Office of Operations
21st Century Operations Using 21st Century Technologies
Table of Contents

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

Chapter 4. Building on Success - Maturing into a Durable Capability

This chapter is intended for Integrated Corridor Management (ICM) stakeholders who are ready to evolve from an early, exploratory/initial state into a more permanent, durable, and comprehensive ICM capability (Durable ICM Deployments). This chapter discusses the actions needed for hardening capability and evolving into a durable deployment. This chapter also provides an ICM Strategic Planning exercise for established deployers who have already logged an early "win" or two and are ready to establish an ongoing ICM capability that successfully competes for operational/capital funding and demonstrates value on an ongoing and routine basis. This chapter provides a set of homework assignments prior to coming to a joint meeting, a sample joint strategic planning meeting agenda, and specific exercises for stakeholders to follow with a focus on tailoring or enhancing the vision and identifying a set of concrete steps for building a comprehensive ICM capability.

ICM Task Forces

A key distinction between early and durable deployments is that the durable deployments have standing task forces that take on assignments routinely, with general direction set at the annual ICM Strategic Planning meetings. Please see Table 4 for a summary of responsibilities of the task forces.

Creating a Durable ICM Deployment

This section discusses the actions required for building and enhancing institutional, operational, and technical arrangements and capabilities to build a comprehensive deployment and evolve into a mature, established ICM deployment. The actions (adapted from NCHRP 899) are defined with respect to each of the three phases in the continuous improvement cycle (see Chapter 2). At the durable deployment stage, there is more physical capital on the ground, necessitating more complex institutional, operational, and technical arrangements. Secondly, the emphasis is on letting the performance of the corridor drive the planning and investment activities, whereas in the early deployment stage decisions are made mostly for securing early wins to demonstrate that the ICM concept works.

A: Conceptualize/Adapt

The goal in this phase is similar to what was stated in Chapter 3. Despite being an established deployment, there must be periodic assessment of the top five corridor needs, potential stakeholder impacts and corresponding coordinated responses, and the corridor vision/goals/outcomes. In addition, in this phase it is also identified what arrangements are needed so that the corridor can successfully compete for operational/capital funding. The key steps are:

  • Prioritize Top Corridor Needs. A task force (Performance Measurement Task Force) should be established to assess the performance of the corridor and use a data-driven approach to identify the top corridor needs. These needs should be presented to the ICM coalition who should have the option to add their top five corridor issues/problems to the list. The stakeholders should seek to integrate the needs into a comprehensive list of no more than 5 top needs.
  • Identify Potential Stakeholder Impacts of Alternate Coordinated Responses. The Analytics Task Force should assess the potential impacts of various coordinated responses. These impacts and responses should be presented to the ICM coalition.
  • Create/Update Institutional Arrangements. This becomes more important as the ICM system matures. When the ICM deployment has matured from an early state, a more mature set of institutional capital is required. Stakeholders must assess if detailed and unambiguous System Integration Arrangements, Financial and Capital Planning Arrangements, and Organizational Forms and Governance Policy Arrangements (see Table 1) have been developed that do not limit integration or funding enhancements and building new capabilities.

B: Build/Enhance. The goal in this phase is to identify the technical capabilities that need to be enhanced for addressing the top five corridor needs. The key steps are:

  • Identify New or Enhanced Performance Measurement Approach. Stakeholders should assess if performance is being measured for the corridor using real-time data for one or more modes. If this capability doesn't exist, then stakeholders should identify the actions required for building this capability. If the capability exists, stakeholders should identify actions for enhancing the capability to measure performance in real time for all modes.
  • Describe New or Enhanced Applications/Strategies. Stakeholders should assess if new or enhanced applications or strategies are needed due to emerging technologies. If new or enhanced applications/strategies are needed, then stakeholders should document actions for building this capability.
  • Identify New or Enhanced DSS. Stakeholders should assess if there is DSS capability to automatically select pre-agreed response plans under various conditions. If this capability doesn't exist, then stakeholders should document actions for building this capability. If this capability exists, then stakeholders should document actions for enhancing the capability to let the DSS model or tool create rather than select pre-agreed response plans.
  • Identify New or Enhanced Data Sharing. Stakeholders should assess if there is a central system where near real-time data from multiple agencies are being integrated. If this capability doesn't exist, it needs to be built and arrangements for ensuring these data flows should be agreed upon and documented. If this capability exists, then the stakeholders should identify actions for enhancing the capability so that near real-time data for multiple modes is integrated from both public and private sector sources and fused together to provide a more comprehensive coverage of the corridor.
  • Identify Gaps and Required Technical Integration. Stakeholders should rate each of the new or enhanced capabilities (performance measurement, applications/strategies, DSS, and data sharing) as a major, minor, or no gap compared to current deployed capabilities. For each gap, it should also be noted which stakeholder groups would need to be involved in deploying the technical solution — and if there are arrangements for coordinating an integrated solution. Stakeholders should also assess the funding required for addressing each gap. These should be documented as part of the institutional agreements.
  • Create/Update Technical Arrangements. If these arrangements (see Table 1) are already in place, then in this step stakeholders should review them to see if there are any limits to data sharing, systems engineering, and cybersecurity arrangements for deploying a common solution. If yes, then these need to be documented. If technical arrangements, have not been defined, then these need to be discussed, agreed upon, and documented. Note: Cybersecurity Arrangements will become even more critical for durable deployments for developing a joint security plan to address cybersecurity threats and data breaches.

C: Operate/Monitor

The goal in this phase is similar to what was stated in Chapter 3. The reader should refer to Chapter 3 to see what actions are required by the stakeholders in this phase.

Strategic Planning Exercise for Durable ICM Deployers

This section provides a structured all-day exercise for ICM stakeholders who have progressed from an early deployment stage into a more comprehensive and durable ICM deployment.

Exercise Purpose

The purpose of the exercise is for the ICM stakeholders to: (i) reach consensus on data-driven assessments of the corridor performance, potential impacts of competing alternatives/responses, and operational and capital funding, (ii) collectively determine the key actions for building institutional, operational, and technical arrangements and capabilities required for strengthening the ICM deployment, and (iii) commit to maintain and enhance the deployment by agreeing to include the multi-year investment plan in their respective program plans.

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 performance of the corridor and key operational and capital funding needs.
  3. Create a punch list of high priority actions to be taken over the next 18 months that would result in improvements to ICM performance.

When to Conduct This Exercise

This exercise (or something similar in intent) can be incorporated into a periodic (annual) meeting of ICM stakeholders. This exercise is needed to identify the key areas of improvements in terms of institutional, operational, and technical arrangements and capabilities to evolve from an emerging or early deployment to a more durable and comprehensive deployment. Although the meeting is held only once a year, the task forces should coordinate more frequently (e.g., quarterly or semi-annually) among themselves and with the ICM deployment teams.

Target Audience

The target audience is the same as that for the ICM Maturity Assessment exercise (see Chapter 2).

Event Type

The event type is the same as that for the ICM Maturity Assessment exercise (see Chapter 2).

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 in Chapter 2).
  2. Current ICM Vision/Goals/Outcomes for the corridor.
  3. Current technical capabilities of the ICM corridor — high-level list as well as summary descriptions of performance measurement approach, applications/strategies in place, DSS and data sharing capabilities.
  4. Institutional/Operational/Technical Arrangements Memo that identifies revisions made to the arrangements to address limitations (see Table 4).
  5. Performance Measurement Task Force Memo that documents the data-driven performance of the corridor (see Table 4).
  6. Investment Planning Task Force Memo that documents how improvements/enhancements to capabilities can be programmed (see Table 4).
  7. Analytics Task Force Memo that documents benefit-cost analysis (BCA) of competing alternatives (or responses) (see Table 4).

If there is virtual participation, it is suggested that these handouts are sent electronically at least two weeks days prior to the event.

Task Force Assignments

Each task force should coordinate among themselves to work on a specific set of actions. Secondly, each task force should designate a representative to present the findings at the meeting. The suggested task force assignments are:

  1. Institutional/Operational/Technical Arrangements Task Force: Identifies and documents revisions that are required to be made in the arrangements (based on the previous meeting). Develop a memo and briefing deck and share with the event organizers at least two weeks prior to the meeting. Present changes at the meeting.
  2. Performance Measurement Task Force: Define measures that can be used to assess if the top five corridor needs, identified in the previous ICM Strategic Meeting, are being addressed. Assess performance of the corridor using a data-driven approach. Develop a memo and briefing deck and share with the event organizers at least two weeks prior to the meeting. Present findings at the meeting.
  3. Investment Planning Task Force: Use a data-driven approach to assess what specific enhancements (DSS, Performance Measurement Approach, Applications/Strategies, Data Fusion) can be implemented incrementally, and when. Pass this information to the Analytics Task Force as soon as the assessment is done. Develop a memo and briefing deck that documents how improvements/enhancements to capabilities can be programmed. Share the memo and deck with the event organizers at least two weeks prior to the meeting. Present findings at the meeting.
  4. Analytics Task Force: Use data-driven approach to identify prevailing operational conditions.(16) First determine impacts for a no-resource constrained scenario. Determine the performance measure estimates under different operational conditions using data, analysis, modeling, and simulation (AMS) tools, and detailed descriptions of applications/strategies (that were identified in the previous meeting). Next, using the incremental funding information from the Investment Planning Task Force refine the modeled applications/strategies and availability of information. The goal in the second scenario is to assess if with incremental implementations, do we get the expected impact? Determine the performance measure estimates under different operational conditions, available data, AMS tools, and refined applications/strategies. Assess impacts on various stakeholder groups (i.e., beyond the ICM coalition). Conduct BCA of competing alternatives for both scenarios. Develop a memo and briefing deck and share with the event organizers at least two weeks prior to the meeting. Present findings at the meeting.

Please see Table 4 for a summary of responsibilities of all task forces.

Homework

As a homework assignment, prior to the exercise, all participants should review the handouts, and be prepared to discuss and make decisions.

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. Corridor Performance and Needs (60-90 minutes)
    • Report out by Performance Measurement Task Force.
    • Facilitated discussion on top five corridor needs.
  3. Reach Consensus on ICM Vision/Goals/Outcomes for Corridor (20-30 minutes)
    • Facilitated discussion on the current ICM Vision/Goals/Outcomes of the corridor to see if these need to be revised.
  4. Reach Consensus on Institutional/Operational/Technical Arrangements Revisions (45-60 minutes)
    • Report out by Institutional/Operational/Technical Arrangements Task Force.
    • Facilitated discussion on revisions to arrangements.
    • Reach consensus on revisions.
  5. Potential Impacts of Alternate Coordinated Responses (60-90 minutes)
    • Report out by Analytics Task Force.
    • Facilitated discussion on analytics approach, BCA of competing alternatives for no resource constraint scenario and incremental funding scenario.
  6. Investment Planning Needs (60-90 minutes)
    • Report out by Investment Planning Task Force.
    • Facilitated discussion on incremental funding.
      • Are the resource-constrained scenario impacts seen in the previous session acceptable?
      • Do stakeholders agree to commit to enhance and maintain the deployment?
      • Do stakeholders agree to include the multi-year investment planning into their respective program plans?
      • Is there a mechanism for steady funding to sustain the deployment?
  7. Brainstorm on Technical Integration Needs/Gaps and Operational Readiness (90-120 minutes)
    • Facilitated discussion on Performance Measurement Approach.
      • Is performance being measured for the corridor using real-time data for one or more modes?
      • If this capability exists, should the current capability be enhanced to measure performance using real-time data for all modes?
    • Facilitated discussion led by Applications/Strategies Task Force.
      • Are new applications or strategies needed due to emerging technologies? What are these?
      • What changes will need to be made to the infrastructure or other technical capabilities?
    • Facilitated discussion led by DSS Task Force.
      • Is there DSS capability to automatically select pre-agreed response plans under various conditions?
      • If this capability exists, should a more advanced capability be built to let the DSS model or tool create rather than select pre-agreed response plans?
    • Facilitated discussion led by Data Sharing Task Force.
      • Is there a central system where near real-time data from multiple agencies are being integrated?
      • If this capability exists, should the capability be enhanced so that near real-time data for multiple modes is integrated from both public and private sector sources and fused together to provide a more comprehensive coverage of the corridor?
    • Facilitated discussion on Technical Integration Gaps.
      • Ask each stakeholder to rate each of the new/enhanced capabilities (performance measurement, applications/strategies, DSS, and data sharing) as a major, minor or no gap compared to current capabilities.
      • For each gap, discuss which stakeholder groups would need to be involved in deploying the technical solution.
    • Facilitated discussion on Operational Readiness.
      • For each technical capability, ask each stakeholder to rate the readiness of stakeholders to realize this in operational form as a major, minor, or no operational gap and discuss the rationale/barrier to realize this capability.
  8. Wrap Up and Next Steps (20-30 minutes)
    • Task forces agree to work on specific focus areas.
      • Performance Measurement Task Force will continue to measure performance and report out quarterly or biannually. They will also coordinate with the ICM Corridor Manager, and the corridor's Software Engineering and Systems Engineering Teams to enhance the performance measurement capability if it was identified as a major gap in session 7.
      • Applications/Strategies Task Force will coordinate with the ICM Corridor Manager, the corridor's Systems Engineering and Software Engineering Teams, Data Sharing Task Force, and DSS Task Force to identify actions for enhancing existing applications and strategies, if this was identified as major gap in session 7.
      • DSS Task Force will coordinate with the ICM Corridor Manager, the corridor's Software Engineering and Systems Engineering Teams, and the Analytics Task Force to enhance the DSS capability if it was identified as a major gap in session 7.
      • Data Sharing Task Force will coordinate with the ICM Corridor Manager, the corridor's Software Engineering and Systems Engineering Teams to enhance existing data sharing capability if it was identified as a major gap in session 7.
      • Institutional/Operational/Technical Arrangements Task Force will review the arrangements to identify if any revisions need to be made.
    • Schedule the next annual ICM Strategic Planning Meeting.
    • Schedule the next annual ICM Maturity Assessment Meeting.

Next Steps

The task force members should coordinate among themselves to address the major gaps. Similar to what was noted in Chapter 3, the outputs from the Strategic Planning meetings should be vetted for buy-in from management of each of the ICM stakeholder groups. The outputs should be translated into modifications to existing arrangements or creation of new arrangements. The exercise in this chapter should be repeated at each subsequent ICM Strategic Planning meeting until the ICM deployment matures to the next level, which is determined at the annual ICM Maturity Assessment meeting (see Chapter 2). Once the deployment is judged to be a Transformative ICM Deployment, the reader is asked to refer to Chapter 5.

16 Wunderlich, K., Vasudevan, M., and Wang, P. "TAT Volume III: Guidelines for Applying Traffic Microsimulation Modeling Software, 2019 Update to the 2004 Version," FHWA-HOP-18-036, April 2019. [ Return to 16 ]

Office of Operations