Build Smart, Build Steady: Winning Strategies for Building Integrated Corridor Management Over Time

Chapter 2. ICM Maturity Assessment

This chapter is intended for all Integrated Corridor Management (ICM) stakeholders, who either have deployed ICM or understand the ICM concepts. The chapter summarizes the three types of stakeholder arrangements for ICM deployment, provides an overview of the Capability Maturity Model (CMM) for ICM, defines the three types of deployments, summarizes an implementation process adapted from the ICM Implementation Guide which helps to structure the improvements needed at various levels of ICM maturity, and describes a comprehensive ICM maturity assessment that stakeholders can conduct as a joint exercise. Based on the outcome of the exercise, readers are asked to move to a specific chapter.

The exercise described in this chapter is meant only for early to advanced deployers of ICM, and not for those who are exploring the ICM concept as a possible solution to their corridor problems (i.e., the Aspirational ICM Deployments). Agencies who have not yet defined a vision or concept for their ICM system should move on to Chapter 3 after reading the sections below on Summary of ICM Stakeholder Arrangements and Overview of ICM Capability Maturity Model, and Adapted ICM Implementation Process.

Summary of ICM Stakeholder Arrangements

There are three types of stakeholder arrangements that are essential for realizing a successful ICM deployment. These include institutional, operational, and technical arrangements. These arrangements should be developed when ICM is first launched and adapted over time as the ICM system matures. These arrangements include detailed business rules as well as higher level agreements that help coordinate ICM stakeholders. These arrangements are defined in the NCHRP Report 899 Incorporating Freight, Transit, and Incident Response Stakeholders into Integrated Corridor Management (ICM): Processes and Strategies for Implementation⁽⁶⁾ as follows:

• Institutional arrangements, governing how ICM stakeholders determine and guide the strategic direction of the ICM deployment over time — including geographic boundaries, scope of actions, financial plan, stakeholder engagement/retention and institutional form.
• Organizational or operational arrangements, governing the roles, responsibilities, limitations, and tactical interactions among ICM system operators engaged in real-time day-to-day decision-making within the corridor.
• Technical arrangements, governing the ownership and responsibility among stakeholders for the security, monitoring, maintenance, and enhancements of ICM system assets (both tangible and intangible).

Please refer the NCHRP Report 899⁽⁷⁾ for a detailed discussion on these arrangements at various stages of ICM deployment maturity. Tables 1, 2, and 3 provide a summary of the Institutional, Operational, and Technical Arrangements, respectively.⁽⁸⁾

Table 1. High-Level Summary of Institutional Arrangements

Types of Institutional Arrangements	Summary
Corridor Vision, Goals, and ICM Concept Management Arrangements	Documents the most fundamental concepts of shared vision, goals, and how ICM concept is organized among partners. Sets early focus. Essential at every stage.
System Integration Arrangements	Documents the high-level agreements among stakeholders regarding roles, responsibilities, and shared actions. Ensures the intended nature of coordinated action and/or system integration is clearly explained. Provides an inherent justification for the level of system integration chosen.
Financial and Capital Planning Arrangements	Documents agreements on ICM-specific business relationships among stakeholders, including the sources of funding for system operation, maintenance, and enhancement. Less critical in the early stage but takes on importance as maturity increases.
Organizational Forms and Governance Policy Arrangements	Documents (i) the agreements among stakeholders on how to organize themselves and (ii) the governance policies for adapting/amending these arrangements over time. May take the form of a charter in the early stage.

Table 2. High-Level Summary of Operational Arrangements

Types of Operational Arrangements	Summary
Operational Mode and Procedures Arrangements	Documents agreements among stakeholders that establish the fundamental ground rules (e.g., operational roles/responsibilities, modes of operation, diagnostics/monitoring, restart/recovery procedures) under which operational coordination will be executed. Must be consistent with the roles/responsibilities identified in institutional arrangements (e.g., Concept Management and System Integration) and supported by the technical capabilities identified in the complementary technical arrangements. Does not need to be highly detailed in the early stage.
Tactical Operations Action Planning Arrangements	Documents agreements among stakeholders regarding the tactical roles, responsibilities and actions (e.g., tactical response plans, playbook) to be taken in response to varying operational conditions within the corridor. Critical to effectively manage and coordinate corridor management actions. Grows in complexity as ICM deployment matures.
Safety/Emergency Management Arrangements	Documents agreements among stakeholders regarding unplanned safety or emergency conditions within the corridor. Essential for responding rapidly and effectively to safety critical scenarios (e.g., natural disasters, widespread power/communication failure, criminal/terrorist activity).
External Stakeholder Engagement Protocols/Procedures Arrangements	Documents arrangements among stakeholders on how to communicate with the press, the public, and other stakeholders. Essential for ensuring consistent messaging and maintaining momentum.

Table 3. High-Level Summary of Technical Arrangements

Types of Technical Arrangements	Summary
Data Management Arrangements	Documents agreements among stakeholders regarding data sharing, privacy, and data ownership. Critical for building trust among stakeholders to engage beyond simple coordination. Essential for complex ICM strategies which often require the ingest and dissemination of significant data resources.
Cybersecurity Arrangements	Documents agreements among stakeholders for protecting the cybersecurity of the ICM system including the potential impacts of security breaches. Critical for collectively planning on joint security and responding rapidly and effectively to cybersecurity threats.
Systems Engineering Management Arrangements	Documents agreements among stakeholders regarding how systems engineering for the ICM solution will be conducted and how systems engineering documentation will be managed over time. Essential for implementing more complex ICM strategies.

Overview of ICM Capability Maturity Model

The CMM is a framework that allows an objective assessment of an agency's maturity level. Figure 2 provides a CMM for ICM.⁽⁹⁾ The ICM-CMM enables agencies to not only assess their ability to deploy ICM but also to strategically identify areas for improvement. Agencies can use the ICM-CMM, coupled with corridor performance measurement, to decide rationally and effectively on where to invest and make progress.

Based on the overall maturity of the ICM system, deployments are classified into the following three types of deployments:

1. Early ICM Deployments: Maturity ratings of at least 1 in all six integration areas and 2 or 3 particularly for Inter-Agency Cooperation, Funding, Performance Measures, and Decision Support System. These deployments may be considered emerging or aspirational ICM deployments in that there is a significant motivating need for a more integrated solution to corridor management, but little institutional capital, operational integration and technical capabilities.
2. Durable ICM Deployments: Maturity ratings of at least 3 in all six integration areas and 4 or 5 particularly for Inter-Agency Cooperation, Funding, Performance Measures, and Decision Support System. These deployments are generally representative of corridors who are ready to evolve from an early, exploratory/initial state into a more permanent, durable, and comprehensive ICM capability. As the ICM system matures, there is a need to maintain deployment momentum and create a culture of continuous improvement or risk falling back into old siloed ways with the initial project now complete.
3. Transformative ICM Deployments: Maturity ratings of 5 in all six integration areas. These deployments are generally representative of long-standing, durable ICM capabilities now considering more formalized financial and institutional models.

Adapted ICM Implementation Process

This section summarizes the ICM implementation process adapted from the ICM Implementation Guide⁽¹⁰⁾ to define three distinct phases within the ICM continuous improvement process. The adapted process helps to structure the improvements needed for the three types of ICM Deployments (Early ICM Deployments discussed in Chapter 3, Durable ICM Deployments discussed in Chapter 4, Transformative ICM Deployments discussed in Chapter 5)

The forthcoming NCHRP Report 899⁽¹¹⁾ defines three distinct phases as follows (Figure 3):

• A: Conceptualize/Adapt. The current ICM concept, boundaries, scope, stakeholders or intent has changed. What success looks like and how it is measured may need to be re-examined. The focus here is primarily on institutional arrangements.
• B: Build/Enhance. Investments have been identified to improve corridor performance but the plan for how to build these new capabilities into the existing system must be determined. Stakeholders must be assured the new system is well-designed, maintainable, and tested before bringing new capabilities into routine operational practice. The focus here will be primarily on aspects of technical arrangements and capabilities.
• C: Operate/Monitor. Operational practices must be updated or altered because of changes in underlying corridor demand, new user needs, the introduction of new technologies, or a change in corridor strategy. The focus here relates primarily to operational (organizational) arrangements and capabilities.

Exercise on Applying ICM-CMM

This section provides a structured half-day exercise for ICM stakeholders to assess the maturity of the existing ICM capability using the ICM-CMM (Figure 2). This exercise is useful for ICM deployments in a range of deployment maturity — from early to advanced deployments. This exercise is also recommended when the ICM solution needs to be expanded to include new stakeholders (e.g., freight, pedestrian/bike stakeholders).

Exercise Purpose

The purpose of the exercise is to collectively assess the maturity of the current ICM capital with respect to current or future needs, which will shape what is needed in terms of institutional, operational and technical arrangements and capabilities.

Exercise Outcomes

The expected outcomes of the exercise are to:

1. Improve the level of engagement among all stakeholders in a shared ICM vision.
2. Have a common understanding of the current vision, goals, and outcomes of the ICM deployment.
3. Assess the maturity of the institutional, operational, and technical capabilities of the current ICM deployment.

When to Conduct This Exercise

This exercise (or something similar in intent) can be incorporated into a periodic (annual) meeting of ICM stakeholders. This is a key first step when assessing what is needed in terms of institutional, operational, and technical capabilities to move to the next level of ICM deployment.

Target Audience

The exercise is intended for individuals who are the champions of the corridor concept (coalition of the willing). These need not necessarily be drawn from the ranks of senior leadership among stakeholder organizations. At least one participant should attend from each of the major corridor stakeholder groups. That said, the exercise will be impractical for large groups. A practical maximum of 16-20 participants with a target size of 6-12 motivated stakeholders can be used as a rough guide to help scope the exercise and determine who should participate.

Event Type

The exercise is designed to be conducted as an in-person, roundtable event. However, a virtual participation by some (or even all) stakeholders can be supported given that there is a method to collect and display information that all stakeholders can simultaneously view. A no-visual teleconference connection is not recommended for any participant. For a purely in-person event, a whiteboard may be used. However, an arrangement where a computer desktop can be simultaneously viewed (by both in-person attendees and virtual attendees) is likely to be the best solution. If a stakeholder is unable to participate either in person or virtually, they should delegate someone who can participate and provide their perspective and bring their needs into the discussion. One individual should be assigned the role of the exercise facilitator and another assigned the role of the recorder/scribe for the exercise.

Handouts for Event

Prior to the event, exercise organizers should compile the following handouts for participants:

1. High-level definitions of institutional, operational, and technical arrangements and summary tables showing the types of these arrangements (see Tables 1 to 3).
2. Current ICM Vision/Goals/Outcomes for the corridor.
3. Current institutional, operational, and technical arrangements and capabilities of the ICM corridor — high-level list as well as summary descriptions.

If there is virtual participation, these handouts must be sent electronically at least two weeks prior to the event.

Homework

As homework assignment, prior to the exercise, all participants should review the handouts, read the Executive-Level Primer on Mainstreaming ICM⁽¹²⁾ and prepare up to five bullet points on each of the following discussion items:

1. What are some of the issues facing the corridor? Where do you think is the corridor failing to meet the attributes of a high-functioning/efficient corridor? What are the institutional/operational/technical challenges facing the current ICM deployment?
2. Should the ICM solution be broadened to address needs of specific stakeholders? What new stakeholder groups should be brought into the ICM coalition?

Exercise Agenda and Instructions

1. Introduction and Purpose (15-30 minutes)
   • Welcome and introductions.
   • Exercise Purpose and Exercise Outcomes.
   • Ground rules for virtual participation (if there are virtual participants).
2. Reach Consensus on ICM Vision/Goals/Outcomes for Corridor (20-30 minutes)
   • Facilitated discussion on the ICM Vision/Goals/Outcomes.
     • Display the current ICM Vision/Goals/Outcomes for the corridor.
     • Ask each stakeholder if the vision/goals/outcomes need to be revised. If there are virtual attendees, unmute a stakeholder when it is his/her turn.
3. Assess ICM Capability (90-120 minutes)
   • First, facilitate a discussion on the current institutional/operational/technical capabilities and arrangements (provided as handouts); where the current ICM deployment is lacking and needs improvements; and what other stakeholder groups should be targeted.
   • Next, conduct an exercise where each participant is asked to characterize the level of maturity of the ICM system based on the institutional/operational/technical capabilities and arrangements. Each participant should assess the maturity of each of the six integration areas (Inter-agency Cooperation, Funding, Traveler Information, Data Fusion, Performance Measures, and Decision Support System) based on a scale of 1 (Level 1, least mature) to 5 (Level 5, fully mature) using the ICM-CMM framework (Figure 2). Participant inputs may be collected through a show of hands. If there are virtual attendees, use the chat box to get their inputs. Outlier assessments should be discussed by the group to arrive at a consensus value or an average value, if consensus cannot be reached. These assessments provide insights into where improvements are needed to progress to the next level. For example, the current ICM system may be assessed to be at Level 3 with respect to Inter-agency Cooperation, Funding, and Traveler Information, but may only be at Level 2 with respect to Data Fusion, Performance Measures, and Decision Support System. This assessment shows that improvements need to be made in these Level 2 areas so that the ICM system can fully reach a Level 3 maturity.
   • NOTE: At the early stages of ICM deployment or when considering an ICM solution for the corridor's problem, the assessment should be based on the needs of the stakeholder groups who are in the coalition of the willing. For example, if the initial ICM solution includes transit and traffic management strategies, with active participation by transit, traffic management, and State/local DOTs, then the assessment of the ICM system's maturity should be with respect to the needs of transit stakeholders, traffic management stakeholders, and State and local DOTs. As the ICM deployment matures, the corridor coalition may want to bring in new stakeholder groups into the coalition to advance the solution or to address a specific problem. In this case, this exercise must be repeated, and maturity assessed with respect to the needs of these new stakeholder groups separately. Individual ratings allow the focusing of resources on improving specific areas. The ICM deployment may have a higher maturity rating without integrating the new stakeholder groups. However, we are interested in the lowest rating to describe the ICM maturity for this exercise as it will allow us to bring in these new groups on the same level as the ICM coalition conceptually, operationally, and technically.
4. Classify ICM Maturity (15-30 minutes)
   • Using the lowest rating across all stakeholder groups (i.e., ICM coalition as well as each new stakeholder group), classify the overall maturity of the ICM system as one of the three: Early ICM Deployments, Durable ICM Deployments, Transformative ICM Deployments (see definitions included in Overview of ICM Capability Maturity Model section).
5. Wrap Up & Next Steps (15-30 minutes)
   • Schedule the ICM Strategic Planning Meeting for the corridor.
   • Schedule the next annual ICM Maturity Assessment Meeting.

Next Steps

Based on the overall maturity assessment of the ICM deployment, the reader should move on to Chapter 3 if classified as an Early ICM Deployment, Chapter 4 if classified as a Durable ICM Deployment, or Chapter 5 if classified as a Transformative ICM Deployment. If the ICM concept has not been defined yet (i.e., the Aspirational ICM Deployments), then the reader should proceed to Chapter 3.