Evaluating Alternative Operations Strategies to Improve Travel Time ...

SHRP 2 L11: Final Appendices
Table E.1 - (Continued) Summary of Key Treatments for Institutional Strategies
(Objective 1)
Strategy
Organization/Staffing
Treatments
Establish top-level
SO&M executive
structure
Strategy Level of
Development 1 –
Ad Hoc
Leadership Subordinate and Top
Level Accountability Absent: all
core programs require equivalent
status and level of influence in
statewide and district program
development. Require equivalent
status and level of influence in
statewide and district program
development
Strategy Level of
Development 2 –
Rationalized
SO&M at Top Level of Program
Management: the status of the
operations organization is
equivalent in reporting
relationships and chain of
command, organizational unit
levels, authorities and
responsibility—at both central
office and districts.
Strategy Level of
Development 3 –
Mainstreamed
Integrated, with Organizational
Equivalency: a top-level
management position with
SO&M orientation is established
in central office and districts.
1.2 SO&M
Structure
Establish appropriate
organizational
structure
Functions Fragmented and
Unclear: SO&M units are
fragmented and responsibilities
unclear, at central office
division/branch level and at
district level. Coordination and
provision of service to districts is
difficult.
Functions Consolidated and
Aligned: the functions and
related responsibilities and
authorities have been clarified
and established (ITS, systems
operations, traffic engineering,
TMC management, contracting,
asset management, etc.).
Integrated: an efficient and
appropriate organizational
structure has been established.
Identify core
capacities
Needed Core Capabilities
Unknown: there is no
identification of needed core
capabilities: staffing plan or job
specifications and key capacities
may be missing or simply not
recognized as being needed.
Aligned, Trained: SO&M has
been professionalized via
identification of needed core
capabilities, a program to
develop and retain the needed
capabilities, and a clear
succession path.
Key Positions Filled: SO&M has
been professionalized.
Determine, allocate
responsibility,
accountability and
incentives
Accountability Vague and
Conflicting: there is little if any
accountability for the service
impacts of SO&M activities—
within TMCs and districts—or
between districts and central
office management.
Responsibilities Clarified within
SO&M: clarified performance
accountability in the chain of
command based on program,
unit, and individual
responsibilities related to SO&M
effectiveness.
SO&M Responsibilities
Clarified within All DOT Units:
accepts accountability for its
SO&M activities (recognizing
the DOT does not control all the
variables that affect
performance).
Resource Allocation
1.3. O&M as High
Priority Budget
Item
Develop programlevel
budget estimate
Introduce SO&M as
a top level agency
budget line item
Ad Hoc Project Funding: SO&M
strategy applications are often at
the project level and funded on
an ad hoc, unpredictable basis,
and/or buried in other projects
(capital or maintenance) and
subject to their priorities.
Outside of Standard Budgeting
Process: funding levels for
SO&M are unpredictable – often
no knowledge of the level of
funding for comparison with
potential benefits – or in
comparison with other programs.
Criteria-based Program Level
Needs Estimated: there are cost
estimates for a staged statewide
program, including capital,
operating, and life-cycle
maintenance costs with clear
priorities.
Consolidated Program Budget
Developed: SO&M-related costs
are aggregated for full
accounting – capital, operating,
and staffing.
Sustainable Budget Line Item:
the agency has a needs-related
and prioritized, staged program.
Sustainable Budget Line Item:
SO&M becomes a first tier
budget item.
STRATEGY FRAMEWORK FOR AGENCY MANAGEMENT, ORGANIZATION, AND RESOURCE ALLOCATION Page E-4