1 Guidance for Improvement of Transportation Systems Management and Operations

2 Capability Maturity – What it is A conceptual model – establishing the basis for continuous improvement in agency effectiveness –A framework –A tool –Flexible applications

3 TSM&O Capability Maturity Activities SHRP2 LO 6 Research and validation FHWA CMM workshops SDOT CMM workshops AASHTO/FHWA Implementation Plans Operations Academy/ROFs Other applications of Capability Maturity

4 “Capabilities” for “Effective” TSM&O ? The Barriers (and capabilities to overcome) surprisingly) NOT : $$, technical knowledge Real Challenges:  lack of appropriate processes  institutional arrangements More difficult management challenges NEEDED: A PRACTICAL MANAGEMENT TOOL

5 The “Program” Processes that support Program Supporting Institutional Framework Recognized dependence on specific business & technical processes Identified required organization structure & relationships Identified characteristics of a effective TSM&O program What “Capabilities”?

6 Management Tool: The Capability Maturity concept 1. Objective of “continuous improvement” (mainstreaming) 2. Critical factors to be managed improvement (dimensions) 3. Defined and Doable targets of improvement (levels) 4. Based self-assessment

7 Guidance Component #1: Six Key Capability Dimensions 1.Business processes – planning/programming/budgeting 2.Systems & Technology – systems engineering/technology) 3.Performance -- measurement/data/utilization 4.Culture – understanding/leadership/formalization 5.Organization and workforce– structure/staff development 6.Collaboration –public and public/private

8 Guidance Component #2: Criteria for Capability Levels

9 DIMENSION: PLANNING LEVEL 1 PERFORME D LEVEL 2 MANAGED LEVEL 3 INTEGRATED LEVEL 4 OPTIMIZING Some outputs measured and reported by some jurisdictions Output data used directly for after- action debriefings and improvements; data easily available and dashboarded Outcome measures identified (networks, modes, impacts); and routinely utilized in common for objective-based program improvements Performance measures reported internally for utilization and externally for accountability and program justification Criteria Define Levels and Targets DIMENSION: ORGANIZAION LEVEL 1 PERFORME D LEVEL 2 MANAGED LEVEL 3 INTEGRATED LEVEL 4 OPTIMIZING Some outputs measured and reported by some jurisdictions Output data used directly for after- action debriefings and improvements; data easily available and dashboarded Outcome measures identified (networks, modes, impacts); and routinely utilized in common for objective-based program improvements Performance measures reported internally for utilization and externally for accountability and program justification DIMENSION: PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT LEVEL 1 PERFORMED LEVEL 2 MANAGED LEVEL 3 INTEGRATED LEVEL 4 OPTIMIZED Some outputs measured and reported by some jurisdictions Output data used directly for after-action debriefings and improvements; data easily available and dashboarded Outcome measures identified (networks, modes, impacts); and routinely utilized in common for objective-based program improvements Performance measures reported internally for utilization and externally for accountability and program justification

10 Guidance Component # 3: The “Rules” of Capability Maturity 1.Lowest level dimension is the principal constraint 2.All dimensions included are essential/synergistic 3.Levels cannot be skipped

11 Dimensions LEVEL 1 PERFORMED LEVEL 2 MANAGED LEVEL 3 INTEGRATED LEVEL 4 OPTIMIZING Planning & Programming x Systems & Technology x Performance x Culture x Organization/ staffing x Collaboration x Lowest level is constraint – cant be skipped For each dimension guidance provided to get to next level CMM Self-Assessment Structure “Ideal”

12 StrengthsWeaknesses Level Criteria Level 1 — Performed Level 2 — Managed Level 3 — Integrated Level 4 — Optimizing 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’ multi-sectoral plans and programs, based on a formal, continuing planning processes Consensus 1.5 Workshop Actions to Advance to the Next Level Self-Assessment Workshops

13 Advantages of CMM Approach Vision of capability: target of continuous improvement Small set of critical dimensions of needed capability Criteria for improvements via doable incremental levels Priority actions needed to achieve next level thru self assessment Based on self-assessment

14 Product: CMM Utilization

15 Product: Detailed Web-based guidance Business Processes Systems & Technology Performance Measurement  Planning  Scoping  Programming/Budgeting  Project Development  Regional architectures  Systems engineering  Interoperability  Measures definition  Data acquisition  Measures utilization Culture Organization/ Workforce Collaboration  Technical understanding  Leadership  Outreach  Program Authorities  Program status  Organizational structure  Recruitment/retention  Staff development  Public safety agency collaboration  Local government coop  Outsourcing/PPP

16 F Product: FHWA/AASHTO CMM Workshops & Implementation Planning

17 FHWA/AASHTO CMM Workshops TO DATE Georgia DOT Colorado DOT/Denver Arizona DOT/Phoenix, Nevada DOT/Reno Tennessee DOT Pennsylvania DOT/Philadelphia Kansas City Metropolitan Region Caltrans/Los Angeles Florida DOT/District 4 Wisconsin DOT Dallas-Fort Worth/TXDOT Portland/ODOT Michigan DOT Caltrans (statewide) Maryland SHA/Baltimore New Jersey DOT New Hampshire DOT UPCOMING in 2014 New Jersey DOT ( Michigan DOT California DOT Oregon DOT Arizona DOT Colorado DOT Utah DOT Washington DOT Iowa DOT Ohio DOT Missouri DOT Kansas DOT District 5 South Dakota DOT Rhode Island DOT Pennsylvania DOT Maryland DOT (Baltimore/Washington)) Tennessee DOT Georgia DOT NITTC (Buffalo/Ontario) Florida DOT District 5)

18 Example Findings -- Current State of Practice: Planning, Programming, Budgeting Between Capability Level 1: Each jurisdiction doing its own thing according to individual priorities and capabilities and Capability Level 2 : Consensus regional approach developed regarding TSM&O goals, deficiencies, B/C, networks, strategies and common priorities State of Play -- Planning for TSM&O still ad hoc and informal & lack of budget. But conscious of need for Ops Plans and integration into agency level planning.

19 Example Findings-- Current State of Practice: Performance Measurement Almost Capability Level 2: Output data used directly for after- action debriefings and improvements; data easily available and dashboarded State of Play – High consciousness (MAP-21) agency- wide. Limited use by operators to improve procedures. Increased focus on measures and data challenges (including private supply).

20 Example Findings-- Current State of Practice: Organization/Workforce Just at Capability Level 2: TSM&O-specific organizational concept developed within/among jurisdictions with core capacity needs identified, collaboration takes place State-of-play -- Considerable consolidation & reorganization, staff limits. Training problems. Outsourcing increasing.

21 Other applications of CMM PLANNING AND PROGRAMMING FOR TSM&O Dimensions Level 1: Ad Hoc Level 2: Developing Level 3: Specified Level 4: Mainstreamed Cooperation/ Collaboration No formal planning or programming consideration at individual unit/agency level Coordination/ sharing of multiagency planning integrated into regional interagency multimodal planning Goals and Objectives None related specifically to dealing with improving objectives understood/ incorporated Overall agency policy/objectives/ strategies adjusted TSM&O given appropriate agency priority Needs/ Deficiency Analysis No analysis of current or anticipated Rules of thumb used TSM&O-related forecasting used Integration of TSM&O within overall forecasting and deficiency analysis Plan Development improvements committed on opportunistic basis Budget constrained evaluation of strategies Routine lifecycle comparison integrated into overall agency priority-setting,

22 Lessons Learned CMM easily understood by participants CMM structure being adopted in several program areas CMM self-assessment findings match informed professional observations CMM results being used in State DOT TSM&O Implementation Plans