Systems Operations as a Program: The Process

1
Systems Operationsas a ProgramThe Process
Institutional Dimensions

• Steve Lockwood
• Parsons Brinckerhoff

2
The future has already arrived. Its just not
very evenly distributed William Gibson in
Cyberpunk
3
What This Discussion Is Really About

• Highway service deteriorating
• In the next 10-15, years any widespread
  improvement in LOS will result from SOM (not
  much new capacity)
• Significant improvements in mobility,
  reliability, safety can be derived from
  maximizing the service from the existing network.
  
• Several states have been establishing the SOP
  benchmarks!!
• But many DOT SOM activities appear to haves
  ubstantially plateaued well short of potential.
  SOM potential remains largely untapped.
• The problem is not lack of knowledge or
  technology but lack of commitment to a systems
  operations mission, processes, and institutional
  arrangments

4
Learning Objectives

• Reconfirming Presumed Role of systems
  Owner/Operators (SDOTs) regarding Mobility
• Understanding of Process and Institutional
  Weakness as barriers/opportunities for
  effectiveness
• Understanding of Strategies for Change (process
  and institutional) towards a more effective
  operations

5
Topics (Messages!!) Covered

1. Driving forces for Change
2. Current System status
3. The unacknowledged leverage of systems operations
4. Relevance of systems operations and management
5. The Challenge/Dimensions of Change Processes and
   Institutional
6. Operations Capability Maturity
7. Future Vision The 21st Century Transportation
   Agency

6
PROBLEMS IN MY REGIONSELF-EVALUATION

• A quick self-evaluation to see if any of the
  agencies represented can benefit from improved
  process and institutional arrangments
• Depending on the outcome, we may be able to
  adjourn by lunch!!

7
PROBLEMS IN MY REGION SELF-EVALUATION

AFFECTING Weather disruption Crash/ brkdwn delays Road Construct Disruptions Special events Bottle- necks Arterial Signal timing Peak period delays
Freeways 13 1-11 12 ?? 7, 10 7-9
Arterials 12 ?? 14 X
Transit
All 15-22 15-22 15-22 15-22 15-22 15-22 15-22
8
PROGRAM MATURITY INDICATOR 1/2 PROGRAM MATURITY INDICATOR 1/2 Yes No
1. Incident Management Most of urban freeways have consistent surveillance
2. Incident Management Clearance times are measured and reported
3. Incident Management DOT has formal MOU with highway patrol
4. Incident Management DOT has control over SSP coverage
5. Incident Management Interstate Corridors have end-to-end consistent approach
6. Incident Management Clearance times measured and compared statewide
7. Ramp Control Congested freeways have ramp metering
8. ATM Active traffic management in use (dynamic lane, speed control)
9. TMCs All metro areas (with MPOs) have TMCs
10. ATIS Travel time data is available to customers
11.ATIS All regional real time traffic data centrally communicated and archived
12. CWZTM Major corridor WZTM plans consistently incorporate ITS
13. RWIS Weather sensing stations exist in most weather-sensitive areas
14. Arterial Operations Congested arterial corridor signals are traffic responsive
9
PROGRAM MATURITY INDICATOR 2/2 PROGRAM MATURITY INDICATOR 2/2 yes no
15. Program architecture Statewide and consistent regional system architectures (all regions) exist
16. Program cost Total expenditure on ITS/SOM known budget line item
17. Program resource allocation ITS/SOM resource allocation related to clear performance. needs criteria
18. Program reporting Travel time reported
19. Program accountability Senior full-time SOM manager reports directly to CEO
20. Program Partnerships DOT has formal MOU with PSA on Incident clearance time objective
21. State DOT LR Plan/program Plan/program have separate category for ITS/SOM
22. Program metropolitan status MPO program has SOM investment category
10
What do you mean Institutional?

• Technology commodified -- However
• Policy commitment vague
• Rarely a Core Program (part of other programs)
• Business processes nonstandard, undocumented
• Responsibility fragmented among units
• Limited central accountability for performance
• Informal relationship with other players (PSAs)
• Unclear budgetary staffing priority
• Loose relationships with private providers
• (We call these institutional issues)

11
Is there a problem?What about Performance?

• Customer Mobility (isn't that our business?)
  Impact of SOM
• Performance Features
• Traditional Improved Capacity, Speed, Safety
• Now Maintenance of capacity, reliability (delay,
  disruption, congestion)
• Continuous Improvement of Performance drives all
  relevant SOM changes

12
The Congestion Challenge
13
Driving Forces Causes of Performance Loss

14
Driving Forces Loss of Mobility
Non-recurring congestion
15
Driving forces Causes for Contexts (your
bosses should know this)
Cause of Delay () Large Urban Areas gt 1m Small Urban Areas 0.1-1.0m Rural
RECURRING CAUSES Network Demand gt capacity 29-37 20-26 0
RECURRING CAUSES Poor signal timing 4-5 7-13 2
TOTAL RECURRING 33-42 32-33 2
NON-RECURRING CAUSES Crashes 35-36 19-26 26
NON-RECURRING CAUSES Breakdowns 6-7 6-10 25
NON-RECURRING CAUSES Work zones 8-19 26-27 39
NON-RECURRING CAUSES Weather 5-6 7-10 7
NON-RECURRING CAUSES Special events, Other 1 0
TOTAL NON-RECURRING 58-67 67 98
16
Impact of Best Practice Strategies -  
Portion of Delay In major metros by cause() Portion of Delay In major metros by cause()
Mainline Capacity 29-37
Poor signalization 4-5
Breakdowns/ crashes 40-45
Construction 8-20
Weather 5-7
Poor Information 2-5
Impact of Operations Strategy (Best Practice over Current Practice) on Total Delay Impact of Operations Strategy (Best Practice over Current Practice) on Total Delay
Flow control/ramp metering 5-6
Traffic responsive signals 1
Incident management 5-6
WZ traffic management 1-2
Weather info 1
Traveler information 1
16
17
Loss of PerformanceRecapture Capacity (your
bosses should know this)
Type of Cause Contribution to total delay Cause of Delay Basic Mitigation Strategy
Recurring Causes 40-60 Mainline capacity shortfalls
Recurring Causes 40-60 Interchange bottlenecks
Recurring Causes 40-60 Poor signal timing
Non-Recurring Causes 40-50 Breakdowns Crashes
Non-Recurring Causes 40-50 Construction work
Non-Recurring Causes 40-50 Weather
Non-Recurring Causes 40-50 Lack of information
Non-Recurring Causes 40-50 Special events
Capacity Increases
Systems Management
18
Tough Questions

• Are the above indications arguable? Are they
  meaningful?
• How well does senior SDOT management understand
  the causes of congestion?

19
Congestion Strategy Leverage

• Recurring
• Signalization
• Ramp metering
• Geometrics
• Freeway Operations
• Traveler Info

• Non-Recurring
• Incident management
• Road weather management
• Work zone traffic management
• Special events management
• Active Traffic Management

20
Leverage Effective SOM

• Effectiveness related to measurable outcomes in
  terms of improvements in delay, disruption,
  safety
• Capabilities needed go beyond knowing strategies
  and ITS -- to Processes and Institutional
  preconditions for effectiveness
• How can they be put into place?

21
Quiz

• What SOM strategy has the greatest potential
  impact on reducing delay?

22
Leverage Gap Between Best and Average Practice?
Cause of Delay In metro areas cause Related Operations Strategy Best Practice
Mainline S/D 29-37 Flow control (ATM) -25
Poor sig ops 4-5 Traffic responsive -35
Breakdowns/ crashes 40-45 SSP/Incident management -50
Construction 8-20 WZ traffic management -30
Weather 5-7 RWIS, Decision supp -40
Poor Info/Misc 2-5 Traveler information -50
23
Competition with SOM???

• What is the competition for improving service to
  system users
• Will there be a major increase in rate of
  capacity expansion
• In how many states is metro population and VMT
  growth exceeding new capacity
• Does anyone are your DOT every talk about this?

24
Message C StatusSOM Deployment Rate
55 in 2010
50
44 in2010
Optimistic Projection
40
Pessimistic Projection
30
22 in 2000
20
Installed
16 in 97
10
6 in 90
1995
2000
2005
2010
1990
Year
25
We have a general idea of state of play state
by state

• Deployment
• Range of strategies employed
• Self-evaluation
• Participation in federally supported initiatives
• Level of performance measurement
• General institutional arrangements
• Current studies (SHRP2, NCHRP, AASHTO SOM)

26
Is the Glass Half-full or Half empty??

• Several states have made significant process in
  developing comprehensive programs and have some
  state of the practice applications
• Several states are working in that directions
• Several states dont feel the need to take a
  comprehensive approach
• We can learn from each other

27
Example stats
28
StatusState of Play in State DOTs
FHWA Survey of Technology Strengths strong strong
Use TMC(s) to coordinate IM Use TMC(s) to coordinate IM 43
Developed S D infrastructure Developed S D infrastructure 30
Have two-way interagency voice comms Have two-way interagency voice comms 19
Provide data/video TMC-CAD integration? Provide data/video TMC-CAD integration? 11
Have specific IM policies and procedures Have specific IM policies and procedures 21
Have a real-time motorist information system Have a real-time motorist information system 24
29
The right questions

• How is your DOT doing?
• You should know where your states stands vis a
  vis your peers and the state of the practice
• (this is the definition of a professional)

30
Message D RelevanceWe need to Tell the Story
SOM Can Make a Real Difference

• What transportation agencies (should) do?
• We are a just-in-time society, accustomed to
  service and accountability even in Mobility
• In most urban contexts very limited improvements
  from capacity are being made
• Congestion management as a major program -- is
  therefore essential to (at least) maintain level
  of service
• Otherwise DOTs become increasingly irrelevant

31
Operational Performance
32
Reliability Research The Importance of
Institutional Arrangements
Program A needs-responsive, performance-driven,
comprehensive C/E statewide SOM 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
32
33
The Basic Elements of Improved SOM
Program A needs-responsive, performance-driven,
comprehensive C/E statewide SOM 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
34
Introduction

• Performance Management of the existing highway
  system is central to maintaining mobility
• Research indicates that performance is directly
  related to the maturity of key processes and
  institutional arrangments
• Key actions are required from senior management
• The SHRP2 L06 project developed a stepwise model
  of strategies to make the essential changes

34
35
Point of Departure

• Highway congestion is increasing but conventional
  capacity solutions are constrained
• Managing performance of the existing system to
  its maximum effectiveness is imperative to
  maintain mobility
• Recurring congestion is well understood, but
  greater commitment is needed to managing the
  other half of congestion related to
  delay/disruption from crashes and breakdowns, bad
  weather, construction
• Managing this non-recurring congestion must
  capitalize on the full potential of NRC
  strategies
• SHRP2 research indicates the performance
  management requires a distinct agency commitment,
  organization and staffing adjustments,
  sustainable resources and improved partnerships
• This research project developed a guide for
  systems operations performance management

35
36
Loss of Performance Recapture Capacity
Type of Cause Contribution to total delay Cause of Delay Basic Mitigation Strategy
Recurring Causes 40-60 Mainline capacity shortfalls
Recurring Causes 40-60 Interchange bottlenecks
Recurring Causes 40-60 Poor signal timing
Non-Recurring Causes 40-50 Breakdowns crashes
Non-Recurring Causes 40-50 Construction work
Non-Recurring Causes 40-50 Weather
Non-Recurring Causes 40-50 Lack of information
Non-Recurring Causes 40-50 Special events
Capacity Increases
Systems Management
36
37
Relevance Program/Process/Institutional

• Program
• We known the conventional strategies
• Are there deployment warrants (problem, function,
  geography, network
• Aggressiveness of Application (compared to S.O.P)
• Comprehensive/consistent
• DOTs can now focus on programs, not just projects

38
Relevance Technical Process Challenge (program
level)

• Getting SOM on an institutionalized sustainable
  path to improvement
• Scope Full range/core program
• Business Processes Effective implementation,
  integration, documentation
• Systems and Technology Interoperable/standardized
  /cost effective
• Performance Measured, utilized, reported

39
Relevance Supporting Institutional Challenge
(program level)

• Developing arrangements that support the needed
  technical processes
• Culture Understanding/committing to mobility
• Organization/Staffing aligned, professionalized
• Resource Allocation criteria-based, sustainable
• Partnerships Aligned, Consolidated

40
Intro to Items 1-8 to follow

• (We already know a lot about strategy
  applications)
• Following slides characterize key process and
  institutional dimensions essential for an
  effective program
• Then, the question is what is the definition of
  improved processes? And what does it take to get
  there, insitutionally

41
Scope(Implications of Mainstreaming)

• More like the other programs re
• Statewide Comprehensive
• Needs driven
• Geography
• Problems
• Network
• Standardized, sustainable, aligned
• Effectiveness related to measurable outcomes in
  terms of improvements in delay, disruption, safety

42
So Whats Different About SOM?

• Reactive to unpredictable events 24X7 .
• corridor scale or network level.
• teamwork and communications-intensive.
• Involving uncontrolled outsiders
• Requires situational awareness.
• Communicating with users in real time
• Mix of systems headquarters, TMC, and field
  activities.
• Dynamic high technology and systems engineering.
• Effectiveness judged only through performance
  oucomes
• Processes for low cost and short development
  cycles.
• Many activities can be outsourced .

43
2. Business Processes Whats Different About
Operations?
Actions taking place in Administrative Time Actions taking place in Administrative Time Actions taking place in Administrative Time Actions taking place in Administrative Time Actions taking place in Administrative Time Actions taking place in Administrative Time
Plan Accommodate Program in portfolio Interagency coordination
Plan Plan and program Systems engineering Systems engineering
Deploy Infrastructure for situational awareness Infrastructure for control
Maintain Asset Management Asset Management
Actions taking place in Operations Real time Actions taking place in Operations Real time Actions taking place in Operations Real time Actions taking place in Operations Real time Actions taking place in Operations Real time Actions taking place in Operations Real time
Operate Real time mobilization of program support systems Interagency coordinated execution of event response activities Interagency coordinated execution of event response activities Interagency coordinated execution of event response activities Interagency coordinated execution of event response activities
Operate Situation status reporting (internal and external) Situation status reporting (internal and external) Situation status reporting (internal and external) Situation status reporting (internal and external) Situation status reporting (internal and external)
Operate Performance monitoring Performance monitoring Performance monitoring Performance monitoring Performance monitoring
44
Process Preconditions to Realize SOM Strategies
Scoping Planning Program accommodation in portfolio Planning and programming
Processes Real time mobilization of program support systems Interagency operational management Coordinated execution of event response activities Synergy among reinforcing strategies Asset management
Systems/ Tech Systems engineering technical capacity development Regional situational awareness
Performance Performance monitoring
45
3. Systems and Technology

• Technology Selection
• Qualitative/quantitative
• Warranted applications consistency
• Platform Standardization
• Incremental Improvements (bite size)

46
Beyond ITS Balancing Procedures with Systems
Example ITS Systems Related Procedures and Protocols
Lane/speed/ramp controls Local acceptance, cooperation
Systematic deployment of traffic responsive tech Inter-jurisdictional consistency and sharing Standard project development process
Full detection and surveillance Effective technology deployment 24X7 response TMC? Formal IM programs
Workzone Incident Traffic control Upgrade standards beyond MUTCD Coordination with law enforcement
RWIS and driver info Prediction/advisory/control regimes
Special routing (guidance info) Liaisons with intermodal players
47
4. Performance

• You have heard a lot about this.
• Key issues for capability maturity
• Output Measures
• Implementation feasibility (data, devices)
• Utilization feedback and tailoring for
  continuous improvment
• Reporting and Accountability

48
Dashboarding Systems Operations (outputs or
outcomes?)
49
5. Culture and Leadership

• What is culture? (sounds like academic jargon)
• Think about shared engineering culture (mission,
  values/presumptions, training, standards,
  conventions, career style, public expectations)
• Who are the external stakeholders in capacity
  development vs. Operations?

50
What are the characteristics of an operations
culture? QUIZ
51
What are the characteristics of an operations
culture? QUIZ

• What about
• Explicit focus on mobility
• Developing public understanding
• Orientation of Leaders
• Acceptance by rest of agency
• Incentives for change
• Laws, regulations to support effectiveness
• A core program

52
Legacy Stakeholders (their values)

• Facility mission perspective (in law)
• System development stakeholders
• Industry, developers, unions
• Organization around capital projects (design,
  construct, maintain)
• Focus on on-time/on-budget delivery

53
External Authorizing Environment (Laws and
Procedures)
54
6. Organization and Staffing Institutions
Fragmented at two levels

• Operational responsibility is fragmented at two
  levels -- internal (DOTs) and external (partners)
• Shared responsibilities for roadways
• Standard setting for safe operations
• Provision and maintenance of facilities
• Law enforcement
• Emergency response
• Operational performance support

55
Remember our Learning Objectives

• Reconfirming Presumed Role of systems
  Owner/Operators (SDOTs) regarding Mobility
• Understanding of Process and Institutional
  Weakness as barriers/opportunities for
  effectiveness
• Understanding of Strategies for Change towards a
  more effective operations

56
Internal Legacy (Organizational Scale) State
DOT Structure

• Organization (standard model?)
• Decentralized (now)
• Hierarchical
• Central office functions
• Traditional divisions
• Planning
• design/construction
• Maintenance
• Operations (not system)

57
Internal Legacy (Organizational Scale) Can you
find systems operations?
58
Operations and Management as a Core Program
Maintenance
CHART Organization Work Flow Diagram
Districts 3,4,5,7
MSP
CHART BOARD Deputy Administrator Chief
Engineer for Operations Chair
Traffic
Information Technology
Other MDOT ITS Programs
MdTA
Director Office of CHART ITS Development
Operations Team
Integration Team
ITS Development Team
Administrative Team
Traffic Operations Division
Traffic Engineering Design Division
TOD Office of Maintenance
59
Outsourcing staff functions

• Factors
• Staffing challenge (ex TMCs, FSP)
• Capabilities --Maintenance services (ITS
  infrastructure)
• Possession of technology Map Data, 511, traveler
  info services
• Position in market In-vehicle services
• Other reasons??

60
7. Resources

• To what degree is funding a constraint
• Are you spending well all you have?
• Do improvements in performance relate to capital?
• Is there a criteria basis for budget (like asset
  management)?
• Is the funding sustainable, predictable?

61
QUIZ Resources

• How much is your state spending on all ITS,
  Freeway Ops, FSP, TMC Incident Management per
  year?
• How many of you are having staffing problems?

62
Example Line Item Budget (CHART 07)
Capital 2007
Field and IM Equipment 3,855,000
Network Engineering 2,687,000
Leased Circuit Costs 1,000,000
CHART System and Network Connectivity 4,162,000
Plan., Develpmt, Engrg, Coord. 3,000,000
CHART System Integration 3,100,000
Overhead  1,157,000
Total Capital 18,961,000
Staff and Operating Expenses
Operations salaries, overhead, overtime, and expenses (staff 64) 6,324,742
Systems Maintenance emergency, preventive, and routine maintenance 1,200,000
Administrative supplies and contractual salaries and other expenses 260,000
Miscellaneous Operating Expenses travel expenses and meals 40,000
Total Operating 7,816,276
Grand Total 26,777,000
63
8. Partnerships (who?, why?)

• Who is in charge of service in customer terms
• What are the priorities of the players?
• Can law enforcement and life safety be less
  traffic disruptive?

64
Differences in Orientation Among Organizations
Agency Orientation Agency Orientation Agency Orientation Agency Orientation Agency Orientation
Mission State DOT/ Authorities GPLG Traffic/Transportation Operations Dept) Law enforcement Fire and Emergency Private contractor
Law enforcement L L H M L
Emergency response M M H H L
Mobility H M L L L
Responder safety H H H H H
Minimal disruptions H M L L M
65
How are are improvements in Operations limited by
partners traditional roles (quiz)

• Differing Priorities
• Time to respond and act
• Geographic coverage
• Integration across networks
• Jurisdictional fragmentation
• Differing Technologies
• Capability and Funding levels

66
Types of Partnerships
67
Message F Operations Capability maturity --
Technical Process and Institutional Arrangements

• We need to move beyond the ad hoc stage to
  realize effectiveness
• Deliberate change management strategies are
  required
• Must deal with Technical Processes and
  Institutional Arrangements

68
Transportation Service Public Agencies
Dimensions of Change (From a Product Entity to a
Service Entity
(Time out for a broader perspective)
Customer Service in Free Enterprise Society

• ????-driven (whos the customer?)
• customer service based on ????
• ????? suppliers/???? spurs better service
• ???? rewards for success, innovation

• Service is sales driven
• Price/service (performance)
• Competition spurs better service
• Tangible rewards for success, innovation

VS.
69
Features of an Operations Capability Maturity
Model

• Continuous improvement (effectiveness) requires
  replicable, consistent processes and a supportive
  institutional structure
• There are critical dimensions that cant be
  skipped
• For sustainable change institutionalization is
  essential (documentation and training)
• Performance Levels are incremental combinations
  of processes and measurement
• Each level builds on organizational readiness of
  previous.

70
Relevance Technical Process Challenge

• Getting SOM on an institutionalized sustainable
  path to improvement
• Scope Full range/core program
• Business Processes Effective implementation,
  integration, documentation
• Systems and Technology Interoperable/standardized
  /cost effective
• Performance Measured, utilized, reported

71
Relevance Supporting Institutional Challenge

• Developing arrangements that support the needed
  technical processes
• Culture Understanding/committing to mobility
• Organization/Staffing aligned, professionalized
• Resource Allocation criteria-based, sustainable
• Partnerships Aligned, Consolidated

72
The Potential of Operations Capability Maturity
Model

• Shared vision of best practice
• A common analytical language
• Vertical and horizontal management relationships
• Formalized, transparent (self) appraisal process
• Suits any type of organization by size, problems,
  
• Framework to prioritize change management tactics
• Basis for benchmarking across organizations

73
Discussion
74
Institutional Guidance Alternative Paths for
Consideration

1. Internal incremental change -- regarding those
   architectural dimensions under the span of
   control of top management
2. Major Reorganization with internal change in
   priorities and related (may require outside
   political support
3. Capitalizing on a major event to make permanent
   changes (special event, major disruption, natural
   disaster)
4. Consolidation of functions among public agencies
   in the form of a new operating entity

75
Message G VisionAmbitious Long-Term
Opportunities

• SOM is entering a new era
• New range of functions
• manage congestion
• allocate capacity
• provide new services
• Highway transportation will be transformed in the
  long run

76
Vision ServicesAnticipated Future Leverage

• VISION
• 1. Highway service reliable
• 2. At any V/C, less delay
• 3. Good travel information
• 4. Premium services available
• 5. Crashes reduced
• 6. Erratic behavior suppressed
• 7. Traveler assurance services
• 8. Special Truck facilities

• ACHIEVED BY
• All-Incident management
• ATM Control of flow, speed, lane use
• Probe-based real time information
• Separate, priced, speed limit service
• V2V crash avoidance
• Automated enforcement

Bottom Line SOM is just getting Started
77
Meanwhile (as committed secret agents of the
future)Guerilla Tactics for Change

• Insist on technical truth regarding service to
  customers
• Expertise is the scarce resource Start training
  staff now
• Establish conops with all partners otherwise
  ..
• Get planners buy-in they will support
• Technology should not get ahead of procedures and
  protocols
• Capitalize on cross-program synergies
• Work with geography
• is not the problem, sustainable is
• Push for innovation generate sizzle
• Be ready for and capitalize on external
  events!!

78
Remember Our Learning Objectives

• Understanding of the Role of Systems Operations
  and Management within the Transportation system
• Understanding of Institutional Issues and their
  leverage on Operations
• Understanding of Strategies for Change towards a
  more operations oriented institutional context

79
Institutional Capabilities

• Is there a recipe? Yes, Finally there is
• Preconditions to program effectiveness
  continuous progress
• Lessons from Asset Management from other
  sectors (esp. IT)
• The Capability Maturity Model
• Adaptation to SOM strategies
• Adaptation to SOM Program

80
Relevance How to Close the Gap between Best
and Average Practice?

• Changes in processes and organization/institutions
  will move the SOM program in the direction of
  improved effectiveness and efficiency
• Changes may be proactive, deliberate and
  incremental
• Changes may be (often are) in response to major
  events that focus on SOM

81
Mainstreaming a Management SystemNo Mystery --
SDOTs have done it before

• The Asset Management Process
• Asset inventory
• Condition assessment with a life-cycle
  orientation
• Investment analysis with predictive models
• Planning, programming, and budgeting
• Program implementation
• Performance objectives and performance monitoring

82
Statewide Systems Operations Program (SSOP)
Development

• Approach
• Capability Maturity Model (CMM) is used to
  establish a system for Continuous Improvement
  (CI)

• and
• a Strategy to reach next levels of Capability and
  Recommend Immediate
• Actions for improving Operations system-wide

83
A Framework for Managing Institutional Factors

• Responds to conventional observation of agency
  managers that barriers are institutional (what
  ever that is!!)
• Makes concrete fuzzy generalizations about
  institutional issues
• Draws on accumulated wisdom experience of
  agency management veterans
• Organizes industry wisdom into a framework that
  can be used to improve outcomes

83
84
Features of CMM

1. Continuous improvement (effectiveness) requires
   replicable, consistent processes and a supportive
   institutional structure
2. There are critical dimensions that cant be
   skipped
3. For sustainable change institutionalization is
   essential (documentation and training)
4. Performance Levels are incremental combinations
   of processes and measurement
5. Each level builds on organizational readiness of
   previous.
6. This is not evaluation it is for strategizing!!

85
Research Adaptation of the Capability Maturity
Model

• Continuous improvement (effectiveness) requires
  replicable, consistent processes and a supportive
  institutional structure
• Review of best practice indicates there are
  critical dimensions that cant be skipped
• For sustainable change institutionalization is
  essential (documentation and training)
• Performance levels are incremental combinations
  of processes and measurement
• Each level builds on organizational readiness of
  previous
• This is not evaluation it is for strategizing!!

85
86
A Capability Maturity Framework facilitates
strategy development

• Institutional arrangments and relationships key
  to effective processes/program
• Key institutional elements identified the ones
  related to effective programs
• Each element can be present at various levels of
  achievement (maturity) exhibited by agencies
  today
• Agencies can identify their current status
• The model indicates next steps

86
87
The Concept of Continuous Improvement
PROGRAM SCOPETHE "WHAT" DIMENSION PROGRAM SCOPETHE "WHAT" DIMENSION PROGRAM SCOPETHE "WHAT" DIMENSION PROGRAM SCOPETHE "WHAT" DIMENSION
BASIC ELEMENTS STATE-OF-PLAY NEXT LEVEL OF CAPABILITY BEST-PRACTICE TARGET
Needs-driven Ad hoc Analyzed User impact-related
Application Aggressiveness Nominal State-of-the-practice Performance-driven
Comprehensive/Consistent Opportunistic Standardized Comprehensive
PROCESSESTHE "HOW" DIMENSION PROCESSESTHE "HOW" DIMENSION PROCESSESTHE "HOW" DIMENSION PROCESSESTHE "HOW" DIMENSION
BASIC ELEMENTS STATE-OF-PLAY NEXT LEVEL OF CAPABILITY BEST-PRACTICE TARGET
Business Processes Informal Planned Internalized
Technology and Systems Un-integrated Standardized Integrated
Performance Outputs Outcomes Accountability
ORGANIZATIONAL /INSTIUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS THE "WHO" DIMENSION ORGANIZATIONAL /INSTIUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS THE "WHO" DIMENSION ORGANIZATIONAL /INSTIUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS THE "WHO" DIMENSION ORGANIZATIONAL /INSTIUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS THE "WHO" DIMENSION
BASIC ELEMENTS STATE-OF-PLAY NEXT LEVEL OF CAPABILITY BEST-PRACTICE TARGET
Operations Culture Capacity legacy Internalized Mobility committed
Organization and Staffing Fragmented Aligned Professionalized
Resource Allocation Project-level Criteria-based Sustainable
Partnerships Informal Formal Consolidated
88
Operations Capability Maturity Levels
Goal for the future
89
Interpretation of Levels for SOM
Level Name Characteristics
1 Ad Hoc Non-standard/informal
2 Managed Process is managed measured
3 Integrated Performance-driven
90
Operations Capability Maturity Levels
Goal for the future
91
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

91
92
Levels of Technical Process Maturity
PROCESS/ CAPABILITY LEVELS Reflecting agencies ability to perform effectively Criteria For Levels Level 1 Performed Ac Hoc Getting organized unique activities at project level, siloed, hero-driven Level 2 Managed Developing methods and processes Capabilities developed at the unit level but program unstable Level 3 Integrated Best practice installed and measured consistently within program framework
PROCESS/ CAPABILITY LEVELS Reflecting agencies ability to perform effectively Scope
PROCESS/ CAPABILITY LEVELS Reflecting agencies ability to perform effectively Concepts/ procedures/ protocols
PROCESS/ CAPABILITY LEVELS Reflecting agencies ability to perform effectively Technology and Systems
PROCESS/ CAPABILITY LEVELS Reflecting agencies ability to perform effectively Measurement
Transition States
Transition organizations
Leading states
Leading organizations
93
DOT operations program maturity technical
processes and capabilities
Basic Dimensions L-1 TRANSITIONING Getting organized unique ad hoc activities at project level L-2 MANAGED Developing and processes capabilities at the strategy level, but un-integrated L-3 INTEGRATED Best practice integrated, documented and measured consistently within program framework
Scope Narrow and Opportunistic Needs-based and Standardized Full range Core Program
Business processes Informal, undocumented Planned, mainstreamed Integrated and Documented
Technology and systems Project oriented, Qualitative evaluation Platforms based quantitative evaluation Standardized C/E systems/platforms
Performance Outputs reported Outcomes used Performance Accountability
94
Operations Capability Maturity Levels
Goal for the future
95
Organization/institutional arrangements
Supporting capability levels
Basic Dimensions I-1 LEGACY-BASED Hero-driven--on regional basis I-2 RESTRUCTURING Supports transition from Managed to Integrated I-3 SUPPORTIVE Supports Transition from Integrated to Mainstreamed
Operations Culture Mixed, unfamiliarEvent/Hero-driven Championed/Internalized across disciplines Mobility Committed
Organization, management and staffing Fragmented, Understaffed Aligning, trained Professionalized
Resource allocation to Operations Project -level Criteria-based program Sustainable Budget Line Item
Partnerships Informal, unaligned Formal, aligned Consolidated
96
PROCESS AND INSTITUTIONAL ARCHITECTURE
DIMENSION DETAILS
Dimensions LEGACY-BASED Activities initiated on regional basis RESTRUCTURING Supports transition from Managed to Integrated SUPPORTIVE Supports Transition from Integrated to Mainstreamed
Operations Culture LegacyHero-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
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/pprocedure 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
97
INSTITUTIONAL DIMENSIONS AD HOC Legacy-based RATIONALIZED Restructuring MAINSTREAMED Fully Supportive
Operations Culture LegacyHero-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/pprocedure 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
97
98
ORGANIZATION/INSTITUTIONAL ELEMENT LEVELS NEEDED TO SUPPORT IMPROVED PROCESS/PROGRAM ORGANIZATION/INSTITUTIONAL ELEMENT LEVELS NEEDED TO SUPPORT IMPROVED PROCESS/PROGRAM ORGANIZATION/INSTITUTIONAL ELEMENT LEVELS NEEDED TO SUPPORT IMPROVED PROCESS/PROGRAM ORGANIZATION/INSTITUTIONAL ELEMENT LEVELS NEEDED TO SUPPORT IMPROVED PROCESS/PROGRAM
Basic Dimensions AD HOC Legacy/Hero-driven RATIONALIZED Structuring for transition MAINSTREAMED Fully Integrated
Operations culture Mixed, unfamiliarEvent/Hero-driven Championed/Internalized across disciplines Mobility Committed
Organization, management and staffing Fragmented, Understaffed Aligned, trained Professionalized
Resource allocation to Operations Project -level Criteria-based program Sustainable Budget Line Item
Partnerships Informal, unaligned Formal, aligned Consolidated
98
99
The Implications of OCM

• Continuous improvement (effectiveness) requires
  replicable, consistent processes as baseline for
  next step
• Within a large agency, this requires
  documentation and training
• The levels are incremental combinations of
  processes establishment and measurement
• Each one builds on that previous via establishing
  organizational readiness.
• OCM level is based on the row with the lowest
  score.

100
Operations Capability Maturity Levels
Goal for the future
101
ORGANIZATION/INSTITUTIONAL ELEMENT LEVELS NEEDED TO SUPPORT IMPROVED PROCESS/PROGRAM ORGANIZATION/INSTITUTIONAL ELEMENT LEVELS NEEDED TO SUPPORT IMPROVED PROCESS/PROGRAM ORGANIZATION/INSTITUTIONAL ELEMENT LEVELS NEEDED TO SUPPORT IMPROVED PROCESS/PROGRAM ORGANIZATION/INSTITUTIONAL ELEMENT LEVELS NEEDED TO SUPPORT IMPROVED PROCESS/PROGRAM
Basic Dimensions AD HOC Legacy/Hero-driven RATIONALIZED Structuring for transition MAINSTREAMED Fully Integrated
Operations culture Mixed, unfamiliarEvent/Hero-driven Championed/Internalized across disciplines Mobility Committed
Organization, management and staffing Fragmented, Understaffed Aligned, trained Professionalized
Resource allocation to Operations Project -level Criteria-based program Sustainable Budget Line Item
Partnerships Informal, unaligned Formal, aligned Consolidated
101
102
Change Management Strategies (Examples)
Basic Dimensions LEGACY-BASED RESTRUCTURING SUPPORTIVE
Culture Mixed, unfamiliar Hero-driven Championed/Internalized across disciplines Mobility Committed
Organization/Staffing Fragmented, Understaffed Aligning, trained Professionalized
Resource allocation Project -level Criteria-based program Sustainable Budget Line Item
Partnerships Informal, unaligned Formal, aligned Consolidated
Education policy
Legislation
Training Academy
Outsourcing
Line Item budget
Reallocation
Consolidation
Formal Agreements
103
Correlation btwn Operations Maturity Levels And
Institutional Architecture
PROCESS/ CAPABILITY LEVELS Criteria For Levels Level 1 Performed Ac Hoc Level 2 Managed Level 3 Integrated
PROCESS/ CAPABILITY LEVELS Scope
PROCESS/ CAPABILITY LEVELS Business Process/Capabilities
PROCESS/ CAPABILITY LEVELS Systems and Technology
PROCESS/ CAPABILITY LEVELS Performance Measurement

ORGANIZATIONAL/ INSTITUTIONAL ARCHITECTURE Dimensions Ad Hoc to Managed Managed to Integrated Supportive for to Mainstreaming
ORGANIZATIONAL/ INSTITUTIONAL ARCHITECTURE Culture/Leadership
ORGANIZATIONAL/ INSTITUTIONAL ARCHITECTURE Organization/Staffing
ORGANIZATIONAL/ INSTITUTIONAL ARCHITECTURE Resource Allocation
ORGANIZATIONAL/ INSTITUTIONAL ARCHITECTURE Partnerships
104
Strategies to Improve Institutional Maturity
Culture/Leadership Undertake educational program re SOM as customer service Exert visible senior leadership Establish formal core program Rationalize state DOT authority Internalize continuous improvement as agency mode/ethic
Organization/Staffing Establish top-level SOM executive structure Establish appropriate organizational structure Identify core capacities Determine/allocate responsibility, accountability and incentives
Resource Allocations Develop program-level budget estimate Introduce SOM as a top level agency budget line item Develop acceptance of sustainable resourcing from state funds Develop methodology for trade-offs
Partnerships Agree on operational roles and procedures with PSAs Identify opportunities for joint operations activities with local government/MPOs Develop procedures that accommodate partners goals and maximize mobility (minimum disruption) Rationalize staff versus outsourcing activities, responsibilities and oversight
104
105
The Guidance Scheme
105
106
The Potential of Operations Capability Maturity
Model

• Shared vision of best practice
• A common analytical language
• Vertical and horizontal management relationships
• Formalized, transparent (self) appraisal process
• Suits any type of organization by size, problems,
  
• Framework to prioritize change management tactics
• Basis for benchmarking across organizations

107
Degree of DOT Management Leverage on Change
Basic Dimensions LEGACY-BASED RESTRUCTURING/ TRANSITION SUPPORTIVE MAINSTREAMED
Culture Mixed, unfamiliar Hero-driven Championed/Internalized across disciplines Mobility Committed
Organization/ Staffing Fragmented, Understaffed Aligning, trained Professionalized
Resource allocation Project -level Criteria-based program Sustainable Budget Line Item
Partnerships Informal, unaligned Formal, aligned Consolidated
Education policy
Legislation
Training Academy
Outsourcing
Line Item budget
Reallocation
Consolidation
Formal Agreements
108
Change Management Alternative Paths for
Consideration

1. Internal incremental change -- regarding those
   architectural dimensions under the span of
   control of top management
2. Major Reorganization with internal change in
   priorities and related (may require outside
   political support
3. Capitalizing on a major event to make permanent
   changes (special event, major disruption, natural
   disaster)
4. Consolidation of functions among public agencies
   in the form of a new operating entity

109
Where is my state? (QUIZ)

• Technical Process Dimensions
• Any at level 1?
• A dimension at 2?
• Institutional Dimensions
• Any at level 2?
• What is your biggest challenge?

110
Division Survey
DOT OPERATIONS PROGRAM MATURITY PROCESSES AND CAPABILITY DOT OPERATIONS PROGRAM MATURITY PROCESSES AND CAPABILITY DOT OPERATIONS PROGRAM MATURITY PROCESSES AND CAPABILITY
L1 L2 L3
Operations Activities (program ) Scope Operations Activities (program ) Scope Operations Activities (program ) Scope
Narrow and Opportunistic -- 4 Needs-based and Standardized -- 6 Full-range core program 1
Business Process used to develop Operations Program Business Process used to develop Operations Program Business Process used to develop Operations Program
Informal, undocumented -- 4 Planned, documented -- 6 Integrated and Documented -- 1
Systems and Technology Development Systems and Technology Development Systems and Technology Development
Qualitative, opportunistic -- 1 Evaluated platforms -- 5 Standardized, interoperable -- 2
Performance Measurement and Reporting Performance Measurement and Reporting Performance Measurement and Reporting
Outputs reported -- 6 Outcomes used -- 1 Performance Accountability -- 1
ORGANIZATION/INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS FOR SYSTEMS OPERATIONS ORGANIZATION/INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS FOR SYSTEMS OPERATIONS ORGANIZATION/INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS FOR SYSTEMS OPERATIONS
L1 L2 L2
Operations Culture Operations Culture Operations Culture
LegacyHero-driven -- 5 Agency Championed -- 4 Mobility Committed -- 1
Organization and Staffing for Operations Organization and Staffing for Operations Organization and Staffing for Operations
Fragmented, Understaffed -- 3 Aligning, trained -- 4 Professionalized -- 1
Resource Allocations for Operations Resource Allocations for Operations Resource Allocations for Operations
Project -level -- 2 Criteria-based program -- 3 Sustainable Budget Line Item -- 1
Partnerships (Public Safety, Local Govt) for Operations Partnerships (Public Safety, Local Govt) for Operations Partnerships (Public Safety, Local Govt) for Operations
Informal, unaligned -- 2 Formal, aligned -- 3 Consolidated -- 2
111
QUIZ Self Assessment re your agency
Institutionalization Get it Start Done
1. Improvement in performance articulated in policy
2. Leverage of SOM widely understood
3. SOM program development responsibility identified
4. Line item budget/slots for SOM-related resources
5. Technical leadership at agency and key region positions
6. Formal statewide relationship with PSAs
7. Basic laws and policy in place
8. Existing basic ITS infrastructure in place
10. Traffic eng., safety, ITS, etc. consolidated
11. System performance tracked
12. Consistent Statewide ConOps in place

112
FHWA Role?

• FHWA
• Policy/program priority?
• Division Accountability?
• To Top SDOT Management
• Clarify service stakes
• Exploit legislative justification (performance)
• Clarify benefits and costs
• To SDOT Program Managers
• Help self-evaluate level of capability and
  barriers
• Showcase best practice for peers
• Reach SDOT district management

113
Meanwhile (as committed secret agents of the
future)Guerilla Tactics for Change

• Insist on technical truth regarding service to
  customers
• Technology should not get ahead of procedures and
  protocols
• Standardize and document process (planning, proj
  dev, procure, etc)
• Get planners buy-in they will support
• Expertise is the scarce resource Start training
  staff now
• Push for organizational equivalency and
  accountability
• Establish conops with all partners otherwise
  ..
• is not the problem, sustainable is push
  for line item
• Performance measurement can be incremental and
  useful
• Be ready for and capitalize on external
  events!!

114
Vision Emerging Institutional Arrangements

115
Vision PartnershipsFuture of State DOTs
116
Vision Big Cultural Shift Change in Priorities
Systems management
System Expansion
2OTH CENTURY DOT
21ST CENTURY DOT
Demand Management
Systems Management
System Expansion
Demand Management
Maintenance
Maintenance
117
Vision The 21st Century Operations-Oriented DOT
DIMENSION 20TH CENTURY 21ST CENTURY
Mission and Vision System development Operating the system for Users
Professional Orientation Engineering expertise Performance Management
Jurisdictional Roles Separate spans Consolidated (new authorities)
Sector Roles Public template Public Management
Relationship with Users Vehicles independent advice VII
Drivers of Change Budget constrained Learning enterprise