Institutional Preconditions to Advancing Operational Strategies

Point of Departure Highway congestion is increasing Financial constraints + performance = maximum SO&M The delay/disruption from crashes and breakdowns, bad weather, & construction disruption cause performance loss This congestion can be managed – -if appropriate arrangements are in place Research indicates improved SO&M requires agency commitment, organization and staffing adjustments, sustainable resources and improved partnerships A “recipe” for improving systems operational capability has been developed

Loss of Performance: Recapture Capacity” Type of CauseContribution to total delay Cause of DelayBasic Mitigation Strategy Recurring Causes40-60% Mainline capacity shortfalls Interchange bottlenecks Poor signal timing Non-Recurring Causes 40-50% Breakdowns & Crashes Construction work Weather Lack of information Special events Capacity Increases Systems Management

Reliability Research: the Importance of 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 C/E statewide SO&M program Necessary Processes The business processes and systems required to facilitate program qualities above Supportive Institutional Arrangements The values, capabilities and arrangements and resources required to support and sustain of the required business process

Operations Capability Maturity: Process and Supporting Institutional Levels Supportive architecture Ideal architecture Current architecture Integrated processes Managed processes Ad hoc processes Transitioning Agencies (most) A few Leaders Goal for the future Performance

A Systems Operations Capability Maturity Framework 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”) Agencies can identify their current status The “model” indicates next steps

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

INSTITUTIONAL DIMENSIONS AD HOC Legacy-based RATIONALIZED Restructuring 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

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, unfamiliar— Event/Hero-driven Championed/Internal ized across disciplines Mobility Committed Organization, management and staffing Fragmented, Understaffed Aligning, trainedProfessionalized Resource allocation to Operations Project -level Criteria-based program Sustainable Budget Line Item Partnerships Informal, unalignedFormal, alignedConsolidated

Basic Dimensions AD HOCRATIONALIZEDMAINSTREAMED Culture Mixed, unfamiliar— Hero-driven Championed/Internalize d across disciplines Mobility Committed Organization/ Staffing Fragmented, Understaffed Aligning, trainedProfessionalized Resource allocation Project -levelCriteria-based program Sustainable Budget Line Item Partnerships Informal, unaligned Formal, alignedConsolidated Change Management Strategies (Examples) Legislation Reallocation Consolidation Education & policy Training Academy Line Item budget Formal Agreements Outsourcing

Strategies to Improve Institutional Maturity Culture/Leadership  Undertake educational program re SO&M 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 SO&M executive structure  Establish appropriate organizational structure  Identify core capacities  Determine/allocate responsibility, accountability and incentives Resource Allocations  Develop program-level budget estimate  Introduce SO&M 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

The Guidance Scheme

Applying the Capability Model Model indicates categories for evaluation Agency conducts self-evaluation Next Steps indicated with strategies to achieve Agency priorities implementation of strategies Interate as SO&M effectiveness improves

Extras

The “Institutional Rules” of OCM 1.The business model of Operations as the key mission must become part of agency culture, mission, leadership, public image (a core program) 2.The organization structure must be adjusted for the real time features of operations – including field/HQ relationships & core capacities established 3.The resource allocation process must be needs-based, sustainable and transparent (a line item) 4.Partnerships must be aligned and formalized

So What’s Different About SO&M? 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.

DOT OPERATIONS PROGRAM MATURITY TECHNICAL PROCESSES AND CAPABILITIES DIMENSION Basic Dimensions POINT OF DEPARTURE Getting organized: unique ad hoc activities at project level” NEXT STEPS Developing and processes: capabilities at the strategy level, but un- integrated TARGET 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 reportedOutcomes used Performance Accountability

The modest state of SO&M is not due to technology Technology commodified: while 1.Policy commitment vague 2.Rarely a Core Program (part of other programs) 3.Business processes unstandard, undocumented 4.Responsibility fragmented among units 5.Limited central accountability for performance 6.Informal relationship with other players (PSAs) 7.Unclear budgetary & staffing priority 8.Loose relationships with private providers (We call these “institutional” issues)

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 SO&M strategies –Adaptation to SO&M Program

Relevance : Supporting Institutional Challenge Developing arrangements that support the needed technical processes 1.Culture: Understanding/committing to mobility 2.Organization/Staffing: aligned, professionalized 3.Resource Allocation: criteria-based, sustainable 4.Partnerships: Aligned, Consolidated

Features of CMM 1.Continuous improvement (effectiveness) requires replicable, consistent processes and a supportive institutional structure 2.There are critical dimensions that can’t 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!!

CMM Maturity Levels Incomplete Performed Managed Established Predictable Level 0 Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Disorganized Ad hoc operation. Relationships not coordinated Processes fully documented & staff trained Fully coordinated operation. Performance data systematically collected and applied Strong sense of teamwork, with full understanding of processes and performance objectives Most of today’s agencies Goal for the future

Relevance: Technical Process Challenge Getting SO&M 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

Interpretation of Levels for SO&M LevelNameCharacteristics 1IncompleteAd hoc processes 2Performed Procedures defined & tracked 3Managed Process is managed & measured 4EstablishedContinuous analysis

PROCESS/ CAPABILITY LEVELS Point Of Departure “We don’t know that we don’t know Next Steps: Managed We know that we don’t know” Target: Integrated We work at what we don’t know” Dimension s Correlation Between Operations Program Process Maturity And Institutional Arrangements SUPPORTIVE ORGANIZATIONAL/ INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGMENTS Legacy –based to Restructuring Restructuring to Supportive Supportive (Mainstreamed) Dimensions Performance Criteria For Levels Performance Criteria For Support

DOT OPERATIONS PROGRAM MATURITY –PROCESSES AND CAPABILITY L1L2L3 Operations Activities (program ) Scope Narrow and Opportunistic -- 4Needs-based and Standardized -- 6Full-range core program 1 Business Process used to develop Operations Program Informal, undocumented -- 4Planned, documented -- 6Integrated and Documented -- 1 Systems and Technology Development Qualitative, opportunistic -- 1Evaluated platforms -- 5Standardized, interoperable -- 2 Performance Measurement and Reporting Outputs reported -- 6Outcomes used -- 1Performance Accountability -- 1 ORGANIZATION/INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS FOR SYSTEMS OPERATIONS L1L2 Operations Culture Legacy—Hero-driven -- 5Agency Championed -- 4Mobility Committed -- 1 Organization and Staffing for Operations Fragmented, Understaffed -- 3Aligning, trained -- 4Professionalized -- 1 Resource Allocations for Operations Project -level -- 2Criteria-based program -- 3 Sustainable Budget Line Item -- 1 Partnerships (Public Safety, Local Gov’t) for Operations Informal, unaligned -- 2Formal, aligned -- 3Consolidated -- 2 Division Survey

Institutiona l Dimensions LEGACY-BASED Activities initiated on regional basis RESTRUCTURING Supports transition from Managed to Integrated SUPPORTIVE Supports Transition from Integrated to Mainstreamed 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 AND INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK: DIMENSION DETAILS 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

Session VII: Systems Operations Institutional Dimensions 28 Basic Dimensions LEGACY-BASEDRESTRUCTURING/ TRANSITION SUPPORTIVE MAINSTREAMED Culture Mixed, unfamiliar— Hero-driven Championed/Interna lized across disciplines Mobility Committed Organization/ Staffing Fragmented, Understaffed Aligning, trainedProfessionalized Resource allocation Project -level Criteria-based program Sustainable Budget Line Item Partnerships Informal, unaligned Formal, alignedConsolidated Degree of DOT “Management”: Leverage on Change Legislation Reallocation Consolidation Education & policy Training Academy Line Item budget Formal Agreements Outsourcing

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

Impact of Best Practice Strategies - Portion of Delay In major metros by cause(%) Mainline Capacity29-37% Poor signalization4-5% Breakdowns/ crashes 40-45% Construction8-20% Weather5-7% Poor Information2-5% 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%

SO&M State of Play Stalled out in many states: low-hanging fruit picked Not institutionalized as “program: with specific processes, resources Still dependent on heroes who come and go No focus on performance

Institutional Dimensions LEGACY-BASED Activities initiated on regional basis RESTRUCTURING Supports transition from Managed to Integrated SUPPORTIVE Supports Transition from Integrated to Mainstreamed 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 AND INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK: DIMENSION DETAILS 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