Institutional Preconditions to Advancing Operational Strategies

1
Institutional Preconditions to Advancing
Operational Strategies
2
Point of Departure

• Highway congestion is increasing
• Financial constraints performance maximum
  SOM
• 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 SOM requires agency
  commitment, organization and staffing
  adjustments, sustainable resources and improved
  partnerships
• A recipe for improving systems operational
  capability has been developed

3
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
4
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
5
Operations Capability MaturityProcess and
Supporting Institutional Levels
Performance
Goal for the future
A few Leaders
Transitioning Agencies (most)
6
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

7
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

8
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
9
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 Aligning, trained Professionalized
Resource allocation to Operations Project -level Criteria-based program Sustainable Budget Line Item
Partnerships Informal, unaligned Formal, aligned Consolidated
10
Change Management Strategies (Examples)
Basic Dimensions AD HOC RATIONALIZED 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
11
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
12
The Guidance Scheme
13
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 SOM effectiveness improves

14
Extras
15
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

16
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 .

17
DOT OPERATIONS PROGRAM MATURITY TECHNICAL PROCESSES AND CAPABILITIES DIMENSION DOT OPERATIONS PROGRAM MATURITY TECHNICAL PROCESSES AND CAPABILITIES DIMENSION DOT OPERATIONS PROGRAM MATURITY TECHNICAL PROCESSES AND CAPABILITIES DIMENSION 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 reported Outcomes used Performance Accountability
18
The modest state of SOM is not due to technology

• Technology commodified while
• Policy commitment vague
• Rarely a Core Program (part of other programs)
• Business processes unstandard, 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)

19
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

20
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

21
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!!

22
CMM Maturity Levels
Level 4
Predictable
Goal for the future
Level 3
Strong sense of teamwork, with full understanding
of processes and performance objectives
Established
Most of todays agencies
Level 2
Fully coordinated operation. Performance data
systematically collected and applied
Managed
Level 1
Processes fully documented staff trained
Performed
Level 0
Ad hoc operation. Relationships not coordinated
Incomplete
Disorganized
23
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

24
Interpretation of Levels for SOM
Level Name Characteristics
1 Incomplete Ad hoc processes
2 Performed Procedures defined tracked
3 Managed Process is managed measured
4 Established Continuous analysis
25
Correlation Between Operations Program Process
Maturity And Institutional Arrangements
PROCESS/ CAPABILITY LEVELS Point Of Departure We dont know that we dont know Next Steps Managed We know that we dont know Target Integrated We work at what we dont know
PROCESS/ CAPABILITY LEVELS Dimensions
Performance Criteria For Levels
SUPPORTIVE ORGANIZATIONAL/ INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGMENTS Legacy based to Restructuring Restructuring to Supportive Supportive (Mainstreamed)
SUPPORTIVE ORGANIZATIONAL/ INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGMENTS Dimensions
Performance Criteria For Support
26
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
27
PROCESS AND INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK
DIMENSION DETAILS
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 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
28
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
29
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

30
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
31
SOM 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

32
PROCESS AND INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK
DIMENSION DETAILS
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 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