Mainstreaming System Resilience Concepts into Transportation Agencies: A Guide (2021)

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.

12 A Framework and Self-Assessment Tool for Mainstreaming Transportation Agency Resilience Capabilities The Framework gathers in sequential steps the various activities that will enhance an agency’s resilience efforts to natural and human-caused hazards and threats. The Framework guides transportation officials in (1) understanding what their agency is currently doing with respect to resilience, (2) identifying where new or modified actions could be taken to enhance these efforts, and (3) recommending steps that can be taken to implement these actions. A variety of other resilience frameworks (discussed later) have touched on various aspects of an organi- zational perspective on resilience. However, most have never really connected all the different steps into one, overall agency resilience self-assessment perspective (or they have done so at such a high level as to be of limited value to those responsible for implementing actions). Some key characteristics of the Framework include • Both human-caused (e.g., cyberattacks) and natural disruptions (e.g., riverine flooding) are considered, including a focus on future climate changes. • Both chronic (e.g., permanent inundation due to sea level rise) and acute (e.g., storm surge) hazards and threats are considered. • Every major functional area within a DOT is found in the tool given that all will have a role in making the transportation system more resilient. Strategies are offered that cross typical agency lines of responsibility. • The importance of external stakeholders is noted given that planning for and responding to disruptions often requires the participation of many different agencies, organizations, communities, and groups. Effective resilience programs require multi-disciplinary collabora- tive efforts. • The benefits, costs, and community impacts of having a resilient transportation system (or not) are found throughout the assessment tool. The implications of a compromised transportation asset affect more than just the DOT. Community safety, economic, and social impacts, and in a broad sense, quality of life can be affected as well. These characteristics are integrated throughout the guide where appropriate. The following section presents an overview of the Framework and the steps that can be taken to enhance agency resilience efforts. The section introduces the steps of the Framework, and each step is the topic of subsequent chapters. This section is followed by an example showing how the Framework’s steps relate to an effort by the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) to prepare for a significant earthquake in the western portions of the state. The next section presents the self-assessment tool, which can be used to determine the status of a DOT’s resilience efforts and identify the strategies for improving these efforts. The chapter ends by describing how each chapter associated with a step in the Framework is organized. C H A P T E R   2

A Framework and Self-Assessment Tool for Mainstreaming Transportation Agency Resilience Capabilities 13   The Framework Overview Figure 1 shows how the Framework is structured. As noted earlier, the flow in the steps is linear, implying that preceding steps should be completed prior to undertaking the next step. In many cases, this is a requirement. For example, one cannot fully understand the impacts of potential threats and hazards (Step 6) without knowing what they are (Step 5). However, in some cases, DOT officials could address a particular step without necessarily fully completing a prior step. For example, one could develop an effective resilience communication strategy for the agency (Step 3) without necessarily conducting a self-assessment of how the agency is organized for success (Step 2). It would help to have conducted prior steps in such cases, but it is not a prerequisite to do so. Nonetheless, a sequential approach using all the steps is highly recom- mended when using the self-assessment tool. Specific steps within the Framework include: Step 1: Assess Current Practice Understanding the current state-of-practice of your organization’s resilience activities is a basic point-of-departure for determining where enhancements to these efforts can occur. All units within a transportation agency should be the focus of such an assessment. Chapter 3 also identifies some of the major characteristics of a resilience-oriented agency. Step 2: Organize for Success One of the results of Step 1 is identifying where new or modified institutional structures or mechanisms can lead to more effective and efficient resilience actions. The focus of improving organizational capability is both internal (What can the agency do better?) and external (How can the agency better interact with key partners and stakeholders to improve collective efforts to improve the resilience of the transportation system?). Chapter 4 examines strategies for developing improved organizational capability from the perspective of an organization’s structure and information flow. Step 3: Develop an External Communications Strategy and Plan One of the lessons learned from many DOT experiences with system disruptions is that effective communication among the many different participants responding to an incident or disruptive event is critical to overall success. This step examines how such communication and information exchange can be improved. Importantly, this step also includes efforts to inform, educate, and highlight the DOT’s efforts at improving transportation system resilience for the public and other key stakeholders. This encompasses making a case for investments that improve system resilience. Step 4: Implement Early Wins As part of an overall strategy for improving resilience capability, transportation agencies should be identifying and implementing strategies/actions that can be taken in the short-term, with low costs, and limited need for time-consuming data analysis. The reasons for this are many. First, such actions can lead to immediate improvements in system resilience, ultimately the goal of a DOT’s efforts. Second, it indicates that the DOT is moving forward in its stated strategy. Third, it sends a message to DOT employees that the agency is serious and is willing to make changes. Fourth, it provides the public and others (e.g., legislators) with a “visual” of what types of actions fall under the agency’s overall strategy. Finally, early implementation of resilience actions could reveal barriers/constraints that need to be overcome to make later implementation more successful. Chapter 6 provides guidance on how to identify such early wins. For the following three steps, it is important to note that Step 5 is the first step in a systems- level vulnerability or risk analysis. The systems-level analysis encompasses Steps 5 through 7

14 Mainstreaming System Resilience Concepts into Transportation Agencies: A Guide Figure 1. Framework for enhancing agency resilience to natural and anthropogenic hazards and threats (FEAR-NAHT: The Framework).

A Framework and Self-Assessment Tool for Mainstreaming Transportation Agency Resilience Capabilities 15   of the Framework. In a systems-level analysis, hazards and threats are identified (Step 5), their consequences understood (Step 6), a vulnerability or risk score (inclusive of exposure and consequence information) is assigned to each asset (Step 7), and assets are prioritized for more detailed study (based upon their vulnerability; also Step 7). Step 5: Understand the Hazards and Threats This step examines and understands the sources and magnitude of the likely hazards and threats facing a transportation system. This is a prerequisite for developing a more resilient transportation system. This step examines the nature and likely characteristics of the types of hazards and threats facing the transportation system and, importantly, what these hazards and threats might be in the future when conditions could be very different. These conditions will vary from state to state. Step 6: Understand the Impacts Knowing the sources and expected magnitude of likely hazards and threats is an important precursor to answering the question, “So what?” This step, the second in the systems-level vulnerability/risk analysis portion of the Framework, provides ways of examining the impacts and consequences of different hazards and threats. Different types of hazards and threats will likely have very different impacts and consequences to the agency, surrounding communities, and broader societal and economic systems. This step provides a broad perspective on docu- menting these impacts. Step 7: Determine Vulnerability and Prioritize Responses This step represents the culmination of the systems-level vulnerability/risk analysis. Once potential hazards/threats are understood along with their consequences, specific assets within the transportation system that are more vulnerable or at-risk (i.e., have greater exposure and/or higher consequences of failure) need to be identified and prioritized for a more detailed study of adaptation options. This step identifies the assets where more detailed assessments should be first conducted (i.e., those that are most vulnerable). Prioritization is needed because there are likely to be too many asset vulnerabilities for a given DOT to address all at once given resource constraints. Step 8: Identify Actions to Enhance Resilience This step identifies the projects, strategies, and actions that an agency could take to improve transportation system resilience. State DOT experience with system resilience activities has shown that the following agency functional areas are strong candidates for making improve- ments: (1) emergency response, (2) operations and maintenance programs, (3) project design and development (assuring a more adaptive design approach), and (4) asset management plans and programs. Step 8A: Assess Strategies for Enhancing Emergency Response Capabilities and Agency Preparedness Most DOTs have developed protocols and relationships within the agency itself and with other partners for responding to incidents and disasters. Such response is very much part of the system resilience capabilities of DOTs. This step identifies actions and strategies that can be taken to enhance current emergency response capabilities in light of a better understanding of the likely impacts and consequences of disruptions (from Step 7). By its very nature, this step will be multi-hazard, multi-participant, and multi-disciplinary. Also, this step examines how prepared an agency itself is to survive major disruptions (e.g., cyberattacks).

16 Mainstreaming System Resilience Concepts into Transportation Agencies: A Guide Step 8B: Identify Enhancements to Operations and Maintenance Activities Operations and maintenance (O&M) efforts within a transportation agency are often the first groups affected by system disruption. In a reactive sense, managing detoured traffic and removing debris after an event are important actions that are the responsibility of the trans- portation agency. However, O&M can also be view proactively, that is, what can a DOT do to minimize future disruptions? For example, making sure culverts are debris-free—a mainte- nance function—has been shown to be a critical factor in reducing the likelihood of culvert failure. Making sure evacuation operational plans and institutional partnerships are in place can minimize the level of disruption experienced when key network links have failed. This step looks at the types of actions you can take to ensure your agency’s O&M efforts are best positioned to enhance transportation system resilience. Step 8C: Undertake Detailed Assessments of Exposed Assets and New Projects This step conducts the detailed assessments of exposed assets identified and prioritized in Step 7. In addition, new capital improvement projects (including those delivered through the asset management program) should also undergo detailed assessments. These assessments will vary by type of hazard or threat and with the level of resources that are available for conducting the assessments. For example, doing a detailed assessment for a cyberattack threat will utilize very different methods and approaches than one focusing on future flood risks. The results of this step will be a set of actions, strategies, and/or projects that should be implemented by your agency. Step 8D: Integrate into Asset Management This step recognizes the important role that asset management has in transportation agencies for monitoring asset condition (and tracking other considerations) and for feeding such infor- mation into investment priorities. The factors associated with this step focus on how resilience concepts, in particular, the vulnerability or risk scores, can be incorporated into asset manage- ment recommendations so that they will be considered part of the investment prioritization process. This step also considers how the asset management system can be used to help monitor and manage resilience investments and their performance. Step 9: Program and Implement Resilience Measures Resilience projects will likely be part of the normal project programming process, although this step assumes that some special considerations be given when doing so. Such consider- ation might also be applied to projects being undertaken for purposes other than enhancing resilience but that incorporate resilience treatments. Ultimately, influencing the types of projects implemented by the agency is one of the most important output measures for an agency’s resilience program. Step 10: Monitor and Manage System Performance Many transportation agencies have adopted performance-based decision-making and program management approaches for identifying the most cost-effective investments. Such approaches are data-driven, performance-based, and results-oriented. This step examines how resilience concepts can be incorporated into transportation system performance monitoring and how agency actions aimed at enhancing the resilience component of this performance can be better managed.

A Framework and Self-Assessment Tool for Mainstreaming Transportation Agency Resilience Capabilities 17   State DOT Example Application of the Framework Table 2 shows how the different steps in the Framework are found in an effort by the ODOT to develop a strategy for minimizing damage and recovering from a large earthquake. This effort was undertaken by ODOT in advance of the development of the Framework, yet it illustrates the approach remarkably well. That said, it is limited to a single hazard, whereas the Framework recommends a multi-hazard approach for all of the steps. Note, too, that although ODOT’s effort is portrayed in Table 2 as a logical and systematic sequence of steps, in reality, ODOT’s efforts occurred over several decades and depended to a large extent on the interest, energy, and often voluntary efforts of individual DOT officials supported by ODOT leadership. Also, not all of the Framework steps were undertaken as part of ODOT’s overall strategy. Keeping these important caveats in mind, the ODOT experience nevertheless provides a tangible example to understand the Framework. Assess Current Practice (Step 1) There was no systematic nor agency-wide assessment at the beginning. However, the state bridge engineer in the 1990s determined that the national design code for seismic bridge design was inadequate for Oregon, and the DOT adopted more stringent requirements. ODOT is now considering what other functions (besides emergency response) should be examined. THE FRAMEWORK STEP WHAT DID/IS ODOT DOING WITH RESPECT TO SEISMIC HAZARDS? Organize for Success (Step 2) ODOT did not look at organizational issues at the start. ODOT supported several seismic vulnerability studies with consultants and a state university. An ODOT "resilience officer" was appointed primarily because of a state effort to have such a person in each agency. ODOT is continuing to improve its processes and procedures, especially for emergency response. Develop an External Communications Strategy and Plan (Step 3) ODOT did an initial study in 1990 that portrayed a dismal picture of the possible impacts of an earthquake. Initially, this was not published nor discussed in public. However, once the legislature became interested and when several earthquakes and tsunamis happened in other parts of the world, ODOT decided to release the report. ODOT considered the report and associated communications efforts as an important foundation for what they have been doing since. ODOT officials are meeting with the Areawide Transportation Commissions and Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) to talk about what they can be doing to assess the vulnerability of their systems. Resilience has now become part of the lexicon of the agency and is found in ODOT's state plans and policy statements. Implement Early Wins (Step 4) ODOT officials noted two early wins: • Changed the bridge design criteria as noted above. • Starting in the 1990s, for bridge projects that were going to occur anyway, ODOT added small cost incremental improvements to make the bridges more fail-proof. Six such projects were done to understand what the costs of such a mitigation strategy might be. Understand the Hazards and Threats (Step 5) The genesis of the ODOT concern came from the bridge engineer who was listening to scientists and other experts on what an earthquake could mean to Oregon. A seismic study was later commissioned specifically focusing on transportation, and ODOT looked at what other state DOTs were doing in terms of earthquake impacts. A tsunami that hit Japan in 2011 caused renewed interest in protecting the Oregon coast and those who live there. Table 2. Example of the framework concepts applied by ODOT to seismic hazards. (continued on next page)

18 Mainstreaming System Resilience Concepts into Transportation Agencies: A Guide THE FRAMEWORK STEP WHAT DID/IS ODOT DOING WITH RESPECT TO SEISMIC HAZARDS? Determine Vulnerability and Prioritize Responses (Step 7) The lifeline study identified three tiers of lifeline corridors, with the performance metric being roads should not be closed any longer than 3 weeks (the best estimate for how long Oregonians could "shelter in place" before the disruption became unbearable). Cost information from pilot projects was used to estimate an overall cost of about $5 billion, much over the estimated capital funds available. The capital needs list was prioritized into three tiers of $1 billion each (called a triage system). The study has become the overall strategy for the state and for ODOT. The recovery focus is on Medford, Oregon, which, according to analysis, will likely survive an earthquake. The airport, roads, and other infrastructure are being prepared to be the point of national emergency response after the quake. Because of this, ODOT prioritized two highway corridors, SR-97 and SR-58, as the focus of vulnerability assessments. Assess Strategies for Enhancing Emergency Response Capabilities and Agency Preparedness (Step 8A) Identify Enhancements to Operations and Maintenance Activities (Step 8B) Two notable actions were taken by ODOT to enhance emergency response and system operations capabilities. • The earthquake study showed the vulnerability of Oregon's coast to tsunamis and the potential isolation of communities due to the failure of state roads. To prepare for the consequences, ODOT doubled the size of three maintenance stations to store emergency supplies of food, fuel, and asset replacement materials and undertook other pre-positioning of equipment. • ODOT has created a second center of system operations in Bend, Oregon, east of the Cascades and out of the impact zone. ODOT located redundant command and control capabilities in the district office and has a complete backup of all personnel, financial, and budgetary files. Understand the Impacts (Step 6) In the early 1990s, ODOT officials did not feel they knew enough about the seismic impacts on bridges, so they adopted an approach from another state DOT that predicted damage from different-sized earthquakes. However, not knowing if this approach was appropriate for Oregon, ODOT funded a study to develop its own approach in 1990. The focus, just on bridges, was used to develop an ODOT- specific method for prioritizing vulnerable bridges. This study was published in 2005 and received considerable attention in state government. ODOT funded another study to estimate the economic impact of an earthquake- caused disruption to the economy in different state regions. A network model was used, including traffic estimates, to include impacts on mobility and freight movement in the study. A major conclusion of the study was that depending on the size of the quake, there will likely be some parts of the state where the economy would take 7 to 8 years to recover; in some parts, there would be very limited road access for up to 3 years. A third study was then undertaken to identify the most vulnerable sections of the state highway system. Landslides were included in addition to bridges. The focus of the study was on lifeline corridors. Impact cost estimates were made for those highway segments where the most disruption was expected to occur. Time costs of detours were used as surrogates for economic costs. Vulnerable lifeline corridors were described, and vulnerable route segments were identified. In 2013, the legislature passed a resolution for a study on "Resilient Oregon." Each state agency was asked to participate; ODOT contributed 60 volunteers (all modes, all units) to help write the transportation chapter for this report. The chapter explained possible impacts of an earthquake to the transportation system. Table 2. (Continued).

A Framework and Self-Assessment Tool for Mainstreaming Transportation Agency Resilience Capabilities 19   THE FRAMEWORK STEP WHAT DID/IS ODOT DOING WITH RESPECT TO SEISMIC HAZARDS? ODOT is working with other counties to see if they can adopt the same approach. Three counties have done so, and many others have studies underway. ODOT is working with Portland Metro to help in the Portland metropolitan area on this topic. ODOT will continue to fund resilience projects on their prioritized investment list as money is identified. Monitor and Manage System Performance (Step 10) No metrics have been developed at the system resilience-level, but ODOT’s bridge management system is used to monitor bridge conditions and changes over time. Source: ODOT officials interviewed, December 2018. Undertake Detailed Assessments of Exposed Assets and New Projects (Step 8C) Detailed assessments were conducted on SR-97 and SR-58, focusing on bridges and landslides. ODOT estimated that the total cost for the required investment was $35 million, all of which has been programmed (note that this is focused just on seismic protection). This cost represented 20% of the entire Phase 1 project list for the state. Integrate into Asset Management (Step 8D) Projects developed as part of the seismic program have been incorporated into ODOT’s transportation asset management program. (Note: This is one pathway for tying adaptation into asset management—after a project is built, feeding it back into asset management for monitoring. However, another key pathway exists which is to feed in the vulnerability scores from Step 7 into the asset management process). Program and Implement Resilience Measures (Step 9) OD0T projects have been prioritized in the capital program, both as incremental improvements to projects that were going to occur anyway as well as a resilience-specific set of projects. Without knowing how much additional funding might be available, ODOT modified its strategy and started talking to Areawide Transportation Commissions and MPOs to encourage their own studies and investment programs. A regional planning agency in the southern part of the state did not agree with the project schedule that had projects in their area as part of Phase 3 (likely not implemented for 20 to 30 years). The agency undertook its own study, which identified routes to provide access into the region after an earthquake for a total investment of $5 to $6 million; the ODOT’s estimate was $50 million. ODOT had focused its efforts only on state highways. The planning agency assumed providing access to key sites by both state and local highways, including using roads in California. The agency used as much of the ODOT-protected road as possible, but the focus was on finding the least costly options, not the investment that resulted in the shortest travel time. Table 2. (Continued).

20 Mainstreaming System Resilience Concepts into Transportation Agencies: A Guide The Resilience Capability-Maturity Model A capability maturity model (CMM) serves as the basis for the self-assessment tool presented in this guide. The CMM concept was developed for the information technology (IT) industry primarily because of the need to match the requirements for software use to the ability of the organization and staff to utilize it appropriately. Although originally developed for organiza- tions that were outcome-oriented and service-focused, CMM has now spread to other industries and sectors. The key concepts of a CMM approach include: • Influence Factors: the variables/factors that can enhance or degrade successful implementa- tion, collaboration, or organizational change. These are called by different names in different CMM tools; some call these “domains,” others “causal variables.” In this self-assessment tool, they are referred to as “factors.” The factors in the guide were identified through this research project. • Maturity Level: the combined set of actions, strategies, policies, and planning history that represents a user-specified level of maturity (in this case, relating to resilience). Different models usually identify from four to six levels of maturity. Knowing your current maturity level serves as a “point of departure” for the analysis and is the focus of the self-assessment tool for each step in the Framework and for the agency as a whole. • Maturation: changing the level of maturity by using strategies targeted at specific influence factors. For example, establishing formal institutional mechanisms for fostering collabora- tion is likely an important step in institutionalizing what may have been ad hoc previously (FHWA 2016). The self-assessment tool is based on these basic principles and con- cepts. After the self-assessment tool has been applied, all functional areas within an agency that have a role in fostering a more resilient transportation system will have been examined and gaps in resilience capability identified. The self-assessment provides users with the ability to enhance resilience activities within the agency and to strengthen partnerships with others. In the terms of the CMM, both are considered efforts to enhance organizational maturity. Three levels of organizational maturity with respect to resilience efforts are defined in the self-assessment tool. Table 3 shows generally what these different maturity levels mean in terms of typical activities (the specific definitions of different maturity levels will vary by the factor being considered). Level 3 maturity efforts are presented in this guide as the ideal, that is, the highest level of resilience capability for each step in the Framework. It is recognized that achieving this high level might take time and resources. Thus, recommended actions are offered if the agency wants to only reach Level 2. Each chapter in the guide describes the maturity levels for each factor associated with that assessment step. A specific example for an actual factor in the guide is provided below to help illustrate the concept. This factor and its associated maturity levels are found in Step 1: Assess Current Practice, Chapter 3. Are maintenance data reviewed to identify assets with previous impacts/repeat failures? • Level 1: We use maintenance data to schedule maintenance efforts. The only system resilience use of maintenance data is in reporting to the FHWA requirements on repeated disruptions and repairs on the National Highway System (NHS). In practice, there is likely to be a continuum of agency maturity because many different attributes can be mixed and matched. In fact, some CMM frameworks use four or five maturity levels. For purposes of this self-assessment tool, three maturity levels are chosen for ease of understanding and tool application.

A Framework and Self-Assessment Tool for Mainstreaming Transportation Agency Resilience Capabilities 21   MATURITY LEVEL GENERAL DESCRIPTION Level 1 (lowest level) Resilience is championed by an individual or unit within the agency but very little attention is given to resilience in agency policies and procedures. Responsibility has been established for developing resilience-oriented decision support tools and procedures. Agency policies/goals/technical directives have been established directing consideration of resilience in agency functions. Required databases and tools needed for considering resilience have been identified and steps have been taken to develop the needed capability, although this will likely be done (at this level) by individual functional groups or for specific agency responsibilities. Those needed within and external to the agency to implement the steps necessary for more systematic consideration of resilience have been identified and initial efforts made to include them in the development process have been undertaken. Staff are aware of the need to include resilience in their unit's activities and understand the technical requirements for doing so (even though the data and tools might not be available). To the extent appropriate or needed, formal partnerships and/or arrangements have not been made with external agencies and groups to support the effort. Level 2 • Gaps in agency capabilities have been identified and steps initiated to fill these gaps. • An assessment has been made on how resilience considerations will be included in agency decision-making. • Standard operating procedures have started to be changed to provide for integrated consideration of resilience across all agency functions. • Data/tools/methods have been developed and used in support of decision-making, especially in helping agency officials understand where system vulnerabilities and risks exist. • Tools are used to systematically examine a range of threats using the most up-to- date data and methods. The results of the analysis are used in agency decision- making. • Agency staff understand how the results of their resilience efforts affect other functional areas in the agency. • To the extent appropriate or needed, partnerships and/or arrangements have been initiated with external agencies and groups to support the resilience effort. Some of these arrangements have been formalized. Level 3 (highest level) Processes/procedures/methods for resilience have become institutionalized within all functional areas of the agency. Resilience considerations have been incorporated into policies, guidebooks, and standard operating procedures. State-of-the-practice databases/analysis tools/methods are available for vulnerability/risk assessments. Such assessments are conducted periodically considering the latest science and data relating to system disruptions. Resilience-related strategies/actions/designs have been implemented. Top executives and senior managers support the consideration of resilience in agency actions. This support has been communicated to agency staff. Staff are well prepared to consider resilience in their areas of responsibility. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • To the extent appropriate or needed, partnerships and/or arrangements have been initiated with external agencies and groups to support the resilience effort. These arrangements have been formalized and periodic meetings with the partners occur to identify how to make these partnerships more effective. Table 3. Illustrative concepts in resilience maturity levels.

22 Mainstreaming System Resilience Concepts into Transportation Agencies: A Guide • Level 2: We use a maintenance management system for all state highways and use this information to schedule maintenance actions. If those collecting the data find poor asset conditions or potential risks to asset performance, the findings are reported to other agency units or the Chief Engineer. We track repeat failure and maintenance events as part of federal reporting requirements for declared emergencies. We do not use this information to identify priority maintenance actions. • Level 3: We systematically collect “asset-at-risk” data as part of our maintenance data collection efforts for all state highways. We review this maintenance data and use it as an input into decision-making. We track all repeat failures or maintenance efforts and consider them in prioritizing maintenance actions. As seen in the maturity levels for this factor, the higher levels of maturity are much more involved with the collection and use of the data. Level 1 represents only a limited use of the data—reporting on repeated disruptions. Level 3, on the other hand, indicates a repeated use of maintenance data for resilience-related decisions. Figure 2 shows how the self-assessment tool can be used. The tool recognizes that there are more sophisticated and less sophisticated ways to undertake strategies to enhance resilience activities. The CMM reflects this with a scoring system based on 1 to 3 that rates how your agency is doing with respect to each factor in the assessment step being considered. As noted earlier, both natural and human-caused hazards are part of the assessment, where appropriate. More points are provided (i.e., more maturity shown) for the more sophisticated and complete approaches for each factor in a step. A total score is then summed across all the steps to determine how mature the organization is with respect to undertaking resilience-oriented activities and efforts. The scoring system not only provides agency managers with some sense of where they are with respect to overall agency capabilities, but by the nature of the scoring, it allows managers to identify which steps (or functions within an agency) need attention; for individual steps, the scoring system identifies which factors within each step could be improved. Figure 2. Overview of the self-assessment tool for assessing organizational resilience efforts.

A Framework and Self-Assessment Tool for Mainstreaming Transportation Agency Resilience Capabilities 23   The following example illustrates the scoring approach. You have conducted a self-assessment using all 10 steps of the tool. The scores for each step are as follows: Self-Assessment Tool Step Score Max Score % of Max Score Step 1: Assess Current Practice 27 36 75% Step 2: Organize for Success 24 33 73% Step 3: Develop an External Communications Strategy and Plan 24 27 89% Step 4: Implement Early Wins 18 27 67% Step 5: Understand the Hazards and Threats 16 27 59% Step 6: Understand the Impacts 13 24 54% Step 7: Determine Vulnerability and Prioritize Responses 5 12 42% Step 8A: Assess Strategies for Enhancing Emergency Response Capabilities and Agency Preparedness 37 45 82% Step 8B: Identify Enhancements to Operations and Maintenance Activities 14 24 58% Step 8C: Undertake Detailed Assessments of Exposed Assets and New Projects 11 24 46% Step 8D: Integrate into Asset Management 12 30 40% Step 9: Program and Implement Resilience Measures 10 24 42% Step 10: Monitor and Manage System Performance 8 24 33% Total Agency Score 219 357 61% The interpretation of different total agency scores is as follows: < 50% There are many areas where your agency can make improvements in its overall resilience strategy. Management should identify the priorities for making such improvements (following the recommended strategies presented in each chapter). > 80% Your agency has made important strides in mainstreaming resilience actions. There are still some areas where improvements can be made. Management should focus on these areas and on strategies to maintain and possibly enhance existing actions. 50–79% Your agency has strength in several areas as they relate to resilience efforts, but there are many other areas where improvements should be made. Management should identify the priorities for making such improvements (following the recommended strategies presented in each chapter). The example agency has an overall score of 61%, which is at the low end of the medium maturity level. This suggests that there is much work to be done to mainstream resilience efforts into this agency’s transportation decision-making and programs. The scoring for individual steps suggests the agency is doing a good job developing an external communications strategy and enhancing its emergency response capabilities—two assessment results that would not be unexpected in most transportation agencies. However, these higher scores do not mean that enhancing these activities is unnecessary. The guide still recommends strategies for making enhancements to those activities identified in the self-assessment as being at a high level of

24 Mainstreaming System Resilience Concepts into Transportation Agencies: A Guide maturity. The underlying concept is that periodic examination of all agency actions contributing to a resilient transportation system is an important foundation for a resilience-oriented agency. Strategies for doing so are found in the respective chapters for each step. There are many steps where much improvement can occur for this example agency (these are shown in red on the graphic). As indicated, many of these steps occur later in the Framework and represent the actual implementation of resilience-oriented actions. This result represents a likely outcome of many initial transportation agency self-assessments in that many of the preceding steps have not yet led to implemented actions. Identifying actions to enhance the maturity of the agency’s efforts in a particular step, although coordinated at the agency level, could very well occur in parallel given the different functional unit staff involved. For example, two of the lowest scores for this agency—Undertake Detailed Assessments of Exposed Assets and New Projects (Step 8C) and Monitor and Manage System Performance (Step 10)—could involve staff from project development/design/environment and planning/asset management, respectively. It is important to recognize that the scoring system might vary slightly from one agency to the next because of the different organizational structures of DOTs. The self-assessment tool is designed to adapt to the needs and context of every transportation agency. Thus, although the same score may have somewhat different meanings for different agencies, the variation will likely be small. There may also be “bottleneck” effects where all scores are high except for one step in the middle. This is one of the most important results of the self-assessment—identifying where inadequate action or even inaction is constraining other resilience efforts. Note that the self-assessment tool can be used by any transportation agency but is geared for state DOTs and roadway assets. An agency can choose to customize the maturity model by only using those factors considered most relevant to the agency or develop its own factors based on experience and expertise in the agency. In addition, weights could be assigned to those steps or factors considered more important than others. As shown above, the self-assessment tool compares the overall agency score and the scores for individual steps to a range that defines a current maturity level. The boundaries in the scores of the maturity level can be defined by the agency, for example, 0 to 49%, 50% to 79%, and 80% to 100% for the example agency. Alternatively, the ranges indicated in this guide can be used by default. The explanation for the ranges in the guide is as follows: • The upper boundary of the Level 1 maturity classification assumes a score of 1 point in two-thirds of the factors for Level 1 plus a score of 2 points for each of the remaining one-third of the factors in the Level 2 maturity. – Thus, assume there are nine factors in a step; six (two-thirds of the nine factors) are rated as 1, and three (the remaining one-third of the factors) are rated at the Level 2 maturity level, and thus getting a score of 2 per factor. – The upper range of the Level 1 maturity level is thus (6 × 1) + (3 × 2) = 12, making 0 to 12 the range for Level 1 maturity. • Similarly, the lower boundary of the Level 3 maturity classification comes from a score of 3 for each of the two-thirds of the nine factors at the Level 3 maturity and a score of 2 for each of the remaining one-third of the nine factors at the Level 2 maturity. – The lower boundary becomes (3 × 6) + (2 × 3) = 24. Thus, the lower boundary of the Level 3 maturity level is 24 and the range is 24 to 27. • Level 2 maturity is the range that remains or 13 to 23. The guide recommends strategies for making enhancements to those activities that are identified in the self-assessment as being at a high level of maturity. The underlying concept is that periodic examination of all agency actions contributing to a resilient transportation system is an important foundation for a resilience-oriented agency.

A Framework and Self-Assessment Tool for Mainstreaming Transportation Agency Resilience Capabilities 25   Recommended Actions to Maintain the Highest Level of Agency Resilience Capability Each step description in the guide presents strategies that an agency can use to maintain a Level 3 maturity, assuming that it has achieved such a score. The intent of these strategies is that an agency should not stop improving its resilience efforts just because it has achieved the highest maturity level. The highest level of capability focuses on continual improvement in agency capability and takes actions that lead to a more resilient transportation system. For example, assume your agency has determined it has reached a Level 3 maturity for Step 1: Assessing Current Practice. The following actions can be taken to maintain this level. • Periodically reassess the capability of your agency’s units with respect to their role in transportation system resilience. This could be done in-house or by bringing in a third-party evaluator to conduct the assessment. • Continue to monitor the resilience of the transportation system and consider changes in this performance when making changes in the agency to enhance current capability. • Participate in and/or lead meetings with partner agencies and groups to reinforce the importance of collaboration and coordination in enhancing system resilience. • Reinforce the resilience mindset among your staff by conducting role-playing exercises that involve participants from a range of internal and external stakeholders, including community and system user representatives. • Update staff professional development and training opportunities to include the latest thinking and concepts in system resilience. Incorporate these concepts into agency succes- sion planning. • Maintain situational awareness of rapidly changing cybersecurity and physical-security exposures that impact agency resilience. Note that an agency can be at Level 3 maturity and still obtain scores of 2 in some factors. If such is the case, a strategy or a set of action steps can be identified to improve the factors with a rating of 2. Recommended Actions to Achieve Higher Levels of Resilience Capability If your agency was rated at Levels 1 or 2 maturity, you can take steps to continue your evolu- tion toward a more resilience-oriented agency. In such cases, agency managers may identify which of the factors in the assessment were most lacking and determine priorities for improv- ing your agency’s organization. Each step description offers a table as a template to determine which steps your agency can take to improve its resilience identified through the self-assessment efforts, who should be responsible, the timeframe for the implementation, and expected outcomes (see Table 4 for an example associated with Step 1: Assess Current Practice). As seen in Table 4, some of the rows are shaded. Step 4 of the self-assessment tool, Implement Early Wins, is an important part of an agency strategy to jumpstart the implementation of a system resilience program. By its very nature, these early wins can include actions that might also be found in other steps of the tool. For example, including staff from different units in your agency in developing an external communication strategy is an important action that could be identified as part of Step 3: Develop an External Communications Strategy and Plan. However, it could also be considered an early win in an agency’s strategy and thus be also considered as part of Step 4: Implement Early Wins. Like in Table 4, the guide indicates in shaded rows those actions found in other steps that could be considered as part of an early wins strategy. In some sense, Step 4 is partly viewed as a gathering spot for such efforts.

26 Mainstreaming System Resilience Concepts into Transportation Agencies: A Guide Chapter 2 Reference FHWA. 2016. Transportation Performance Management Capability Maturity Model. Office of Transportation Performance Management. Retrieved June 30, 2020, from https://www.tpmtools.org/wp-content/uploads/ 2016/09/tpm-cmm.pdf Let’s do this. (check) Action Re sp on si bi lit y? Ti m ef ra m e? Ex pe ct ed ou tc om es ? Conduct a self-assessment of your agency’s current resilience efforts. Conduct self-assessments of specific agency functions that are particularly relevant to system resilience—for example, using the FHWA CMM tools described earlier. Incorporate transportation system resilience into agency plans and policy statements in order to institutionalize a resilience mindset into agency staff. Establish a formal process for reviewing and updating the emergency operations plan. Develop a process for conducting after-action and after-event reports that are used to identify corrective actions. Develop a process for reviewing maintenance data to identify chronic disruptions to different assets. Review threat/hazard exposure and/or vulnerability/risk studies to understand potential disruptions to your transportation system and possible demands on your agency. Review staff roles and responsibilities to identify how they relate to enhancing system resilience. Develop a strategy for institutionalizing system resilience into staff roles. Review the performance of your agency’s project design standards and begin the process of making design criteria more adaptive to expected future hazards and threats. Develop a human resource development and succession plan that focuses on preparing the current and future agency staff for resilience-oriented activities. Assess training/professional development programs and incorporate concepts relating to transportation system resilience into course materials. Begin the process of undertaking (or at least examining) some of the subsequent steps in this guide and determine if your agency has the capability to undertake such efforts. Where necessary, identify strategies to provide such capability. Possible actions for Step 4: Implement Early Wins Table 4. Actions to achieve higher levels of resilience capability for Step 1: Assess Current Practice.