Improving Transportation Systems Management and Operations – Capability Maturity Model Workshop White Paper – Business Processes

3. State of the Practice for the Business Processes Dimension

3.1 The Business Processes Dimension

Business Processes are the set of specific, structured activities or tasks and related decision points required to efficiently produce TSM&O systems and services. Business Processes include formal planning, programming, scoping, budgeting, and project development. The capability-level criteria used in the self-assessments for this dimension are shown in Table 3.1.

Table 3.1 Self-Assessment Workshop Levels of Capability Maturity for Business Processes

	Business Processes Criteria for Level Achievement
Capability Level 1	Each jurisdiction doing its own thing according to individual priorities and capabilities
Capability Level 2	Consensus regional or statewide approach developed regarding TSM&O goals, deficiencies, B/C, networks, strategies and common priorities
Capability Level 3	Regional or statewide program integrated into jurisdictions’ overall multimodal transportation plans with related staged program
Capability Level 4	TSM&O integrated into jurisdictions’ multi-sectoral plans and programs, based on a formal, continuing planning processes

Among the 23 workshops, the average self-assessed capability level for Business Processes was 1.83, with 11 sites at Level 1, 10 sites at Level 2, and two at Level 3. Figure 3.1 depicts the scoring distribution relative to the other dimensions. Across all workshop locations, Businesses Processes was the dimension most frequently cited for inclusion in implementation plans.

Figure 3.1 Graph. Business Processes Compared to Other Dimensions of Capability

(Source: Cambridge Systematics, Inc. and Parsons Brinckerhoff.)

The discussion of the state of the practice regarding the Business Processes dimension is divided into key elements based on the approach used in the AASHTO Guide to Transportation Systems Management and Operations:

• TSM&O Planning Process
• Programming/Budgeting
• Project Development/Procurement

In addition, there is a special discussion for this dimension related to metropolitan planning organization (MPO) involvement and MPO role in TSM&O planning and programming.

The following sections discuss observations regarding the current state of play in each element.

3.2 TSM&O Planning Process

• “Plateauing” and the need for a roadmap. The DOT TSM&O staff who participated in the workshops have been, until recently, largely focused on implementing conventional TSM&O strategies, such as incident and freeway management, which has fully consumed both available staff and financial resources. As a result, there has been very little perceived need for “planning” beyond the immediate horizon or planning beyond traditional freeway management system approaches. Now that many areas have foundation systems in place, many States appear to have reached a “plateau”, and the next steps involve several challenges: improving effectiveness of existing applications, determining a course of action associated with new (and more expensive/intensive) strategies (such as active traffic management), and/or developing strategies that involve greater involvement with other stakeholders (such as arterial operations and integrated corridor management (ICM) staff). Charting the next steps requires systematic consideration of strategies and resources, currently hindered by the absence of TSM&O planning and programming.
• Various scales and types of current TSM&O-related planning efforts. Very few states have incorporated TSM&O as a distinct category of expenditure in their agency comprehensive plans and programs, although some include individual TSM&O components (such as TMC development) within other standard categories such as “operations,” “maintenance,” or “mobility.” However some states have developed separate “plans” at various levels and scales that address TSM&O including:
  1. A few State DOTs have “policy plans” for TSM&O (which they may be call an “ITS Plan” or “ITS Strategic Plan”) that focus on high-level considerations of statewide or regional needs, policy, and strategies but without specific project or resource commitments.
  2. Only one State has both a short- and long-range plan (and budget) for TSM&O, although this plan focuses on freeway operations.
  3. Several States have plans for specific services, projects, and activities, such as ITS Plans, Traffic Incident Management Plans, Emergency Response Plans, Special Event Plans, and others, but these are not inclusive of all related TSM&O activities.
  4. Several States have focused planning on specific high visibility corridors based on congestion, in the context of major maintenance or interstate traffic challenges, or as part of new ICM activities. Some workshop participants felt that initiating a new program planning process on a statewide basis was too complex, and their agencies are considering starting the development of TSM&O planning on a corridor basis.
  5. There are several comprehensive TSM&O planning efforts where an MPO or other regional planning entity has taken the lead in the absence of State DOT action, although they do not appear to have a significant impact on State DOT resource allocation. The workshops also included one example of State DOT-prepared, district-level short- and long-range plans.
• TSM&O planning scope and need for a “TSM&O Program Plan.” Many participants indicated that a specific planning activity is needed for TSM&O in order to address the features and demands unique to effective TSM&O. This activity is also driven by the need to plan at a level of detail that is not found within the focus and format of most statewide plans and is not easy to accommodate within a conventional agency-wide planning process. The workshops identified specific issues to be addressed in TSM&O planning:
  • Development of a business case for TSM&O.
  • Application of performance measures for real time transportation system management.
  • Updating concepts of operations, architectures, and field procedures/protocols.
  • Identification of organizational change and staffing needs.
  • Collaborative training with partners.
  • Other resource needs not normally addressed in conventional agency comprehensive planning and programming processes, which are typically preoccupied with capital needs.
• TSM&O incorporation into the statewide planning process. The existing State DOT and MPO planning and programming conventions for formal agency capital programs includes a defined long-range investment strategy by program area, a short-range plan with a program of specific projects, and an agency line-item capital budget (sometimes with operating and maintenance costs included). A planning unit within a State DOT central office or an MPO typically undertakes these activities. Sometimes specific TSM&O strategies are subsidiary components of planning elements such as “congestion management,” demand management, or “mobility,” and are budgeted – if at all – as subcategories of capital, maintenance, or operations expenditures. Although conducted at various levels of detail, short- and long-range statewide plans and related programs follow the well-understood “continuous, cooperative, and comprehensive” process outlined in Federal guidelines. By this measure, TSM&O has not achieved the status of a formal State DOT program such that it is included in the statewide planning process. Central office planning units (some of which were represented among the workshops) do not often appear to work regularly with TSM&O staff in the central office or regions. Only three workshop states systematically address TSM&O as a distinct program and resource category in comprehensive statewide strategic plans, although several have separate TSM&O program plans.
• Key capabilities and methodologies needed. The limited planning for TSM&O relates, in part, to staff background limitations. Few TSM&O managers have planning backgrounds and few statewide planners have TSM&O backgrounds. This knowledge gap creates special challenges in developing appropriate planning approaches for both TSM&O-specific program plans and for incorporating TSM&O into statewide plans. In addition, there are other factors that inhibit planning for TSM&O:
  • The lack of prospective funding discourages a forward-looking approach.
  • A TSM&O-specific plan is not required either by Federal regulations or as a matter of standard agency procedure. In several workshops, Strategic Highway Safety Plans were identified as relevant models as they include safety goal performance measures and related data support, involvement of stakeholders, strategies, and a continuous cycle of updating.
  • TSM&O staff often secure funds on an informal opportunistic basis for projects rather than having dedicated “programs” with their own budgets.
  • TSM&O staff shortfalls result in staff focusing on immediate problems.
  • Life cycle costing methodologies, to include operational cost as well as capital cost are not widely applied or are not suited to capturing the lower cost and quicker return on investment experienced with TSM&O.
  • Given the lack of planning skills among TSM&O staff and the lack of good examples, many states have outsourced TSM&O planning-related activities such as functional plans and systems architectures.

3.3 Programming/Budgeting

• Programming and budgeting. Few workshop States have an explicit statewide program and budget line item devoted to TSM&O. Most TSM&O funding for specific projects is ad hoc and intermittent. Project costs are sometimes implicitly included (by prior agreement) in one or more general maintenance, capital, or operations budget categories and tend to vary widely from year to year. Programming and budgeting appear to be substantially inhibited by TSM&O’s lack of program status, emphasized by a prevailing sense of resource shortfalls. In addition, TSM&O staff is not typically represented at an organizational level in budget discussions, and in most cases, TSM&O is not systematically included in top-level, agency-wide resource allocation processes. In fact, facing a competition for funds, some staffs find it advantageous to bury TSM&O costs within other projects so that they are not conspicuous and consequently at risk for potential cuts. ITS or “operations-like” improvements are often added onto major capital improvements, making an expenditure determination difficult but also leading to uncoordinated or fragmented ITS implementation, a lack of consideration for future maintenance needs and costs, and vulnerability to being the first cut from an overall capital project when cost reductions are necessary. These expedient solutions are not conducive to effective decision-making or to effective financial planning. Even though it was acknowledged in workshops that TSM&O-specific processes are needed for budgeting and accounting, managers do not appear to have the time and/or authority to pursue such changes.
• Level of investment. Annual and multiyear programs and related budgets are a convention of State DOT and MPO activities. However, the absence of a defined TSM&O program and related budget means that few State DOT managers know what resources are being invested in TSM&O or how current investments might relate to more cost-effective use of scarce DOT resources. In fact, most workshop participants acknowledged that it is difficult to state with certainty the level of agency expenditure on TSM&O strategies or applications. Where available, the information suggested that TSM&O expenditures were typically in the two-to-three-percent range of a department’s overall capital budget. One DOT TSM&O manager noted that if over 50 percent of delay and most of the system’s unreliability was most effectively addressed by TSM&O rather than new capacity, that three percent of DOT investment may be significantly out of proportion with this observation. Workshop comments suggest that staff effort towards systematic development of a TSM&O program appears to be discouraged by generally static State DOT budgets and competition for resources with core programs. Budget cuts have hit some TSM&O programs, and staffing levels in most participating States have been static or declining, and turnover is significant. While some staff needs may be addressed through outsourcing, this can lead to lack of continuity and the loss of key staff capabilities. The absence of a plan-based TSM&O “program” and related multiyear budget clearly reduces the ability of TSM&O to compete for its appropriate share of scarce State DOT resources.

3.4 Project Development/Procurement

• A project development process tailored to TSM&O. State DOTs have formal project development processes for conventional capital development, maintenance, and safety projects with well-defined steps, roles, and responsibilities. TSM&O projects have special development requirements, however, including systems engineering, concepts of operations, types of procurement, systems integration/deployment needs, and special contracting requirements. Even when TSM&O projects can benefit from integration with other capital or maintenance projects, TSM&O staff report difficulty in inserting projects into the process because the conventional project development process may not have a specific step for consideration of TSM&O or because tight budgets eliminate the TSM&O element. Workshop participants indicated inclusion of TSM&O is often dependent on champions “making a deal.” In a few State DOTs, the project development process has now been adjusted to incorporate operational considerations with standards steps that include interaction with TSM&O managers .

3.5 Metropolitan Planning Organizations, Other Regional Entities and TSM&O Planning

Of the 23 workshops included in this white paper, almost all States included at least one MPO. (The larger States selected a “representative MPO.”) Six of the workshops had a regional focus, including two hosted by State DOT districts (Florida DOT District 5 (Orlando) and Kansas DOT District 5 (Wichita) and four hosted by MPOs or regional consortiums: NITTEC (Buffalo, New York); NOACA (Cleveland, Ohio); Washington DC DOT; and Whatcom (Whatcom County, Washington). Workshop participants indicated that MPO involvement in TSM&O is essential in the areas of regional planning, programming, and performance measurement, not only for Federal planning and congestion management process requirements, but as a practical matter, given local governments’ involvement in arterial and transit operations. All the larger MPOs conduct a Congestion Management Process (CMP) per Federal regulations (23 CFR 450.320), but few use the data gathered as the basis for developing a regional TSM&O plan and program. Several of the larger MPOs have allocated CMAQ funds for signal upgrades and a few MPOs have assumed a major role in signalization coordination. In addition, several MPOs have sponsored and managed incident management training for their local transportation and public safety members. These MPOs evidence a broad range of organizational arrangements focused on TSM&O, typically under a technical committee with various names that relate to operations (e.g., “ITS ,” “Operations,” and “Congestion Management”).

A handful of MPOs have developed TSM&O plan elements and included TSM&O in their overall comprehensive plans. In fact, their efforts have provided the most systematic approaches to TSM&O planning and programming, including capitalizing on CMP data, reviewing and evaluating strategic options, and developing a program.