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

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 Business Processes as one of the central dimensions of capability needed to support effective TSM&O, including planning, programming, and project development. 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

This white paper includes the following material:

• A description of the SHRP 2 research and workshop process related to the institutional and process aspects of TSM&O including a description of the CMM self-assessment framework and its application to the Business Process dimension.
• A discussion of the state-of-the-practice regarding Business Processes in terms of its key elements including capability levels self-assessed at the workshops.
• A description of key synergies between Business Processes and the other dimensions of capability and evaluation of managers’ spans of control to effect improvement.
• Best practice examples and references.
• Suggested actions to address Business Process needs on a national level.
• An Appendix presenting common implementation plan priority actions for the Business Processes dimension.

State of the Practice Findings for TSM&O Business Processes

Key findings from the workshops included:

General

There are very few statewide TSM&O-specific plans that go beyond ITS and an equally limited number of included MPOs with a TSM&O-related plan or budget element. TSM&O planning and budgeting have been largely limited to specific projects or initiatives. In addition, TSM&O as a program has very limited visibility in statewide and MPO comprehensive plans and programs – although valuable guidance is available. Planning initiatives are discouraged by lack of sustainable funding and lack of program status. TSM&O funding is rarely over 2-3 percent of agency total on a multiyear basis. However, newly emerging multijurisdictional applications and new technology applications (integrated corridors, active traffic management, connected vehicles) appear to highlight the need for a systematic planning approach. Consensus indicates that a start-up TSM&O “program plan” is needed with several components, including the basic business case and strategies for dealing with all the CMM dimensions as well as system investment strategies. Workshop participants noted lack of relevant methodologies and the lack of technical capacities.

TSM&O Planning Process

• Plateauing. Many of the states/regions have “plateaued.” They have completed implementation of conventional freeway management applications and now realize that expanding beyond these conventional applications requires new planning and programming, especially for strategies that need greater involvement with other stakeholders.
• Types of current TSM&O-related planning efforts. Very few states/regions have incorporated TSM&O as a distinct category of expenditure in their agency comprehensive plans and programs. However, some states/regions have developed separate “plans” for specific applications such as incident management and integrated corridor management.
• Need for a “TSM&O Program Plan.” A TSM&O-specific plan is not required either by Federal regulations or as a matter of standard agency procedure. However, there are a set of specific issues that can be addressed in a start-up TSM&O Program Plan including the business case, performance measures, concepts of operations, procedures/protocols, and organizational, staffing and collaboration needs.
• TSM&O element in statewide planning. TSM&O has not achieved the status of a formal “program” in the statewide planning process, either as an investment or as an alternative to certain capacity improvements. However, a few MPOs have distinct TSM&O plan elements and have included them in their metropolitan plans.
• Key capabilities and methodologies needed. Agency TSM&O staff lack both a planning background and relevant planning tools and methods. In several workshops, Strategic Highway Safety Plans were identified as a relevant model.

Programming/Budgeting

• TSM&O programming andbudgeting. Most TSM&O funding for specific projects is ad hoc and intermittent. Funding is inhibited by TSM&O’s lack of program status and agency resource constraints and leads to fragmented implementation, difficulty addressing lifecycle costs, and vulnerability (elimination from programs when cost reductions are necessary).
• Level of investment. 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. The absence of a plan-based TSM&O program and related multiyear budget reduces the ability of TSM&O to compete for these resources.

Project Development/Procurement

• Accommodating the project development process. TSM&O projects have special development requirements – systems engineering, concepts of operations, types of procurement, systems integration/deployment needs, and special contracting requirements – and a different benefit-cost structure, making them difficult to accommodate in the conventional project development process. Procurement of advanced technology systems (non-low-bid) is presenting a special challenge.

Metropolitan/Regional Planning Organization Roles

• Workshop locations did not include any of the few regions that have prepared TSM&O-related plans. However, the larger MPOs involved in the workshops conduct a Congestion Management Process and several have allocated CMAQ funds under their control for signal upgrades and coordination, and sponsored/managed incident management training for their local transportation and public safety members.

Synergism

TSM&O Business Processes are especially dependent on capabilities in other dimensions: on systems engineering to identify concepts of operations required for planning and programming, on organization and staffing for relationships between planning and TSM&O staff, on performance measurement for the setting of objectives and progress measurement. All these relationships are often collaborative in nature.

State DOT and Regional Implementation Plan Priorities

The leading participant-suggested actions included in TSM&O implementation plans for advancement to the next level of capability in Business Processes include:

• Developing a regional/statewide “TSM&O Program Plan” that includes the full range of CMM related components.
• Integrating TSM&O into statewide long-range plans and transportation improvement programs.
• Preparing and communicating the TSM&O business case for various key stakeholder audiences.
• Developing methods to evaluate TSM&O against capacity options, including benefit-cost comparisons.
• Modifying the project development process to include TSM&O considerations and needs.
• Preparing a statewide TIM plan/program as a standalone activity.

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 Business Processes – development of a program of webinars, guidelines, and lessons-learned to disseminate best practice – but also the need to develop new custom-tailored approaches to the issues raised by workshop participants in their implementation plan priorities. Important roles are seen for FHWA, AASHTO, and the National Operations Center of Excellence in supporting these efforts.