pavement sweeping. The approximate percentage of total funds spent on contract maintenance was 30 percent for States and Provinces, whereas for cities and counties it was 25 percent. Most of Me agencies surveyed indicated spending a portion of their total budget on contract maintenance. The results were fairly siTnilar for bow groups. Agencies spend an average of about 25 percent of their total budget on contract maintenance, win a range of O to close to 100 percent, depending on the size and structure of the particular agency. Maintenance Areas Included In Budget The orgaruzations surveyed were also asked to indicate what areas of maintenance are included in Weir overall budget and how much of the total budget Is allocated to each of these areas. Where and how much money is spent in venous maintenance areas differs greatly from agency to agency. Contributing factors include size of Me maintenance organization, structure and authority of Me organization, and geographic location. For instance, Me Province of Quebec spends $140 minion per year on snow and ice removal, whereas Me States of Florida and Hawaii spend no money on snow and ice removal. Generally, agencies spend Me largest portion of Weir budget on pavement maintenance and resurfacing. Over areas Included are roadside maintenance activities (general and agronomy), mowing/landscaping, bridge maintenance and rehabilitation, drainage, snow and ice removal, rest areas, traffic services, and various others. Again, no two agencies are exactly alike, so direct comparisons are difficult. See Appendix B for more detailed budget data for each organization. 40
Existence of OA Programs In Maintenance Areas The main purpose of the initial survey was to determine the existence of QA programs within the many areas of maintenance in each organization. Results of this question were used to decide which agencies would receive the second, more detailed survey. Of the 38 States and Provinces Mat completed We survey, 19 replied Mat they have no QA programs. The remaining agencies indicated Blat they currently have QA programs anyplace in some areas or are working on implementing ~em. Most of Me agencies that currently have QA programs seemed to have positive opinions of their perceived successfulness. Of the 41 cities and counties Mat responded to Me survey, 17 replied Mat Hey have no QA program. The remaining agencies answered Cat Hey already have some type of QA program Hat is being used In at least one area of maintenance, or Hey are currently putting one into place. A majority of He responses were favorable in regards to He effectiveness of the QA programs Cat are already in place. Second Survey The second survey, which consisted of a more detailed questionnaire accompanied by definitions of key terms, was sent to agencies who indicated In He crucial survey they had a formal QA program In several areas of maintenance. This survey contained questions pertaining to MMS's, LOS rating systems, QC programs, QA programs, and Ql programs. A total of 20 agencies were solicited, 13 (8 States, ~ Province, 2 cities, and 2 counties) of which responded (see appendix B for complete listing of responses). Nearly all of He seven agencies Hat did not respond were subsequently contacted by phone to get feedback on why Hey didn't respond. Most Indicated ~at, according to He stated definitions, Hey either had no QA program (e.g., Little Rock, Arkansas, and Ramsey County, Minnesota) or had a QA program for only one or two areas of maintenance (e.g., Wisconsin and Wichita, Kansas). Virginia, which was noted in He literature as having started a quality evaluation process in 1989 (Kardian and Woodward, 1990), indicated at He time of He survey Hat they are in He early stages of TQM and have not fully implemented He program yet. Table 4 summarizes the response results to key questions of He second survey. As can be seen, the results are broken out by State/Province agencies and city/county agencies to give a general indication of the relevance of He questions to He type of agency. In some instances, He survey questions did not apply to He responding agency, so He total number of respondents was less Can rune for State/Prov~nce 41
Table 4. Summary of responses from second project survey. Consideration 1 Poll ~-~1 States/Provinces Cities/Counties Agency has anyplace MMS. 9/9 3/4 Agency has established performance standards. - Agency has established LOS criteria. 8/9 5/9 3/3 2/4 Agency has LOS rating system in place. LOS rating system measures: (a) Total system condition. (b) Work accomplishments. (c) Both (d) Neither. 6/9 3/4 Agency has anyplace QC process to ensure accurate LOS ratings . . . Roadway elements for which LOS ratings are performed: (a) Pavement. (b) Bridges. (c) Traffic services. (d) Roadsides (incI. drainage). (e) Vegetation. (A Winter activities. 5/5 Agency has in-place QI program Maintenance operations administered from: (a) Central office. (b) Field offices. Maintenance budget based on: (a) Annual needs assessment. (b) Histoncal funding (c) Bow. 5/8 0/9 9/9 2/5 0/5 2/5 1/5 4/6 5/6 3/6 4/6 4/6 4/6 1/6 Agency has in-place QA program . Teams are formed to establish QA polices and conduct reviews 6/9 1/3 1/3 1/3 0/3 3/4 3/3 2/3 1/3 1/3 1/3 2/3 3/4 2/3 4/4 3/4 1/4 4/8 2/8 2/8 1/4 1/4 2/4 = 42
agencies and four for city/county agencies. The following sections discuss in further detail Me results of the second survey. MMS's Twelve of 13 agencies surveyed replied Mat Hey have an MMS. Effectiveness of Me system was rated on a scale of ~ to 10, win ~ being ineffective and 10 being very effective. The results were quite mixed. The average rating was 6.3, win a high of 9 and a low of 3. LOS Cr~tena Eleven of 12 respondents indicated having performance standards for some, most, or aD of Weir maintenance activities. Seven of Hose 11 agencies responded Hat Here were LOS criteria for each of Heir performance standards. Nine agencies indicated having an LOS rating system currently In place In at least one area of maintenance. Three of He LOS rating systems were reportedly used to measure total system condition, one was used to measure work accomplishments, and Free were used to measure both elements. For Hose agencies rating work accomplishments, He frequency of He ratings was typically daily or monthly, whereas the frequency of ratings for total system condition measurement ranged from every few months to annually. Seven of He nine agencies using LOS rating systems indicated having a QC process to ensure accurate LOS ratings. Some confusion about this question was apparent, as several agencies noted that supervisors perform QC checks daily, He interpretation being that supervisors check He quality of daily work operations. The intent of He question was to determine if LOS evaluators undergo periodic standardized training to result in consistent and accurate assessments of LOS from region to region. LOS ratings were found to be most applied to pavement maintenance activities, with eight of He nine agencies specifying this element. Five agencies listed bridges traffic services, roadside, and vegetation, and three agencies specified winter maintenance activities. cat Finally, He nine agencies using l.OS criteria to manage maintenance found them to be rawer effective. The mean effectiveness rating, using the same scale as before, was 7.3, with a high of 9 and a low of 5. One agency's system was too new to rate at the time of He survey. Maintenance QA Program In-place QA programs were reported by slightly more than two-thirds (9 of 13) of the respondents. Although the other respondents may have some form of QA program 43
in place, We individual completing Me survey did not believe that Me program necessarily fit Me definition provided in Me survey. The agencies Mat did have QA programs rated their programs as being quite effective. The average effectiveness rating given was 7.0, win a range of 5 to 9. One agency's system was too new to rate at Me time of the survey. Most of Me organizations formed teams to establish QA policies and to conduct reviews. In aD but one instance, QA evaluations were reportedly done bow while Me activity is being performed and after it is completed. One agency reported conducting the QA evaluation only after Me activity is completed. Maintenance OI Program Three-fourths of the respondents indicated that there is currently a Ql program in use within their maintenance organization. These agencies rated Heir Ql programs as being very effective in most cases. The mean effectiveness rating was found to be 6.8, win a high rating of 8 and a low of 5. Summary of Second Survey Results A majority of Me agencies completing Me second survey reported having implemented MMS's, LOS rating systems, and QC, QA, or QI programs. Not all agencies have implemented all types of programs. The overall feeling about Me effectiveness of these programs seemed to be positive, although it is mixed in some cases. Approx~nately two-thirds of Me organizations responded Mat Hey would recommend Heir current methods of managing maintenance operations to over agencies. Field Reviews As previously discussed, in-depth field reviews and analysis of maintenance quality programs at seven agencies were conducted following He second project survey. The agencies were selected on He basis of how comprehensive and well defined Heir quality programs were reported as being and He extent to which long-term, end-result performance was emphasized In He assessment of quality. Although States/Provinces were generally found to be much more quality-oriented than cities/counties, two of He seven agencies selected were local roads agencies. Hence, He inherent characteristics of bow large and small agencies will become well understood and will be properly considered in He development of He prototype QA program. To obtain as consistent an analysis as possible during He field reviews, a listing of 26 questions (separate from He second survey questionnaire) was forwarded to each agency prior to He field review. The questions were designed to determine, on a 44
quantifiable basis, the extent to which agencies utilize a QA program to manage highway maintenance operations In their areas of responsibility. The items of greatest interest In these reviews included We foDow~ng: Me~ods used to establish TAOS criteria. · Use of customer input and statistics In establishing Me LOS criteria. · Effect of funding appropriations on LOS criteria. · Consideration of roadway classification and traffic level In establishing LOS criteria. Nature of items evaluated (e.g., work accomplished, end-product performance). Sampling me~ods used In evaluation process. Frequency of evaluations and use of quality control In Me evaluation process to reduce bias and errors. Adjustments (weighting) to evaluation data and use of final ratings. Comparison of quality assessment results wad customer satisfaction. Size of QC/QA process In terms of number of persons and budget. Table 5 summarizes the responses of each agency to many of these questions, and the following sections present Me more detailed findings of these field reviews. Florida In 1985, the Florida DOT implemented a maintenance rating program (MRP) for the purpose of providing a uniform evaluation of maintenance features on the State highway system. This system consists of a quantifiable process to determine the LOS of 45 activities Mat are grouped Into one of five elements roadway, roadside, traffic services, drainage, and vegetation/aes~etics Mat may exist on any of five facility types: rural limited access, rural arterial, urban limited access, urban arterial, and special facilities. Three times each year, a random number generator program is used to select 0.~-mi (0.16 km) sections on each of Me facility types contained within a maintenance unit. The number of samples required for Me population (centerline miles) involved is determined using statistical formulas designed to pronde accuracy widen 3 percent at a confidence level of 95 percent. Each activity Is evaluated by Nonperson teams in each of eight districts. Assessments are made using pass-fail ratings Mat Indicate conformance or nonconformance win established agencywide LOS criteria, which In turn is reflective of long-term, end-result performance. Table 6 illustrates Florida's maintenance rating standards for roadway characteristics. The completed survey results are then summarized for distribution to all levels of management. The results, which are shown on a 0 to 100 scale (with 80 and above being considered acceptable), are then used to correct deficient areas before the next raking period. No direct involvement of customer satisfaction Is Incorporated Into this 45
a] · - a; · - be 'e 'e o co be · - a= o ct up as - ct EM . . 11 ·= ~ . - ~ bo ~ · - ~ 8= o u ·= :- ` - bO.= o ~ Cal as . o . ~4 US ·~ ~ ._ ~ ~ _ u o = U) a, P" ' ._ . U) CO a) a) in -~3 5 . Cal o .m _ U) Ct .e ·$- C) in O - - u) z L:L z z L- .- ~ ~- ~ cn "c o~ 'e bo cn ~ · o ~ ~ · - .5 .5 = E c ._ .n o bO .5 ~o ._ Ct ·- .e cn O .5 ~ L' CO · - cn O D O O ._ U) bO . ~ U) o o ~S=; _ _= Z Z I-IZ Izlzlzlzlz Iz 1 . ,== ~= ~ PL~ 1~] ~ 44~ ~: J~ ~ ~U - - - - - ~ ~ 46 x o s" C~ ~ ~a &~ .~O o =, o U) ~n _ _ o - ~ ~' o ~ ,s; · tV 430 C ~ ._ au ~ O ._ - C; ~ ._ ~ ~ O :^ ~ U) U ._ ~ ~ ~ .~ =: ·° I=4 :> 11 _ ._ U ~ ~ tC `~0
Table 6. Example of Florida's maintenance rating program standards. ROADWAY THE FOLLOWING CHARACTERISTICS MEET THE DESIRED MAINTENANCE CONDITIONS WHEN: POTHOLE No defect is greater than 0.05 m: ('/2 sq ft) in area and 38.10 mm (1- ~ in) deep. Pervious base must not be exposed in any hole. JOINT 85% of He length of transverse and longitudinal joint material appears to function as intended. ROADWAY VOID 90°/O of the slabs exhibit no evidence of pumping. EDGE RAVELING 90°/O of the total roadway edge is free of raveling. No continuous section of edge raveling 101.60 mm (4 in) or wider exceeds 7.62 m (25 ft) in length. RUTTING CRACKING cat Rutting areas are not more than 12.70 mm (1~2 in) average depth web no one measurement exceeding 19.05 mm (3/4 in). - ASPHALT 99°/O of the roadway is free of unsealed CLASS m crack~ng. CONCRETE DEPRESSION/ BUMP 90°/O of roadway slabs have no unsealed cracks wider Han 3.18 mm (1~- ) No measurement varies more Man 12 70 mm (~ in) within the crucial 3.05 m (10 ft) increments or plus 9.53 mm (IS =) for each additional 3.05 m (10 ft) increments. Measurement of each depressed/raised area must be made In bow directions. STRIPPING 95°/O of roadway surface is free of shipping or delamination. SHOVING The shoved area does not exceed a cumulative 2.32 m2 (25 sq ft). SHOULDER- Rated for pothole, joint, edge raveling, cracking, and depression/ PAVED bump. See narrative for specific standards. / 47
process except Trough the Highway Commission, which monitors the DeparJanent's compliance win He end-result performance critena. An annual quality assessment review is done by He central office to ensure a process is in place in each district to obtain compliance win all rules, policies, procedures, specifications, and standards. The results of this review are forwarded to He Assistant Secretary for Operations for He appropnate action. Each district office conducts QC of Heir operations in order to maintain a consistent application of desired performance expectations. As noted in the second survey, Florida reported having an in-place CQl program that Hey believe is somewhat effective. The program was described as being used in the following way: . . Continuous [cams are established by the State maintenance office to review the performance standards, maintenance rating program, maintenance management system, and activity cost data on an annual basis. This "dynamic change" process provides continuous updates for these systems. Changes are communicated through annual training sessions with appropnate personnel. The continuous teams described above are devoted to annual monitoring and updating of He various aspects (e.g., performance standards, maintenance rating processes) associated with each maintenance element. Each team is chaired by a district maintenance engineer, so as to get Heir important buy-in of He QA process. Maryland Between June and October 1993, a peer review program (PRP) was unplemented and an nutial Statewide field survey was completed by the Maryland DOT. The program has continued with rating surveys made Tree times a year (spring, summer, and fall) on randomly selected highway sections in each of Maryland's seven engineering districts. ~, ~ Approximately 28 peer review teams, consisting of approximately 70 maintenance personnel from different geographical areas, evaluate randomly selected 0.5-m (0.8- km) roadway sections in each of 23 counties. The peer review teams rate the long-term, end-result highway conditions for 39 maintenance elements grouped into the fo Bonging categories: · Traveled roadway. · Shoulders. · Drainage. · Traffic control and safety. · Roadside. 48
An LOS program has been developed and implemented by Me Maryland DOT. The LOS's are based on Me percentage of elements i:hat meet or exceed desired maintenance conditions. Individual elements are weighted to obtain an overall LOS for each roadway section evaluated. The sample size was determined by using a goal of a 70 percent confidence level, for each county's data, calculated by using the results of Me 1993 findings and an LOS of 80. The number of sections necessary to achieve a desired confidence level are recalculated each year. AD references to an LOS are based on a 0 to 100 scale, win 100 indicating that all desired maintenance conditions were met and 0 indicating that none were met. At Me time of the field review, the Maryland DOT had 2 years of data that enabled them to compare each unit of responsibility (i.e., State, district, county) and measure progress from year to year. Customer satisfaction is assessed by handing out questionnaires In shopping malls, driver license offices, and over public locations. The results are summarized into an annual report card Mat is distributed Internally. Finally, as documented in appendix B. Maryland rated their CQI process as fairly effective In bra ng about higher quality maintenance. A description of Weir program was stated as follows: ~- ~v Maintenance personnelfrom different areas of the State meet periodically in "Maintenance Business Team" sessions in order to develop more efficient/effective processes. They share current ways of perfonning maintenance, then choose the best methods across the State and mix with new idlers and technologies to come up with an ideal process for the selected activities. Pennsylvania The Pennsylvania DOT has a county accreditation review system (CARS) designed to identify the strengths and weaknesses of county maintenance organizations. The concept was introduced In Me fan of 1982, win Me initial goal being to monitor four major categories equipment, personnel, field operations, and office operations- Involving approximately 22 selected items. Five points are assigned to each of Me 22 areas for a magnum score of Il0 points. A minimum of 54 points is required of a county maintenance organization for it to be accredited. Currently, all measures are assigned an equal value, win the final score representing a percentage of the points earned to total points available for all measures. The DOT uses the Maintenance Operations and Resources Information System (MORIS), which is based on Heir previous Highway Maintenance Management System (HMMS), the Automated Inventory Management System (AIMS) and the Equipment Management Information System (EM1:S), to monitor and control all maintenance operations and resources. Four persons, identified as QA Engineers, meet annually to recommend He best methods, materials, equipment, and crew combinations, and to 49
Table 7. Pennsylvanians QA evaluation fonn for concrete joint sealing. Bureau of Maintenance and Operations Quality Assurance Evaluation 1-7147) - 4/92 Concrete Pavement Joint Sealing EVALUATOR DATE COUNTY # ASSISTANT SR SEG SEG FOREMAN CONCRETE PAVEMENT TYPE (CIRCLE ONE) 1 2 3 # _# SCORE 1. CLEANING EQUIPMENT 2. CLEAN VERTICAL FACE 3. DRY VERTICAL FACE 4. SEALING EQUIPMENT 5. MATERIAL 6. PAVEMENT TEMPERATURE 7. MATERIAL TEMPERATURE 8. BACKER ROD/BOND BREAKER 9. FILLING 10. ADHERENCE 11. MATERIAL MIX RATIO COMMENTS - . | SCORING SUMMARY | TOTAL | NO. ITEMS R] 3 FINAL SCORE ACTIVITY RATING 4.75 - 5.00 3.65 - 4.74 2.30 - 3.64 LESS THAN 2.30 . VERY GOOD GOOD MINIMUM ACCEPTABLE UNSATISFACTORY THE ACTIVITY IS UNSATISFACTORY IF ANY OF THE SCORES ABOVE ARE LESS THAN THREE. PERSONAL SAFETY COMMENTS: 50
Table S. Pennsylvanians evaluation indicators used for concrete joint seating. CONCRETE PAVEMENT JOINT SEALING 711-7147 QUALITY ASSURANCE EVALUATION INDICATORS TYPE 1 & 2 PAVEMENTS Al. CLEANING EQUIPMENT 1. Compressor 3. Hook, unre brush, & compressor 5. Saw/sandblast & compressor or waterblast & compressor A2. CLEAN VERTICAL FACE 1. Not cleaned 3. Most joints clean 5. AD joints clean As. DRY VERI ICAL FACE 1. Damp or wet vertical faces 3. Most vertical faces dry 5. All vertical faces dry A4. SEALING EQUIPMENT 1. Incorrect equipment for material user! 3. l~irect-fired kettle with full-sweep agitation 5. Correct equipment for matenal used A5. MATERIAL 1. Any other sealant 3. AC win rubber with Distnct approval 5. ~3405 sealant or better (D-1190 sealant or better Type II pavements A6. PAVE MENT 1~MPERAIIJRE 1. <40 degrees 5. 40 degrees or greater A7. MATERIAL TEMPERAIIJRE 1. Not within mfg~s recommendations 5. Within mfgr's recommendations As. BACKER ROD/BOND BREAKER 1. Not used 5. Used A9. FILLING 1. Material overhands joints 5. l/4" - lo" below pavement surface, no overbanding A10. ADHliRENCE 1. Non adherence to vertical face, <90°/O 3. 90°/O - 99°/O adherence 5. 100% adherence All. MATERIAL MDC RATIO 1. Rubber <1-~ lbs per gal 3. Rubber 1-~ to 2 lbs per gal 5. Rubber 2 lbs per gal or greater, or prepackaged material TYPE 3 PAVEMENT A1. CLEANING EQUIPMENT 1. No cleaning equipment 3. Compressor only 5. Compressor plus additional equipment Nook and/or wire brush) A2. CLEAN VERTICAL FACE 1. Not clean 3. Most joints clean 5. Clean As. DRY VERTICAL FACE 1. Damp or wet vertical faces 3. Most vertical faces dry 5. Dry vertical face A4. SEALING EQUIPMENT 1. Incorrect equipment for material used 5. Correct equipment for material used AS. MATERIAL 1. Any other sealant 5. AC with rubber or AC with fiber A6. PAVEMENT TEMPERATURE (Not applicable) A7. MAll3RIAL TEMPERATURE 1. Not within mfgr~s recommendations 5. Within mfgr's recommendations As. BACKER ROD/BOND BREAKER (Not applicable) A9. FILLING 1. Spalis >A sq it filled win sealant 5. Spalls >A sq It repaired win cold mix or layered patching A10. ADHERENCE 1. Non adherence to vertical face 3. 80% to 100% adherence to vertical face 5. 100% adherence All. MATERIAL MIX RATIO 1. Fiber <4°/O per gal; rubber <1-~ lbs per gal 3. Fiber 4 to 5% per gal; rubber 1-35 to 2 lbs per gal 5. Fiber 5°/O per gal or greater; rubber 2 lbs per gal or greater 51
develop training sessions. The QA ratings, best described as QC In this instance, are performed Free times a year in each county organization. Tables 7 and 8 illustrate how one particular maintenance activity~oncrete joint sealing-is rated, both on the whole and for each of Me various components. Customer satisfaction Is determined by randomly selecting 400 persons in each county having driver's licenses and sending Rem a questionnaire Rat asks how well the agency is providing desired services. This process is used as a self-improvement too} In each county. Reports of all results are sent to aD levels of management within We department. An example of Pennsylvania's customer service index (CSV) survey form is shown in table 9. By clefinition, no LOS rating system currently exists in this agency, although county, district, and central office staff meet annually to develop and modify criteria for Me LOS expected from daily crew operations. Like Maryland, Pennsylvania reported having a fairly effective CQl program. The following paragraphs su~runarize the respondents' description of their CQl program. Me maintenance organization is the biggest user of the "suggestion connection, whereby suggestions are submitted and,for the most part, are implemented as a pilot or are suggestedtfor Statewidle implementation by the review committee. The maintenance organization is also the biggest user of the "productivity improvementfund," which gives the submitter up to $15,000 per idea to pilot and implement qualified ideas. Maintenance has trained a great deal of their personnel in the CQl overview course, which introduces workers to total quality. Many continue on to be ins~ucted in creative problem solving, CQl tools and techniques, process flow analysis, and other quality courses; instructors of the quality courses and facilitators of quality teams. Virginia Beach, Virginia The city of Virginia Beach has an MMS Mat is used to monitor 139 activities grouped into one of the following categories: · Sheet maintenance. · Bridge and drainage facility maintenance. Mosquito control. Traffic operations. Storm water utility. 52
Table 9. Pennsylvania's customer service index (CSI) survey form (Stein-Hudson, 1995). ORGANIZATION FUNCl ION DATE BASE PERIOD MEASURES APPEARANCE SERVICES PRODUCI S PROFESSIONALISM QUALITY UTILllY l I Was; the | Were the ma] ;, | | % of guests | $ generated Was my first facility brochures, eta who would through ingression functiorung neatly displayed & Appearance, use our reservations/ positive? as it should? in good quality? Knowledge, Attitude service again? monthly l Performance 10 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Score l l I T 1 1 Weight 1 25% 1 20% 1 20% 1 25% 1 5% ~5% Although LOS criteria did not exist for activities over Man Hose associated win pavement management, Virginia Beach has an outstancling system of logging phone complaints, issuing work orders, and subsequent follow-up. Each call is answered by a service request person who enters He appropriate complaint information into a computer file (caller log) while talking to He customer. The caller log provides direct access to information showing He response taken, who inspected He work, and how many calls were received for a given situation. Those activities associated win mosquito control are assigned a weight (or importance factor) into its scheduling process. Depending on He location, number of 53
calls, and type of mosquito problems being asserted, a priority number is assigned to indicate the importance of Me response. Each year, the city asks the public how well the maintenance program is doing. However, Me city does not consider these results as a reliable method of obtaining feedback. They are considering leaving survey cards win each citizen that makes a complaint In order to better evaluate their response. Virginia Beach also rated Weir CQl program as fairly effective and asserted Mat it is an integral part of Me city's total quality program. Process unprovement teams, made up of employees from different levels of the organization, are formed to study various selected issues. Washoe County, Nevada At Me time of Me field review, the county of Washoe had an operational management system to monitor pavement maintenance, was ready to unplement one for bridges and culverts, and was in Me process of developing systems for drainage features, sidewalks, and signs. Pavements are condition-rated once every 2 years on a O to 100 scale, with 100 representing the maximum level given. Snow removal criteria require Mat every main artery be open before ~ a.m. each day and all side streets be plowed before Me close of business on the same day. Determination of customer satisfaction was attempted by Me local news media; however, no memos of separating city streets from county roads was provided, so Me results were not conclusive. The county contracted a consulting firm to develop a total quality management (TQM) program on a local basis, but it is not yet ready for Implementation. In this agency, LOS criteria exist only for pavements, bridges, and snow removal. Washoe County's CQl program was noted as centering around crew feedback on ways to improve the system. Oregon, Region 4 In 1990, Me central Oregon region (region 4) instituted a major change to Me orgaruzational structure of Me ODOT, which resulted in a pilot program Mat decentralized decision making through Me use of self-directed teams. The pilot project involved Me consolidation of 22 Section Supervisors and 22 Assistant Section Supervisors into seven Area Managers and seven Area Coordinators. These positions were to coordinate the activities of self-directed teams, which consist of approximately 22 crews representing approximately 220 employees of the existing ~ 612 Statewide maintenance employees. 54 v
The role of Me Area Managers and Coordinators is directed towards leadership, coaching and supporting crew teams to be innovative, creative, and looking for ways to better serve the public and reduce costs. Also introduced during this pilot period was a performance measurement system to track effectiveness and efficiency, with benchmarking and roll-up reports for Me entire organization. This system is called the maintenance section quality rating (MSQR) and is used to evaluate 12 maintenance elements grouped Into Me following categories: · Road surface. · Drainage maintenance. · Shoulder or roadside. · Maintenance for public safely. Winter maintenance. Each of Me elements Is rated on its actual condition using a scale of ~ to 10, with 10 representing excellent. Locations to be rated are randomly selected by computer which identifies a I-~rii (~.6-km) segment of highway in each maintenance section. Each of Me maintenance sections contains approximately 90 mi (145 km) of highway. Ratings are performed four times during Me year by Me Regional Manager and Me Area Managers. The results are summarized and distributed Statewide and locally, and me onginal rating sheets are given to Me local managers for immediate usage. Customer satisfaction is measured in two ways: I. Rating cards are distributed twice a year to persons living in Me area serviced by Me area crew, with Me results being sent to Me central office. 2. Contracting with a national firm skilled In pod data collection to produce a Statewide benchmark on "Perceptions of Transportation Svstem and Needs." This was accomplished and distributed in 1993. . , . An LOS process has been developed and implemented for work accomplishments covering approximately 70 percent of the maintenance activities performed by this agency. Lastly, with respect to CQI, Oregon rated Heir program as fairly effective and reasserted the use of self-managed teams to increase ownership In He final product. British Columbia Highway maintenance in He Province of British Columbia was completely pr~vatized In 1988. Prior to that time, the British Columbia MTH employed approximately 2,200 maintenance employees. The orgaruzation is now decentralized into 6 regions and 28 districts, each having approximately 20 employees who are primarily involved in oversight responsibility for highway maintenance functions. 55
British Columbia's QA program includes Free basic types of inspections: 1. In-process inspections undertaken while the particular activity is in progress and which is concerned win conditions Cat cannot be seen prior to completion of Me work. 2. End-product Inspections performed unmediately after We activity has been completed and which serves to verify Cat He end product is sufficient and acceptable. 3. Present-state inspections of He highway and bridge systems made on a regular basis to identify compliance or non-compliance win specific end-product requirements. Sampling is accomplished by monthly random computer selection of fifteen 1.22-m (2-km) segments Hat each Area Manager must inspect. A great emphasis is placed on road classification, win higher class facilities receiving a higher number of inspections than lower class facilities. The results of all inspections must be documented using He standard inspection forms produced by MA personnel, even if no deficiencies are found. Ratings are expressed as a percentage of actual points given out of He possible points available. All reports are produced and distributed to top management each monk, win copies available to He regional directors and service areas. Each monk, the District Highway Manager and He contractor are required to meet and discuss the ratings for He period. No formal request for customer satisfaction exists on a Province-wide basis; however, each region occasionally asks its citizens for an evaluation. The MTH has a formal materials QA program In which certification is required and random evaluation and audits are performed to ensure compliance win specifications. An LOS process has been developed and implemented by this agency. In their second survey response, British Columbia Indicated having no CQl program in place. Summary of Field Review Results In-dep~ reviews of He quality management practices at seven highway agencies were performed in this project. In general, it was found that He agencies take one of c' three approaches toward assuring quality maintenance work. Some strive to ensure Cat all work operations are done in accordance win He standards established by He agency. Others are mostly concerned with He long-term, end-result performance of He roadways Hat are maintained. Still others are concerned win bow aspects and, as such, have established systems to monitor both. The following paragraphs summarize He key findings of He field review effort. Except for pavement and bridge management systems, only four agencies- British Columbia, Florida, Maryland, and Oregon Region ~ have LOS programs Hat measure long-term, end-result performance of most field 56
activities. These four agencies also use a random computer selection program to identify Hose sections where an LOS rating must be performed. Three agencies- Florida, Maryland, and British Columbi~perform a formal agencywide QC process on the ratings teams to ensure consistent, repeatable ratings from region to region. Two agencies Pennsylvania and British Columbia have a weD-documented QC process to rate work performance during and at Me end of each activity. Table 10 shows Me frequency wad which LOS inspections are conducted (and results distributed), Me maintenance elements evaluated, Me estimated staffing requirements, and the estimated nutial starbup and annual operational costs of Me J OS rating programs at Florida, Maryland, Oregon Region 4, and British Columbia. On a $/lane-mile/inspection-round basis, Me annual costs of these programs range from$~.77 to $9.87. This type of cost, which is computed by dividing the annual operating cost by Me amount of lan - miles represented in Me LOS program and by Me number of inspection rounds per year, gives an agency a general idea of We magnitude of cost Hey can expect to incur In operating He LOS rating system, which is at He heart of the prototype QA program. Table 10. Summary of various agencies' LOS rating programs. Amount of Frequency of Staffing Highway Highway Inspections, Requirements, Start-up Annual Maintained, Agency number/year man-years Cost, $ Cost, $ lane-miles Maintenance Elements Flonda DOT 180,000 200,000 37,578 Roadway Roadside Traffic services Drainage Vegetation/ aesthetics Maryland 1 2 288,000 110,000 15,954 Traveled roadway DOT Shoulders Drainage Traffic control and safety Oregon DOT, 4 2 100,000 75,000 1,900 Road surface Region 4 Drainage Shoulder/roadside Maintenance for public safes' . Winter maintenance British 12 36 100,000 2,160,000 25,466 Surface Columbia Drainage MTH Roadside Winter Bridges 57
No agency solicits customer input during He development of LOS criteria. However, one agency Pennsylvanian ask its customers to identify those activities or functions Hey would like to see accomplished. · Two agencies Pennsylvania and Oregon have a formal program to determine customer satisfactions in each county of He State. This is done by mailing randomly selected questionnaires to citizens. However, only Pennsylvania incorporates customer feedback into He system. Oregon has hired a national organization to conduct polls to determine customer satisfachon/perception of agency programs. A Gird agency, Maryland, distributes questionnaires and comment cards at selected locations. One agency British Columbia- has an active QA/QC process for testing materials and procedures. The process requires certification document; and random selection and testing win periodic audits to ensure specification compliance. (Most agencies visited rely on a qualified products list, but have no formal QA program operated by maintenance personnel to monitor He quality of materials used.) · Most agencies have PMS's and BMS's. None of these agencies acknowledged using data from these systems to produce Heir LOS results; however, some agencies occasionally compared the LOS ratings win management system outputs. In general, no linkages between existing PROS systems and data contained In systems required by the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act INSTEAD were identified. 58
