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

Executive Summary

Background

Research done through the Second Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP 2) determined that agencies with the most effective transportation systems management and operations (TSM&O) activities were differentiated not by budgets or technical skills alone, but by the existence of critical processes and institutional arrangements tailored to the unique features of TSM&O applications. The significance of this finding has been validated in 40 State and regional self-assessment workshops using the Capability Maturity Model (CMM) and its six dimensions of organizational capabilities. This white paper focuses on Culture as one of the central dimensions of capability needed to support effective TSM&O including understanding and internalization of the business case, leadership via in-reach and outreach, and development of supporting policy, program and authorities. It summarizes the TSM&O state-of-the-practice based on the workshops and subsequent implementation plans developed at 23 sites selected by FHWA and the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) as part of the SHRP 2 Implementation Assistance Program.

Scope

State of the Practice Findings for TSM&O Culture

Key findings from the workshops included:

General

The legacy culture of State DOTs is civil engineering with a capital project orientation. While most agencies have accepted the notion that it is not possible to “build our way out of congestion,” the business case for TSM&O is not widely understood, although a few agencies have begun to incorporate operational objectives into their formal policy. This same situation was reported at the metropolitan level. TSM&O is just beginning to be considered for formal “program” status with its own line item budget and top level representation in executive leadership. Lack of this formal status appears to reduce the presence of TSM&O in the resource allocation process. Generally executive leadership exhibits only modest interest/visibility with respect to TSM&O – with a few notable examples that have spurred significant program improvement. However, new technology is raising the profile of operations as well as public expectations.

Technical Understanding and Business Case

Legacy culture. The primary orientation of most State DOTs remains focused on the delivery of capital projects that dominates agency policy, program, and public communications. This is different in nature from the 24x7 real-time service orientation of TSM&O. While some individual TSM&O strategies are well understood, the concept of TSM&O as a multi activity coordinated “program” is just beginning to evolve in most agencies and TSM&O is rarely understood or packaged as a suite of capabilities and services. Some concern was expressed about the ability of State DOTs to play an appropriate role in new applications and systems.
Making the TSM&O business case. With funding shortfalls and capacity constraints, it is increasingly recognized that is not possible to “build our way out of congestion.” Agency TSM&O staff are realizing that they can capitalize on this recognition by highlighting the unique payoffs from highly cost-effective TSM&O solutions and new technology to make a formal business case and secure a clear role for TSM&O within a State DOT’s program. Effective business-case-making is hampered by a lack of data and credible benefit-cost information, especially at the local level.
External reinforcement for the business case. The value of improving TSM&O has often been demonstrated by agency response to shortcomings in the face of “unplanned events” (e.g., large-scale crashes or weather crises), by effectively managing large “planned special events” (sports, conventions), and by supporting specific freight, recreation, or border crossing strategies. National activities by FHWA, SHRP 2, and AASHTO have also increased the visibility of TSM&O.

Leadership/Champions

Top management and middle management champions. By and large, TSM&O lacks formal State DOT “program” status. As a result, the momentum of TSM&O programs substantially depends on middle management “champions,” who are committed to improving TSM&O and who exercise persuasion and “intra-preneurship” within their agencies to access resources and move projects forward. Reliance on these individuals, rather than on formal program structure and authority, renders progress vulnerable to staff turnover.

Outreach – Internal and External

Internal outreach. Non-TSM&O State DOT staff with some level of involvement in specific TSM&O strategies (e.g., maintenance and safety staff who respond to incidents and weather outcomes) have a greater understanding of TSM&O. However, staff in non-operational units, such as design, planning and project development, are less likely to include TSM&O considerations in their activities. Some states/regions have incorporated consideration of TSM&O into their project development processes.
External outreach. Promoting the TSM&O mobility mission among State DOT partners often takes special initiatives. With public safety entities (e.g., law enforcement, fire and emergency services), it is often promoting a priority mix that fully incorporates mobility objectives. With MPOs and local government leaders (who are largely focused on capital projects of interest to their constituencies), it is promoting the unique payoffs of traffic management investments. State DOT outreach efforts often use the visibility of major events or high priority development objectives to make the case for TSM&O.

Policy/Program Status/Authorities

TSM&O in agency policy. Although some State DOTs now include “congestion reduction,” “efficiency,” and “mobility” as one of several objectives, and system performance is appearing on State DOT websites, TSM&O is typically not a formal State DOT program with clear embodiment in an agency’s policy, mission or budget. TSM&O is rarely a separate first-level division equivalent to project development and maintenance. This policy status detracts from the ability for TSM&O to compete for management, staff, and financial resources. It also limits organizational accountability for operational performance.
Legal authorities. The roles and activities of State DOTs and their public safety partners on public roads are defined by statute as well as conventional practice. Most States have obtained the necessary statutory authority for such measures as Quick Clearance, Move It, and emergency access use of shoulders. In most States, by law or formal agreement, public safety entities usually have incident command. In this context, State DOTs must indirectly exert their influence to promote the importance of mobility through MOUs and co-training with their partners.
Funding constraints. TSM&O is rarely supported by a dedicated multiyear budget determined as part of a top-level resource allocation. Although many TSM&O expenditures are an eligible use of Federal aid, many States have legal constraints on the use of State capital and maintenance funding for TSM&O activities. Several States include TSM&O funding as a subcategory of “operations” or “maintenance”, but information on rates of expenditure are rarely readily available or explicit.
Roles of public vs. private sector. Staffing limitations and the need for special technical expertise associated with new technology have led to a substantial level of outsourcing to consultant organizations or contracted staff, especially for activities such as TSM&O planning, systems engineering, performance data acquisition, TMC staffing, ITS device maintenance, and even safety service patrol. The reliance on outsourcing stimulated workshop discussion on the broader issue of what “core” functions and capabilities should be retained in-house to support assurance of best practice.

Synergism

TSM&O Culture is closely related to and synergistic with other dimensions of capability, especially Performance Measurement. Ideally an agency operates with senior management support for a “culture of performance” and recognition that a TSM&O Culture requires external Collaboration because its success is dependent on interagency cooperation. For the agency as a whole, changes in the dimension of Organization and Staffing also often are needed to support an operational culture.

State DOT and Regional Implementation Plan Priorities

A majority of workshop sites included one or more actions addressing Culture in their implementation plans. Among those actions, the highest priorities were:

Development of a business case – conduct of a marketing plan or campaign that would increase the level of awareness, understanding, and most important, support for TSM&O
Development of outreach or communication material to disseminate the purpose and successes of TSM&O

Best Practices and National Needs

This white paper describes example best practices and reference material related to the identified implementation plan priority needs. The paper also suggests supportive national actions to improve TSM&O Culture; developing resources to support effective TSM&O business cases; clarifying the TSM&O “brand” at the national and association level – including a focus on the National Operations Center of Excellence (NOCoE); and encouraging recognition that a TSM&O culture is essential to capitalizing on the range of emerging technologies related to automated and connected vehicles. Important roles are seen for FHWA, AASHTO, and the NOCoE in supporting these efforts.

previous | next

Improving Transportation Systems Management and Operations – Capability Maturity Model Workshop White Paper – Culture Executive Summary