Integrating Effective Transportation Performance, Risk, and Asset Management Practices (2022)

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.

60 Fundamentally changing the culture of a transportation agency and integrating those changes into historically siloed management practices requires the earnest focus of the entire organi- zation, including participation of practically every individual. Agencies function differently in response to individual environmental conditions, interpreting and applying performance metrics and asset management standards in response to the agency’s unique requirements. The level at which lasting innovation occurs, such as integration of performance, risk, and asset management, often changes according to the organization of the agency. Acknowledg- ing those unique requirements, the guidance provided in this study offers a comprehensive, if not complex, framework that directs and guides individual agencies to evaluate their current requirements, incorporating systematic methods and procedures to monitor progression toward effective integration over time. This process of integration is evolutionary and not static—one that incorporates continuous improvement rather than a one-time effort. In response to that requirement, the guidance in this report is structured to be a framework for that process. It is designed to be resilient within the expected evolution of an agency as it matures in its management integration. Agencies continuously looking to improve value added from more efficient integration need to engage that flexible perspective in their programs, strategies, and overall vision. This study has confirmed that meaningful integration progress can be achieved through assessing integration maturity, identifying challenges, and developing an integration roadmap, a process that should be part of a cycle regularly repeated. This reevalua- tion occurs when an agency’s vision and general strategies can be refreshed to drive the ability to adapt and focus on systemwide management and development. To bring this guidance to a close, observations of roadblocks to integration as well as rules of thumb for each of the five key areas are articulated below. These key areas were observed to be generally shared points of consideration among the diverse agencies that were involved during the research, and they are applicable at any level of integration maturity. As agencies look to implement this guidance, a champion, committee, metric, or other type of reporting element assigned to drive and report on advancements in these areas will support a more holistic and resilient integration process. Approaches to Integration Agencies and organizations take various paths to achieve successful integration of manage- ment practice areas. The research team has found that an integration effort requires a shared goal throughout an organization, with strong support from executive sponsors and common understanding from the employees and expanded staff within the organization. It is crucial to establish centralized management for asset performance and risk management, coupled with CONCLUSION

Conclusion 61   executive-level directions that cascade throughout the various divisions of an organization. Within the divisions of a large organization, cross-functional collaboration is key to bringing together expertise in each of the practice areas. Integration is an effort that everyone in an orga- nization should be engaged in as part of his or her day-to-day work, through the execution of agency strategies as well as through providing feedback to decision-makers to support improve- ments in management approach and system performance. Common Roadblocks • Champions not existing, identified, or empowered to influence business case for integrated management; • Workflow management that is primarily focused on internal department metrics and require- ments, thus perpetuating a siloed working culture disconnected from the broader system management efforts and agency vision; and • An imbalance in significance or lack of participation in one (or two) of the performance, risk, or asset management leads. Rules of Thumb • Centralized management for successful integration; • Strong support from executive sponsors and executive leadership; • Cross-functional collaboration; • Use of key performance indicators and establishing performance goals for all strategic areas to give a framework to performance, risk, and asset management; and • Creation of core policies and documentation of key processes. Data and Software Needs Data and information systems are viewed as a foundation for performance management, risk management, and asset management at many organizations. The research team has found that organizations in which all three areas are integrated at a high level have established management systems to support integration with a strong data governance practice. Data tend to be central- ized; trend analysis and target setting can be conducted at a cross-program level to consider the trade-offs and maximize return on investment. Clear rules and documented procedures for acquiring, managing, analyzing, reporting, and disposing of data have added tremendous value to integration efforts. With quality data from a variety of sources, integrated decision-making can be informed by the analysis of historical, present, and projected performance data to support planning, programming, and implementation. Some organizations take the proactive approach to the next level by utilizing real-time data monitoring and trending to get ahead of potential issues. Additionally, the use of visualization techniques and interactive data dashboards have been found to be of great value for identifying trends and cross–data set observations, decision- making, and for communicating ideas to executives and stakeholders. Common Roadblocks • A segmented data management structure that is either individually managed in all three work streams or primarily managed in one. • Data being retained in antiquated, familiar tool sets that are inaccessible or poorly connected to the enterprise system and not well defined and understood outside of a select few, which poses a risk to retention of legacy knowledge and renders the value of the data generally less effective than it potentially could be.

62 Integrating Effective Transportation Performance, Risk, and Asset Management Practices Rules of Thumb • Institutionalize data governance and clearly establish data governance policies. • Require and maintain consistent and high-quality data. • Establish an overarching data management system that feeds into all areas. • Use trend analysis and predictive modeling to ensure dynamic decision-making. • Implement visualization techniques and interactive data dashboards. Personnel and Skills It is critical to have the right capacity and competency of sta to drive the strategic agenda of integrating management practice areas. e research team observed that strong leadership support motivates sta to take on the action items for integration. e right skills and appro- priate training oerings are important to help employees understand and support their critical roles in the integration. Expectations should be communicated clearly; sometimes, incentives tied to measures of integration can promote employee engagement. Documented processes for knowledge retention and succession planning are also critical to maintaining momentum in the long term. Additionally, many agencies are focusing on building experience and skills internally, to ensure knowledge transfer between any hired consultants. Common Roadblocks • Lack of cross-department training opportunities, which reinforces a siloed and disconnected work environment that foregoes a potential common area for collaboration, enterprise vision, and culture development and • Gaps in agency sta expertise that limit the agency’s technical capabilities in using modern, more technically specialized management and visualization tools. Rules of Thumb • Strategic planning and vision, • Multidisciplinary knowledge, • Technical experts for operation and maintenance, • Quality and asset management ISO competencies, • Multiskilled sta who understand both engineering and nance, • Data management and visualization, • Modern technology systems, and • Knowledge transfer between hired consultants and agency sta. Policy and Agency Structure Organizations that have identied one or more integration champions tend to demonstrate higher eciency and eectiveness in their integration process. Some organizations have achieved a high level of integration within a short period by modifying organizational structure to adapt to integration needs. While the mindset of being willing to change is imperative, some organ- izations have also beneted from innovation. ey encourage and incentivize innovation to foster collaboration between dierent practices. A common strength at organizations whose practices are highly integrated is that their policies, processes, and procedures are very well documented and communicated throughout the organization in alignment with the strategic vision and objectives.

Conclusion 63   Common Roadblocks • Agency structure lacks a management framework developed specically for collaboration. • Outdated legacy processes that are more traditional or have not been replaced either admin- istratively or culturally eectively constrain the eectiveness of integration with increasingly more irrelevant legacy standards. • An agency vision or strategy that is less than eective. • e agency vision is not known or well understood by sta as a result of a lack of training or buy-in. • e vision does not cra a culture that empowers, or realistically enables, a workforce encouraged to be innovative. • e vision does not set a clear standard for agency and sta development. Rules of Thumb • Identication of an integration champion, • Modied organizational structure to support management area integration, • Documented and shared policies and procedures of management practices, and • Recognition of the importance of innovation at the executive leadership level. Resource Requirements Funding, stang, and executive support are three resources vital to laying a strong founda- tion for integration eorts. Organizations with strong integration practices tend to have the budgets for performance, risk, and asset managed combined or exibly dispersed. It is necessary to establish funding specically to support management area integration aside from the regular operations budget. Some organizations recognize that better results can be achieved if the pro- gram can be expanded with more sta with specic skills. It is also common to share sta among practice areas, given the transferable skills and understanding of the integrated management approach. Establishing support and buy-in from executive leadership and legislators in early stages can also set the stage for eective integration from the beginning, which largely improves eciency and helps to clear roadblocks along the way. Common Roadblocks • Lack of intentional, transparent, and communicated investment in tools and skills develop- ment, which not only handcus the progress of integration but potentially diminishes the sincerity of sta buy-in of the vision. Rules of Thumb • Combined budgets for integrated management areas, • Funding established specically to support management area integration, • Flexible programming plans to account for variations in available funding, • Cooperation and sharing of sta between dierent divisions of an agency, and • Support for integration from executive leadership and/or legislators. Final Thoughts e guidance presented by this report is designed to prepare agency champions and execu- tives who are driving toward the value-add eects of integrated management. e research and outcomes presented help illustrate what can be achieved by looking at and building on how

64 Integrating Effective Transportation Performance, Risk, and Asset Management Practices this challenge of achieving integration has been experienced across the globe. The real-world examples from agencies throughout the country and around the world help connect the dots between the concepts developed herein, which are adaptable to an individual agency’s specific requirements. The value in using the TAMP development and management process as a vehicle to initiate and mature performance, risk and asset management cannot be understated. It can be assumed that, as system integration matures, improved tools, processes, and initiatives will be developed that enhance integration value, capacity, and efficiency. Nevertheless, this existing federally required process, which will soon go through a round of updates (and continue to do so in the future), provides an immediate environment for integration in addition to supporting the mandate behind the TAMP. This discussion of trade-offs between alternative solutions and short-term versus long-term needs requires input from all three management system perspectives to ensure the agency is capturing the highest and best use in its investment and management strategies. Finally, the five key areas and the model roadmap provide a framework for approaching, organizing, and executing the events and discussions in which the agency-specific integration action plan will take shape in response to two critical questions: 1. What are your agency’s roadblocks to integration? 2. What can realistically be done to mitigate that obstruction and drive integration forward? Experience has shown that using the procedures presented in this report and involving the right mix of diverse staff to have honest, informed, and, therefore, effective discussions helped administrators in agencies large and small to integrate effective performance, risk, and asset management practices into long-term transportation planning programs. Potentially more importantly, however—as these are but some of the critical steps in this integration process— this broad guidance demonstrates what is required to reach the desired end state: a diverse collection of individuals working together to achieve a higher level of systematic efficiency than they had ever accomplished separately.