1. The AASHTO Guide to Systems Operations & Management NCHRP 3-94 Steve Lockwood – PB Phil Tarnoff – University of Maryland Rich Margiotta, Erin Flanigan – CSI John Conrad – CH2MHill Scott Rawlins – SSOM and Panel Chair Basic Mitigation Strategy

2. 2 Effective Strategies are evolving to maximize performance of existing system Impact of Operations Strategy (Best Practice) on Total Delay Flow control/ramp metering 5-6% Traffic responsive signals 1% Incident management 5-6% Work zone traffic management 1-2% Weather information 1% Traveler information 1% These impacts are comparable to many capacity investments and can be applied on a large proportion of the total network. Causes Solutions 2

3. 3 State of the Practice is Advancing 1.Performance Management critical for maximizing mobility – especially as capacity lags 2.SO&M will significantly reduce delays and disruptions 3.Large gap between average applications and best practice 4.Review of DOT experience: absence of appropriate processes & institutional arrangements is a major barrier to effective SO&M 5.A formalized core SO&M program is the key to success 3

4. 4 Supporting Effectiveness Through Maturing Processes and Institutional Arrangements Program A needs-responsive, performance-driven, comprehensive C/E statewide SO&M program Processes The business processes and systems required to facilitate program qualities above Institutions The values, capabilities and arrangements and resources required to support and sustain of the required business process Program A needs-responsive, performance-driven, comprehensive C/E statewide SO&M program Processes The business processes and systems required to facilitate program qualities above Institutions The values, capabilities and arrangements and resources required to support and sustain of the required business process SO&M Program Performance A needs-responsive, performance-driven, comprehensive and cost-effective statewide SO&M program Necessary Technical and Business Processes Business & technical processes and systems required to facilitate program qualities above Supportive Institutional & Organizational Arrangements The values, capabilities and arrangements and resources required to support and sustain of the required business process 4

5. 5 The Need for SO&M “Green Book” Objective: maximizing the effective use (performance) of existing system Research shows that top management actions regarding processes and institutional arrangements are key to effectiveness Guidance to Indentify steps managers can/should take designed to improve SO&M programs Develop existing material into an accessible and user- friendly product Web-based approach with self-evaluation point of departure 5

6. 6 The Operations Capability Framework: Key Elements Business/Technical Process Capabilities: Scope of Activities Business Processes Technology/Systems Performance Measurement Institutional/Organizational Arrangements: Culture/Leadership Organization/Staffing Resources Partnerships 6

7. 7 Concept of Capability Maturity Levels Ad Hoc Transitioning Managed Mainstreamed Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Some strategies No performance Fragmented organization Full range Processes standard Formal program Some measurement Strategies integrated Outcomes known Continuous improvement Accountability Agency commitment Wide understanding Formal program Most of today’s agencies Goal for the future Today’s Best practice Possible target 7

8. 8 Maturity Model Framework (Has now been applied in practice) State DOT experience indicates that certain process & institutional features are closely linked to effective programs and their maintenance of continuing improvement Key is internalizing continuous and measurable improvement in customer-related performance across complete range of operations needs Point of departure self-evaluated Defines next level of arrangements to improve effectiveness (stepwise) and strategies to achieve it 8

9. 9 Substantive Structure: PROGRAM MATURITY  Needs-basis Customer needs related Network/context related  Support Infrastructure Sharing across applications Functional integration  Applications Aggressiveness Technology and procedures balance Benchmarking Continuous improvement  Comprehensiveness and Consistency Standardization Applications consistency Application range PROCESS MATURITY  Business Processes Planning Programming and budgeting Procurement Operations  Systems and Technology Regional architectures Project Systems engineering process Standards/interoperabili ty Testing and validation  Performance Measures definition Data acquisition management Measures utilization INSITUTIONAL MATURITY  Culture Mission Understanding Leadership Program Status DOT Authority Continuous Improvement  Organization and Staffing Executive Level Organizational & accountability Structure Core competencies  Resource Allocation Formal. program-level budget estimate Sustainable resourcing from state funds Project Investment trade offs  Partnerships Operational roles and procedures with PSAs, LG, MPOs Rationalize staff versus outsourcing 9

10. 10 Levels of Maturity for Each of the 3 Dimensions Level 1 (L1) - characterizes agencies that have not yet begun to develop an SO&M program Levels 2 (L2) and 3 (L3) - describe the level of maturity found in the top 10 percent of State DOTs Level 4 (L4) - an ideal target for achievement in terms of institutionalized, sustainable, continuously improving SO&M activities 10

11. 11 What types of processes (planning, systems engineering, performance measurement) are needed to improve program to the next level – and to continue to improve? Note: these are the elements: each one is broken down into components for guidance purposes 11

12. 12 What are the leadership, organization and staff features, Resources and relationships needed to support and maintain the needed Processes? 12

13. 13

14. 14 INSTITUTIONAL DIMENSIONS L-1: AD HOC Legacy-based L.2: RATIONALIZED Restructuring L.3:MAINSTREAMED Fully Supportive Operations Culture Legacy—Hero-driven  Operations acknowledged, including value of reliability) but without strategic commitment or top level leadership  Adherence to legacy roles among transportation and public safety entities Championed/Internalized across disciplines  Visible agency leadership citing Operations leverage, cost-effectiveness and risks across disciplines --  Rationalization of responsibilities by formal agreements across institutions (transportation agency, PSAs, private) Mobility Committed  Customer mobility service commitment accessibility accepted as core program  Clear legal authority for operations roles, actions among transportation agency, PSAs, Local government clarified Organization and Staffing for Operations Fragmented, Understaffed  Some fragmentation of key functions and boundaries - horizontal and vertical  Reliance on key individual for technical knowledge and champions for leadership Aligning, trained  TMC focus with Vertical/horizontal authority/responsibility alignment for operations including P/B/D/C/O/M  Core capacities established with KSA specs, training and performance incentives Professionalized  Top level management position with operations orientation established in central office and districts  Professionalization and certification of operations core capacity positions Resource Allocation to Operations Project -level  Funds at project level, ad hoc, unpredictable  Ad hoc resource allocation with operations as secondary priority Criteria-based program  Budget allocation for operations driven by transparent criteria on life cycle needs basis  Operations claim on agencies’ resources for mobility support established on timing, extent, cost-effectiveness Sustainable Budget Line Item  Operations is formal visible sustainable line item in agencies’ budget -- capital, operating and maintenance  Trade-offs between operations and capital expenditure considered as part of the planning process Partnerships for Operations Informal, unaligned  Non-transportation entities unaligned with transportation objectives, procedures relying on informal personal basis  Private sector utilized for isolated functions Formal, aligned  Transportation agencies assert leadership in partnerships via formal written, agreements with PSA, EM,  Private sector capabilities in technology, management tapped Consolidated  High level of operations coordination among owner/operators: state, local private with TMC consolidation  Clear outsourcing role developed, while maintaining agencies’ core capacities PROCESS DIMENSIONS L-1 TRANSITIONING” L-2 MANAGED L-3 INTEGRATED Scope Narrow and Opportunistic  Ad hoc operations activities based on regional initiatives, with limited central office support  Narrow/ITS-project based, low hanging fruit Needs-based and Standardized  Operations as needs mobility- based multi- strategy program  Standardized agency programs or strategies related to specific problems, desired outcomes Full range Core Program  Full staged program of synergizing functionalities  Operations as key trade-off investment with other improvements in terms of “mobility management” Business Processes Informal, undocumented  Projects/issues handled on fire fight basis with only modest formal regional/district planning i(but no standard template)  Minimal conops, architecture; procedures ad hoc/no consistency Planned  Strategic planning and budgeting of staged improvements including maintenance and construction implications  Architectures and related processes developed, including major communications structure Integrated and Documented  Integrated operations-related planning, budgeting, staffing, deployment and maintenance both within operations and with SW and metro planning  Full documentation of key conops, architecture, procedures and protocols Technology and Systems Qualitative, opportunistic  Technologies selected at project level  Limited understanding of operating platform needs Evaluated platforms  Basic stable technology for existing strategies evaluated on qualitative basis  Identification of standardized, statewide interoperable operating platforms and related procurement procedures Standardized, interoperable  Systematic evaluation/application of best available technology/p[procedure combinations  Standard technology platforms developed/maintained Performance Outputs reported  Measurement of outputs only with limited analysis/remediation  Output measures reported Outcomes used  Outcome measures measured developed and used for improvement  Outcome measures reported Performance Accountability  Continuous improvement perspective adopted (requires intra and interagency after action analysis  Accountability and benchmarking at unit and agency level via regular outcome performance reporting – internal and public PROOF OF CONCEPT Guidance Based on Current Best Practice and Beyond Informal, undocumented Projects/issues handled on fire fight basis with only modest formal regional/district planning (but no standard template) Minimal concepts of operations. Systems architecture; procedures ad hoc --no consistency

15. 15 User-based Self-Evaluation Indicate User’s position (check one):  Top management (CO or District) Program manager (CO or District)  Project manager (CO or district ) Indicate agency current state-of-play (level) regarding selected element  Measures not defined or utilized  Output measures utilized only for some activities/unlinked to policy  Output measures for all activities/Linked to policy Select capability element as point of departure (examples)  Performance measurement  Standardization/Documentation  Sustainable budget for planning  clear lines of responsibility  Aligned partnerships with PSAs Guidance Detailed Strategy Guidance for selected element to move to next level 15

16. 16 “Black Box” Determines Users current level and next steps to improved capability CURRENT LEVEL OF PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT MATURITY L-1  L-2L-2  L-3L-3  L-4 PM program based on output measures only PM program based on output measures and a few outcome measures only PM program based on full set of both output/outcome measures, linked to agency operations 16

17. 17 Standard Strategy Templates for Each Element/Level combination (100+) PERFORMANCE ELEMENT Performance Measures Definition: Strategy from Level 1 to 2, Issue Guidance Function of component Development of performance metrics for operations activities and the impact operations activities have on users Why important for CIP Development of an effective operations program must be based on matching needs to solutions. Performance measurement does this by cost-effectively directing operations investments. Having an ongoing performance process means that new deployments and policies can be continually evaluated, rather than having to undertake piecemeal evaluations. Strategy (from Layer 3) Identify output performance measures for the selected operations activities Detailed Description of activity to move up a level A. The philosophy here is, “ if you ’ re going to manage it, you ’ re going to measure it ”. For Level 1 to Level 2, the limited number of operational activities that will be monitored must first be identified. For Level 2 to 3, all operations activities engaged in will have performance measures defined for them. Output measures for both Level transitions should be relatively simple and easy to collect. These are often referred to as “ activity based ” measures since they monitor the extent of activities undertaken, and their immediate consequences. Therefore, the measures selected will include at a minimum:  incident duration  incident and work zone characteristics (number, type, severity)  operational activity (website hits, service patrol stops, messages)  equipment locations and status  equipment downtime Responsibility: Operations staff Relationships: N/A References: Guide to Benchmarking Operations Performance Measures, http://www.trb.org/TRBNet/ProjectDisplay.asp?ProjectID=1218 http://www.trb.org/TRBNet/ProjectDisplay.asp?ProjectID=1218 NCHRP Web-Only Document 97, "Guide to Effective Freeway Performance Measurement: Final Report and Guidebook", http://www.trb.org/news/blurb_detail.asp?id=7477http://www.trb.org/news/blurb_detail.asp?id=7477 17

18. 18 Process is repeated for next element of capability “Model” uses user self-evaluation to determine current level Model defines next steps (based on current best practice User only sees material related to her agency level Business & Technical Process Capabilities: Scope of Activities Business Processes Technology/Systems Performance Measurement Institutional/Organizational Arrangements: Culture/Leadership Organization/Staffing Resources Partnerships 18

19. 19 Benefits of Web-Based Approach Avoids lengthy paper documents with big charts Relationships among elements built in Custom tailored to user Users self-evaluate SDOT state of play Increasing levels of detail displayed on automated basis Hyperlinks to supporting documents 19

20. 20 Need for Senior State DOT Input Importance of SO&M to your program? Your management objectives related to SO&M? Principle challenges you see Lessons you have learned to date Utility of Guidance to you We look forward to follow-up with you 20