1. based on FHWA Capability Maturity Model Workshops
24/04/2017
Transportation Systems
Management and Operations (TSM&O)
State of the Practice
This purpose of this presentation is to identify how state DOTs (and their partners) can improve their capabilities as agencies to improve transportations systems management and operations (TSM&O) effectiveness.
SHRP2 research indicated that there are specific identifiable process and institutional capabilities that are essential preconditions to developing more effective TSM&O activities. These capabilities have been structured into a Capability Maturity Model (CMM) self-assessment workshop conducted at 40 workshops to date.
In these workshops the agencies assessed their own strengths and weaknesses and identified actions that can improve their capabilities. In 27 of these workshops the actions were embodied in formal implementation plans.
This presentation describes the process used and the current state of play in terms of general strengths and weaknesses regarding current capabilities, consensus regarding key actions needed by agencies to improve, and implications for needed external support.
based on
FHWA Capability Maturity Model Workshops

2. The Challenges/Opportunities for TSM&O
24/04/2017
The Challenges/Opportunities for TSM&O
Challenges
Congestion and delay are increasing as economy and population grow but capacity is constrained
High value placed on reliability
Existing TSM&O versus state of practice – unsystematic and developing with “pockets of excellence”
Opportunities
Unexploited potential of aggressive, integrated, collaborative TSM&O applied to existing roadways
Transportation agencies are struggling to improve urban highway mobility. Congestion, delay, and unreliability continue to increase. At the same time, traditional capacity-increase strategies are limited by the both funding and implementation constraints. As customer level-of- service continues to decline, it is increasingly accepted that we can no longer “build our way out of congestion.”
Congestion will never be eliminated, but it can be managed to minimize delay, maintain speed and throughput, and improve travel time reliability. Reliability – in terms of unpredictable travel times is increasingly important.
Reliability is increasingly important: whereas “recurring” daily congestion can be planned for, unexpected disruptions (“non-recurring congestion”) causing travel times beyond those normally expected, introduce uncertainties and costs that increasingly frustrate travelers and businesses alike.
A program focused on “transportation systems management and operations” (TSM&O) addresses the reliability problem by implementing a set of strategies that prepare for, and respond to, specific causes of unexpected delay and disruption—crashes, breakdowns, weather, construction, poorly timed signals and special events—which, together, amount to more than half of roadway travel delay and unpredictability.

3. Recapturing Lost Capacity
24/04/2017
Recapturing Lost Capacity
As shown in the pie chart, this “non-recurring congestion” alone is now responsible for over one-half of travel delay and most of the resulting unreliability. While travelers can plan for the predictable delays of recurring congestion, the unpredictability of non-recurring congestion is a major performance issue in our increasingly "just in time" society.
The pie chart shows the range of problems that cause congestion:
Increase in demand on existing roadway capacity causes bottlenecks
Unanticipated traffic incidents that create longer and unreliable trip times, as well as increased crash rates
Road construction and maintenance create traffic congestion that may vary from day-to-day
Poorly time signals
Weather-related events (ice, snow, fog) create unstable, unpredictable, and potentially unsafe driving conditions
The graphic on the right illustrates that unmanaged traffic leads to a reduction in both speed and flow – which together reduce the efficiency of the facility and the productivity of users
Graphic Sources
Right: Applying Analysis Tools in Planning for Operations . FHWA,
Left: FHWA Public Roads,

4. Causes of Delay and Unreliability

5. Remedies to Reduce Delay and Unreliability
24/04/2017
Remedies to Reduce Delay and Unreliability
Potential Contribution of TSM&O Strategies
TSM&O Strategy
Delay Reduction
Flow Control/Ramp Metering
7-8%
Traffic Responsive Signals
10-12%
Incident Management
10-15%
Work Zone Traffic Management
3-4%
Weather Information
2-3%
Traveler Information
1-2%
Active Traffic Management
15%
Pricing
20%
The causes of non-recurring congestion, delay, and unreliability are addressable by specific TSM&O strategies – as shown in the table. While the potential for delay reduction may look small in percentage terms, keep in mind that these strategies can be applied network wide – and can be synergistically combined.
Two decades of experience have shown that these strategies are cost-effective, minimally disruptive, and quickly implemented.
Graphic Sources
Right: author

6. Capability Maturity Model for Effective TSM&O
24/04/2017
Capability Maturity Model for Effective TSM&O
Key barriers are not funding or technology – rather policy, process, and institutional arrangements
The “Program”
Processes that Support the Program
The Second Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP 2) included a Reliability Focus Area that produced research and products on many important data, analytic, and design issues, as well as process and applications improvements.
One project -- SHRP2 L06 -- determined that agencies with the most effective TSM&O activities were differentiated not primarily by budgets or technical skills, but by the existence of certain critical processes and institutional arrangements tailored to the unique features of TSM&O applications.
This finding was confirmed in validation workshops with state DOTs. This confirmed that the most effective programs of TSM&O applications (from a performance point of view) are dependent on specific business and technical processes for their implementation.
The processes in turn require specific institutional arrangements – including staffing and collaborative arrangements.
This is the basic concept of TSM&O “capability.”
Supporting Institutional Framework

7. The “Dimensions” of Capability
24/04/2017
The “Dimensions” of Capability
Effective TSM&O Strategies
Business Processes
Systems and Technology
Performance Measurement
Business and technical processes support strategies
“Capabilities”
Collaboration
The CMM self-assessment framework is structured in terms of six dimensions of capability determined by research to be critical.
Three dimensions (the pillars) are process oriented:
Business Processes, including planning, programming, and budgeting (resources);
Systems and Technology, including use of systems engineering, systems architecture standards, interoperability, and standardization; and
Performance Measurement, including measures definition, data acquisition, and utilization.
Three dimensions (the foundation blocks) are institutional:
Culture, including technical understanding, leadership, outreach, and program legal authority;
Organization and Staffing, including programmatic status, organizational structure, staff development, and recruitment and retention; and
Collaboration, including relationships with public safety agencies, local governments, MPOs, and the private sector.
Organization and relationships support processes
Organization and Staffing
Culture

8. The 6 Dimensions of CMM
Business Processes, including planning, programming and budgeting (resources) and project development and procurement;
Systems and Technology, including use of systems engineering, concepts of operations, systems architecture standards, interoperability, and standardization
Performance Measurement, including measures definition, data acquisition, analytics, communication and utilization.
Culture, including technical understanding and business case, leadership, outreach, and program legal authority;
Organization and Staffing, including programmatic status, organizational structure and accountability, staff capabilities, training/development, and recruitment and retention
Collaboration, including relationships with public safety agencies, local governments, MPOs, and the private sector. 

9. The Capability Maturity Model
24/04/2017
The Capability Maturity Model
Using these critical dimensions, the research project adapted concepts from the Capability Maturity Model (CMM) – widely used in the Information Technology industry.
For each of the six dimensions of capability, the self-assessment utilizes four criteria-based “levels” of capability maturity that indicate the direction of managed changes required to improve TSM&O effectiveness:
Level 1 – “Performed.” Activities and relationships largely ad hoc, informal, and champion driven, substantially outside the mainstream of other DOT activities.
Level 2 – “Managed.” Basic strategy applications understood; key processes’ support requirements identified and key technology and core capacities under development, but limited internal accountability and uneven alignment with external partners.
Level 3 – “Integrated.” Standardized strategy applications implemented in priority contexts and managed for performance; TSM&O technical and business processes developed, documented, and integrated into DOT; partnerships aligned.
Level 4 – “Optimizing.” TSM&O as full, sustainable core DOT program priority, established on the basis of continuous improvement with top-level management status and formal partnerships.
As shown, the concept of critical dimensions is combined with defined levels of increasing capability related to each to develop a self-assessment framework designed to help transportation agencies identify their current strengths and weaknesses and related actions.
The focus is on continuous improvement - in effect, a roadmap for “getting better at getting better.”

10. Capability Maturity Criteria
Level 1 – “Performed.” Activities and relationships largely ad hoc, informal, and champion driven, substantially outside the mainstream of other DOT activities.
Level 2 – “Managed.” Basic strategy applications understood; key processes’ support requirements identified and key technology and core capacities under development, but limited internal accountability and uneven alignment with external partners.
Level 3 – “Integrated.” Standardized strategy applications implemented in priority contexts and managed for performance; TSM&O technical and business processes developed, documented, and integrated into DOT; partnerships aligned.
Level 4 – “Optimizing.” TSM&O as full, sustainable core DOT program priority, established on the basis of continuous improvement with top-level management status and formal partnerships.

11. Example: TSM&O Capability Level Criteria
24/04/2017
Example: TSM&O Capability Level Criteria
Dimensions
Level 1 – Performed
Level 2 – Managed
Level 3 – Integrated
Level 4 – Optimizing
Business Processes
Each jurisdiction doing its own thing according to individual priorities and capabilities
Consensus regional approach developed regarding TSM&O goals, deficiencies, B/C, networks, strategies, and common priorities
Regional program integrated into jurisdictions’ overall multimodal transportation plans with related staged program
TSM&O integrated into jurisdictions’ multisectoral plans and programs, based on formal continuing planning processes
Performance Measurement
Some outputs measured and reported by some jurisdictions
Output data used directly for post action debriefings and improvements; data easily available and dashboarded
Outcome measures identified (networks, modes, impacts) and routinely utilized for objective-based program improvements
Performance measures reported internally for utilization and externally for accountability and program justification
Organization and Staffing
TSM&O added on to units within existing structure and staffing – dependent on technical champions
TSM&O-specific organizational concept developed within/among jurisdictions with core capacity needs identified, collaboration takes place
TSM&O managers have direct report to top management; Job specs, certification, and training for core positions
TSM&O senior managers at equivalent level with other jurisdiction services and staff professionalized
This slide Show example criteria for three of the 6 capability dimensions.
Note that for each of the four levels of capability -- “Performed”, “Managed”, “Integrated”, and “Optimizing” -- there are dimension-specific criteria for that level. The degree to which the current agency state-of-play for a given dimensions approximates the criteria determines the current level for that dimension.
This is the basic framework used for self-assessment of the agencies TSM&O capability maturity.
Inspection of the criteria defining the next level up in capability suggests the types of actions that need to be taken to improve capability.
For those interested in methodology, it is detailed on the web-based, self-assessment guide at

12. Capability Improvement Workshops
24/04/2017
Capability Improvement Workshops
Objective: “Mainstreaming” continuous improvement Key Differentiators: Not projects -- but improvements in processes and institutional arrangements Workshop Process: Agency staff evaluate capabilities and improvement implementation plans Validation: Forty FHWA-sponsored state DOT and regional workshops nationwide
The TSM&O CMM framework was used as the basis for the development of a facilitated one-day self-assessment workshop process for State DOTs and regions. As part of the SHRP 2 research project, the process was validated in five State and regional workshops in 2010 and 2011.
An FHWA Primer (as pictured) was developed describing this process – and states and MPOs were encouraged to apply for a workshop;
Following validation, FHWA sponsored 11 additional workshops from 2011 through 2013.
Based on this experience, FHWA expanded the workshop concept through its SHRP 2 Implementation Assistance Program by adding a pre-workshop senior leadership meeting and post-workshop implementation plan development based on the priority actions developed in the self-assessment process.
In 2013, FHWA and AASHTO solicited State DOTs and regional agencies and selected 27 host entities to implement this full process. Three of these 27 had conducted a self-assessment workshop previously and were selected to develop an implementation plan.
In total, 40 TSM&O CMM workshops were conducted through December Additional workshops and implementation plans are being conducted in 2015.

13. Workshop Locations to date
24/04/2017
Workshop Locations to date
There have been 40 CMM workshops nationwide. Twenty-three included a sequence of self-assessment and implementation plan development. This process involved four steps:
The first step involves pre-workshop preparation by the facilitators to review key documents provided by the State or region documenting current TSM&O initiatives and activities, programs, and priorities in the host area. Facilitators review items such as ITS strategic plans, concepts of operations, long-range transportation plans, agency organization charts, and other relevant plans and documents. A pre-workshop conference call with the lead and/or core team from the host State or region also helps to identify current issues and challenges.
The second step is a senior leadership meeting held a day in advance of the workshop at which senior agency leaders are briefed to explain the process and its value and to obtain their perspectives on important issues.
The third step is the facilitated self-assessment workshop involving the essential TSM&O-related managers from State DOTs and their partners. This workshop starts with a facilitated self-identification of current strengths and weaknesses in each dimension and a consensus determination regarding their current levels of capability. These assessments serve as the basis for participants’ identification of the actions needed to improve to the next level of capability in each dimension and the priorities on which to focus.
The fourth step consists of implementation plan development. Based on workshop results, the facilitators suggest work program tasks for the priority dimensions, starting with those at the lowest level of capability. The host agency then develops a detailed implementation work program to improve capabilities in these priority dimensions and makes adjustments to the recommendations as they see fit. Upon FHWA and host agency management approval, the implementation plan is eligible for both financial and technical resource support from FHWA and AASHTO under the SHRP 2 Implementation Assistance Program. The support includes training, workshops, peer exchanges, technical assistance, collaboration activities, and additional progress assessments and meetings.

14. Workshop Capability Self-Assessments
24/04/2017
Workshop Capability Self-Assessments
Dimension
Capability Self-Assessment
Level 1 Performed
Level 2 Managed
Level 3 Integrated
Level 4 Optimizing
Business Processes 11 10 2
Systems and Technology 7 12 3 1
Performance Measurement 9
Culture 8 4
Organization and Staffing 6
Collaboration
The state of play regarding current TSM&O capability levels for all six dimensions is presented on this chart for the 23 workshop states that developed formal implementation plans with consultant and FHWA support.
As can be seen, the self evaluation clustered around Level 2 – “Managed.” This indicates that most agencies understand the key issues in that dimension and are in the process of developing a more managed approach to dealing with them. About one-half of the agencies are beginning to make progress getting the TSM&O dimensions to Level 3 – “Integrated” into agency process and organization.
The next slides provide findings from the workshops in each of the six dimension. For each dimension, one slide summarizes the state of the practice in that dimension and is followed by a slide with the consensus actions identified by the state DOTs to improve capability to the next level.

15. General Findings for Capability Levels
24/04/2017
General Findings for Capability Levels
Most agencies: capabilities between “performed” or “managed”
Collaboration and Systems/Technology: strongest dimensions
Organization/Staffing and Culture: wide variation
Performance Measurement and Business Processes: increasing awareness
Within each dimension: gaps between best and average practice
Individual States: progress across dimensions is uneven
General:
Most locations assessed themselves at the “performed” or “managed” level (often somewhere in between) for most dimensions. This suggests that key issues for that dimension are increasingly well-understood and consideration is being given to improvement actions.
While the aggregate assessment distributions among several dimensions were similar, this result masks very different distributions within individual agencies; that is, strengths and weakness differed among agencies responding to varying conditions.
However, only a few agencies indicated reaching the level of “integrated” on any given dimension, even fewer rated themselves at that level in more than one dimension -- and only two locations rated themselves as Level 4 (Optimizing) in a specific dimension.
By dimension:
Collaboration and Systems and Technology were the strongest dimensions. For Collaboration, this appears to reflect the impact of recent FHWA incident management training and other collaboration outreach. For Systems and Technology, this is based on the continuing advancement in technology deployment over the past 10–15 years.
Performance Management and Business Processes (reflecting planning and programming) exhibited a different pattern. Most agencies were aware of the need for improvement in these areas in response both to federal policy and their own internal needs and are beginning to develop approaches to meet those needs.
Organization and Staffing and Culture showed the widest variation – suggesting the degree to which state DOTs have been considering TSM&O as a “program”.
Within a given dimension, there is often a significant gap between best practice and average practice among States. Even within individual States, progress in improving capabilities across the six dimensions is uneven.
In many cases, however, there is visible change and strong staff leaders that are fully aware of what best practice is and are working within their agencies to develop the essential capabilities.

16. Synergism among Dimensions
24/04/2017
Synergism among Dimensions
Culture
Organization/ Staffing
Performance Measurement
Collaboration
Business Processes
The dimensions of capability appear to be highly interdependent, such that it is difficult to improve a current level of capability in one dimension without simultaneously improving other dimensions that support it. This is reflected by the narrow spread in capabilities found among all workshops. As examples, workshop participants noted that strategic planning is hampered by lack of performance data; business processes were hampered by lack of staff capabilities; and reorganization was impossible without top management buy-in to the culture of TSM&O.
The wide variety of improvement actions identified by workshop participants across the six dimensions -- including plans, processes, agreements, business cases, and organizational and staffing recommendations -- each has a mutually reinforcing effect on overall capability. This synergy among the dimensions appears to represent a major management challenges to agencies desiring to improve TSM&O effectiveness as it indicates that the required actions are likely to involve several agency units including several necessarily involving top management.
Systems/ Technology

17. Capability Maturity Workshop White Papers
One Executive Summary (covers all dimensions)
6 reports – one on each capability dimension
For now -- go to:
D=962

18. State of the Practice Culture
24/04/2017
State of the Practice Culture
Legacy civil engineering culture with a capital project orientation
“Can’t build our way out of congestion” accepted but TSM&O business case not widely understood
Few agencies using operational objectives at policy level
TSM&O not a “program” – no line item budget/division status
New technology raising profile of TSM&O (and public expectations)
The legacy culture of DOTs is civil engineering with a capital project orientation.
While most agencies have accepted the notion that it is not possible to “build our way out of congestion”, the business case for TSM&O is not well-made or widely understood – although a few agencies have begun to incorporate operational objectives into their formal policy. This same situation was reported at the metropolitan level.
TSM&O is just beginning to be considered for formal “program” status with its own statewide policy, strategy and objectives – or with a line item budget and top level representation in executive leadership. Lack of this status appears to reduce the presence of TSM&O in the resource allocation process.
Generally, time demands associated with other priorities have limited executive leadership interest/visibility in TSM&O – with a few notable examples that have spurred significant program improvement. However, new technology is raising the profile of operations as well as public expectations.

19. based on FHWA Capability Maturity Model Workshops
Transportation Systems
Management and Operations (TSM&O)
Elements of the Culture Dimension
This purpose of this presentation is to identify how state DOTs (and their partners) can improve their capabilities as agencies to improve transportations systems management and operations (TSM&O) effectiveness.
SHRP2 research indicated that there are specific identifiable process and institutional capabilities that are essential preconditions to developing more effective TSM&O activities. These capabilities have been structured into a Capability Maturity Model (CMM) self-assessment workshop conducted at 40 workshops to date.
In these workshops the agencies assessed their own strengths and weaknesses and identified actions that can improve their capabilities. In 27 of these workshops the actions were embodied in formal implementation plans.
This presentation describes the CMM Culture Dimension and a summary of findings specific to that dimensions from the FHWA CMM workshop series.
based on
FHWA Capability Maturity Model Workshops

20. What is “Culture”? Why is it Important?
Perception: sounds fuzzy, but is the most basic institutional dimension
Definition: shared values, vision, and beliefs, experience
Attitude: “taken for granted” (not managed)
Influence: impacts all other dimensions of capability

21. Culture Permeates the Agency

22. Junior Status of TSM&O within Legacy Culture
Occasional major incidents and events focus attention on basic TSM&O strategies (pile ups, weather, major sports)
Lip service given “We can’t build our way out of congestion”
Modest executive support regarding operational performance
“TSM&O” not yet conceived of as separate program

23. TSM&O vs. the “Legacy” Culture
Civil Engineering focus – facility design, maintenance, traffic engineering orientation
Professional engineering training/orientation
Shared assumptions about agency mission
Reflections in agency organization, program, life style

24. What’s in a name: “TSM&O”
Conventional strategies often separate freeway operations, incidents, traveler information, weather, arterials, etc.
Synergism now recognized – coordinated, comprehensive development and operational management (a “program”)
But Program concept needs a name (“ITS”, “congestion management”, “operations”, “mobility services”, and so on)
TSM&O includes a mission, strategies, program, career, curriculum, and so on

25. “Culture” reflected in CMM dimensions
Vague mission statement
Subsidiary organization position
Absence from planning
Lack of program/budget status
Shared operational authority (public safety, local jurisdictions)
Synergism

26. State DOT CMM Workshop Capability Self-Assessments
Dimension
Capability Self-Assessment
Level 1 Performed
Level 2 Managed
Level 3 Integrated
Level 4 Optimizing
Business Processes 11 10 2
Systems and Technology 7 12 3 1
Performance Measurement 9
Culture 8 4
Organization and Staffing 6
Collaboration

27. Culture Dimension – CMM Workshop Results
Summary in slides to follow
Typical state-of-play
Progress being made
Self-improvement actions suggested by workshop participants
The key elements of Culture
Business Case
Leadership and Champions
Outreach – Internal and External
Policy and Program
Needed Actions

28. State of Play: The Business Case
Importance: Presents convincing justification for DOT program
Limited leadership appreciation for concept of TSM&O as a “program” of organized, managed activities
Business case not made for formal TSM&O program – except by negative events
Lack of documentation – data, analysis, and cases regarding payoffs from effective TSM&O
Modest commitment by management for improved operational performance

29. Progress: The Business Case
Impact of FHWA performance measurement requirements
Understanding by workshop states of need for business case
Potential of National Operations Center of Excellence (NOCoE)
Emerging top management commitment
Examples provided by leading MPOs

30. Actions: The Business Case (1 of 2)
Establish working group to develop business case based on performance data.
Identify key audiences and “hot button” issues, along with promising media formats and communication strategies
Review peer experience and use available materials regarding identification and presentation of costs & benefits

31. Actions: The Business Case (2 of 2)
Identify data, analytics, project-types for full range of cost and benefit categories
Develop both internal and external “stories” based on past successes (project, major events) and national best practice
Look for opportunities to present materials at special events that attract TSM&O stakeholders

32. State of Play : Leadership and Champions
Limited top management leadership
TSM&O at mid-level in hierarchy
TSM&O reports to executive with other preoccupations (often maintenance)
Dependency on committed champions – able to work around existing structure
Vulnerability to staff turnover

33. Progress: Leadership and Champions
NOCoE and AASHTO activities are building TSM&O community
Some top management leadership set examples
Growing external interest in more TSM&O

35. Actions: Leadership and Champions
Present business case materials to executive leadership
Designate regional champions to advocate TSM&O during the planning process
Involve regional champions in Headquarters (HQ) TSM&O strategic planning and performance strategy
Leverage current efforts (TIM training, TMC management) to engage stakeholders
Manage the manageable aspects of Culture

36. State of Play : Outreach - Internal and External
Field staff understanding often stronger than HQ
Planning/project development staff often unrelated
Reliance on persuasion rather than authority (with public safety entities, local government)
Collaboration often personal – not organizational – by middle management (peer-to-peer)

37. Progress: Outreach – Internal and External
Some integration of TSM&O into standard project development process
Improved cooperation with public safety (TIM training)
NOCoE to provide community-building

38. Actions: Outreach - Internal and External (1 of 2)
Design a TSM&O internal/external program communications strategy to promote activities and achievements
Identify and select case study opportunities to document success stories and support outreach materials
Establish a “brand” – based on business case

39. Actions: Outreach - Internal and External (2 of 2)
Develop materials to address different audiences, such as internal staff, the public, and political leaders.
Identify opportunities to promote a TSM&O program, activities, success stories through meeting presentations
Bring additional stakeholders into TSM&O discussions to help promote the TSM&O program and objectives 

40. State of Play : Policy/Program Status (1/2 )
Policy level – TSM&O not a formal “program” (no budget, division status)
TSM&O – a collection of separate minor activities
Legal status – some specific – others dependent on public safety entities
Hierarchy – TSM&O is three or four levels down in the organization

41. State of Play: Policy/Program Status (2/2)
TSM&O frequently stovepiped into engineering and operational functions
Not competitive for resources, funding, staffing (stealth funding)
TSM&O units not held to account for operational performance
Ambivalence regarding private sector support role, outsourcing

42. Progress: Policy/Program Status
TSM&O mission penetrating: some states now citing focus on “congestion reduction,” “efficiency,” and “mobility”
Basic legal authorities achieved (quick clearance type programs)
Specific initiative funding available in several states
Program structure models emerging – stand-alone vs integrated model
Performance regulations increasing focus on TSM&O
Dependency on private sector growing for technical support

43. Actions: Policy/Program Status
Promote TSM&O as a separate formal top-level agency program -- using business case materials,
Establish specific mission, goals, performance measures, and capital and operational budget
Obtain legal authorization for a greater range of TSM&O strategies and increased state DOT authority on the road
Examine appropriate role/structure for improved public- private partnerships

44. Addressing Needs on a National Level
Action
Culture Element
Sponsor(s)
Comments
Develop resources and collect examples of TSM&O business cases
Business Case and Technical Appreciation
Outreach – Internal and External
FHWA, AASHTO, National Operations Center of Excellence (NOCoE)
Build on material already included in the NOCoE website knowledge resources and incorporate case studies and B/C material from ITS Joint Program Office and FHWA websites
Establish regular forum among state DOT leadership to discuss TSM&O- related issues
Leadership/ Champions
FHWA, AASHTO, NOCoE
No TSM&O forum for agency leadership exists (top management is not often involved in any peer-to- peer discussion in AASHTO, Regional Operations Forums, etc.)
Identify and communicate payoffs from new forms of public- private partnerships,
Policy/Program Status/Authorities
Many DOTs remain unaware of the dramatic payoffs from these types of arrangements

45. A CASE STUDY: AGENCY CULTURE AT COLORADO DOT
Ryan Rice
Director of Transportation Systems Management & Operations for the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT)