Institutional Architectures to Improve Systems Operations and Management (2012) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
Pages 42-52
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 42... ...
It also requires the identification of the organizational units responsible, an accountability mechanism, supporting resources, and appropriate professional capacities. Systems and Technology Implications Without a formal managed SO&M program and experienced systems engineering staff (at both DOT central office and district levels)
|
From page 43... ...
They include both informal and formal expressions. The informal expressions are the presumptions regarding proper role of the public agency in providing facilities and services and their general quality level.
|
From page 44... ...
Few senior transportation agency managers have an SO&M background or seem to project a clear understanding of its potential. In some of the mature states identified in this project, technical understanding of the potential of operations has spread beyond operations staff, resulting from a combination of conditions including reconciliation to capacity constraints and CEOs with previous operations exposure, strong middle management or technical champions, and a major disruptive event.
|
From page 45... ...
. Federal aid accounts for nearly 40% of state capital expenditures and the grant conditions, regulations, and technical leadership of FHWA and FTA substantially shape state DOT, MPO, and local government priorities.
|
From page 46... ...
The difficulty in finding staff with the necessary capabilities, combined with constraints on staff sizes and hiring delays, has led some states into outsourcing a range of field functions, such as TMC operations, safety service patrols, maintenance, and systems development. Relationship to Program and Business Process Capabilities There is a high level of agreement that structure follows strategy and that decisions about organizational design must link clearly to agency intentions regarding improving business processes.
|
From page 47... ...
Without aggregated expenditures, management has little idea of what has been spent or budgeted for SO&M as compared to the established programs. Although, exclusive of occasional major ITS infrastructure investments and regular snow and ice control reserves, SO&M annual expenditure levels rarely exceed 2% of total state capital budgets, funding levels are always a concern, especially in the competition with legacy construction and maintenance programs for scarce resources.
|
From page 48... ...
Agency Mission Priorities Transportation Local Law Fire and Private Mission Agency Government Enforcement Emergency Contractor Law enforcement Low Low High Medium Low Emergency response Medium Medium High High Low Responder safety High High High High High Congestion management High Medium Low Low Medium
|
From page 49... ...
This legacy orientation includes unrealistic assumptions about 49 Table 6.2. Comparison of Institutional Characteristics: Mature versus Transitioning Process Agencies Institutional Element Features Associated with Transitioning Process Agencies Institutional Element Features Associated with Mature Institutional Element Called "Ad Hoc" Process Agencies Called "Rationalized" Culture/Leadership Organization/Staffing Resource Allocation Partnerships • Construction project development legacy dominant • Lack of visible policy or leadership for SO&M • SO&M not a formal program • Fuzzy legislative authority regarding roles in field • Subordinate role and divided portfolios of SO&M managers • Shortfall/turnover in qualified staff • Components of SO&M in fragmented units • No dedicated program budget • Lack of standardization/documentation • No performance outcome measures • Differing partner priorities unresolved • Fuzzy role of private sector • SO&M understood and supported by top management • SO&M has core program status • Clear legal authority for operations roles in field • Customer level of service acknowledged as key mission • Top level SO&M management positions established in central office and districts • Professionalization and certification of operations core capacity positions • Operations is formal, visible sustainable budget line item • Trade-offs between operations and capital expenditure considered • High level of operations coordination among key players in service delivery • Outsourcing performance managed while maintaining agency's core capacities
|
From page 50... ...
among operations participants, including PSAs, local governments, MPOs, and the private sector, are exacerbated by informal and unstable partner relationships in congestion management activities. The experience of the more mature states suggests that addressing these challenges is essential to the development of more effective programs and strategy applications.
|
From page 51... ...
Integrated • Top-level management position with operations orientation established in central office and districts. • Professionalization and certification of operations core capacity positions including performance incentives.
|
From page 52... ...
52 Table 6.4. Criteria for Institutional Capability Maturity (continued)
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.