The AASHTO Guide to Systems Operations & Management

1. The AASHTO Guide toSystems Operations & Management NCHRP 3-94 Steve Lockwood – PB Phil Tarnoff – University of Maryland Rich Margiotta, Erin Flanigan – CSI John Conrad – CH2MHill Scott Rawlins – SSOM and Panel Chair

2. State of the Practice is Advancing Performance Management critical for maximizing mobility – especially as capacity lags SO&M will significantly reduce delays and disruptions Large gap between average applications and best practice Review of DOT experience: absence of appropriate processes & institutional arrangements is a major barrier to effective SO&M A formalized core SO&M program is the key to success 2

3. The Need for SO&M “Green Book” Objective: maximizing the effective use (performance) of existing system Research shows that top management actions regarding processes and institutional arrangements are key to effectiveness Guidance to Indentify steps managers can/should take designed to improve SO&M programs Develop existing material into an accessible and user-friendly product Web-based approach with self-evaluation point of departure

4. Business/Technical Process Capabilities: Scope of Activities Business Processes Technology/Systems Performance Measurement Institutional/Organizational Arrangements: Culture/Leadership Organization/Staffing Resources Partnerships The Operations Capability Framework: Key Elements

5. Concept of Capability Maturity Levels Goal for the future Possible target Today’s Best practice Level 4 Most of today’s agencies Mainstreamed Level 3 • Agency commitment • Wide understanding • Formal program Managed Level 2 • Strategies integrated • Outcomes known • Continuous improvement • Accountability Transitioning Level 1 • Full range • Processes standard • Formal program • Some measurement Ad Hoc • Some strategies • No performance • Fragmented organization

6. Guidance Based on Current Best Practice and Beyond PROOF OF CONCEPT • Informal, undocumented • Projects/issues handled on fire fight basis with only modest formal regional/district planning (but no standard template) • Minimal concepts of operations. Systems architecture; procedures ad hoc --no consistency

7. User-based Point of Entry & Self-Evaluation My Jurisdictions Problems Indicate agency current state-of-play (level) regarding selected element • Measures not defined or utilized • Output measures utilized only for some activities/unlinked to policy • Output measures for all activities/Linked to policy Indicate User’s position (check one): • Top management (CO or District) • Program manager (CO or District) • Project manager (CO or district) Detailed Strategy Guidance for selected element to move to next level Select capability element as point of departure (examples) • Performance measurement • Standardization/Documentation • Sustainable budget for planning • clear lines of responsibility • Aligned partnerships with PSAs Guidance

8. Benefits of Web-Based Approach • Avoids lengthy paper documents with big charts • Relationships among elements built in • Custom tailored to user • Users self-evaluate SDOT state of play • Increasing levels of detail displayed on automated basis • Hyperlinks to supporting documents

9. Need for Senior State DOT Input • Importance of SO&M to your program? • Your management objectives related to SO&M? • Principle challenges you see • Lessons you have learned to date • Utility of Guidance to you We look forward to follow-up with you