Transportation Systems
Management and Operations (TSM&O)
State of the Practice
based on
FHWA Capability Maturity Model Workshops
Challenges
• Congestion and delay are increasing as economy and
population grow but capacity is constrained
• High value placed on reliability
• Existing TSM&O versus state of practice – unsystematic
and developing with “pockets of excellence”
Opportunities
• Unexploited potential of aggressive, integrated,
collaborative TSM&O applied to existing roadways
2
3
Bottlenecks
5%
5%
Traffic Incidents
10%
40%
Bad Weather
Work Zones
15%
Special Events
Poor Signal Timing
25%
Potential Contribution of TSM&O Strategies
TSM&O Strategy
Flow Control/Ramp Metering
Delay Reduction
7-8%
Traffic Responsive Signals
10-12%
Incident Management
10-15%
Work Zone Traffic Management
3-4%
Weather Information
2-3%
Traveler Information
1-2%
Active Traffic Management
15%
Pricing
20%
5
Key barriers are not funding or technology – rather policy,
process, and institutional arrangements
The “Program”
Processes that
Support the Program
Supporting Institutional
Framework
6
Collaboration
Organization and Staffing
“Capabilities”
Performance
Measurement
Systems and
Technology
Business
Processes
Effective
TSM&O Strategies
Business and technical
processes support
strategies
Organization
and relationships
support processes
Culture
7
Business Processes, including planning, programming and budgeting
(resources) and project development and procurement;
Systems and Technology, including use of systems engineering, concepts of
operations, systems architecture standards, interoperability, and standardization
Performance Measurement, including measures definition, data acquisition,
analytics, communication and utilization.
Culture, including technical understanding and business case, leadership,
outreach, and program legal authority;
Organization and Staffing, including programmatic status, organizational
structure and accountability, staff capabilities, training/development, and
recruitment and retention
Collaboration, including relationships with public safety agencies, local
governments, MPOs, and the private sector.
Goal for the Future
LEVEL 4
Optimized
LEVEL 3
Most Agencies Today
Integrated
LEVEL 2
Managed
LEVEL 1
Performed
• Processes developing
• Staff training
• Limited accountability
• Process documented
• Performance measured
• Organization/
partners aligned
• Program budgeted
• Performance-based
improvement
• Formal program
• Formal partnerships
• Activities &
relationships ad hoc
• Champion-driven
9
Level 1 – “Performed.” Activities and relationships largely ad hoc,
informal, and champion driven, substantially outside the mainstream
of other DOT activities.
Level 2 – “Managed.” Basic strategy applications understood;
key processes’ support requirements identified and key
technology and core capacities under development, but limited
internal accountability and uneven alignment with external
partners.
Level 3 – “Integrated.” Standardized strategy applications
implemented in priority contexts and managed for performance;
TSM&O technical and business processes developed, documented,
and integrated into DOT; partnerships aligned.
Level 4 – “Optimizing.” TSM&O as full, sustainable core DOT
program priority, established on the basis of continuous improvement
with top-level management status and formal partnerships.
Dimensions
Business
Processes
Performance
Measurement
Organization
and Staffing
Level 1 –
Performed
Level 2 –
Managed
Level 3 –
Integrated
Level 4 –
Optimizing
Each jurisdiction doing
its own thing according
to individual priorities
and capabilities
Consensus regional
approach developed
regarding TSM&O
goals, deficiencies, B/C,
networks, strategies,
and common priorities
Regional program
integrated into
jurisdictions’ overall
multimodal transportation
plans with related staged
program
TSM&O integrated into
jurisdictions’
multisectoral plans and
programs, based on
formal continuing
planning processes
Some outputs
measured and reported
by some jurisdictions
Output data used
directly for post action
debriefings and
improvements; data
easily available and
dashboarded
Outcome measures
identified (networks,
modes, impacts) and
routinely utilized for
objective-based program
improvements
Performance measures
reported internally for
utilization and externally
for accountability and
program justification
TSM&O added on to
units within existing
structure and staffing –
dependent on technical
champions
TSM&O-specific
organizational concept
developed within/among
jurisdictions with core
capacity needs
identified, collaboration
takes place
TSM&O managers have
direct report to top
management; Job specs,
certification, and training
for core positions
TSM&O senior
managers at equivalent
level with other
jurisdiction services and
staff professionalized
11
Objective: “Mainstreaming” continuous
improvement
Key Differentiators: Not projects -- but
improvements in processes and institutional
arrangements
Workshop Process: Agency staff evaluate
capabilities and improvement
implementation plans
Validation: Forty FHWA-sponsored state
DOT and regional workshops nationwide
12
13
Capability Self-Assessment
Level 1
Performed
Level 2
Managed
Level 3
Integrated
Level 4
Optimizing
Business
Processes
11
10
2
0
Systems and
Technology
7
12
3
1
Performance
Measurement
9
11
3
0
Culture
8
11
4
0
Organization and
Staffing
8
9
6
0
Collaboration
4
12
6
1
Dimension
14
1. Most agencies: capabilities between “performed”
or “managed”
2. Collaboration and Systems/Technology: strongest
dimensions
3. Organization/Staffing and Culture: wide variation
4. Performance Measurement and Business Processes:
increasing awareness
5. Within each dimension: gaps between best
and average practice
6. Individual States: progress across dimensions
is uneven
15
Culture
Organization/
Staffing
Performance
Measurement
Collaboration
Business
Processes
Systems/
Technology
16
One Executive Summary (covers all dimensions)
6 reports – one on each capability dimension
For now -- go to:
http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/news/news_detail.asp?I
D=962
Legacy civil engineering culture with a capital
project orientation
“Can’t build our way out of congestion” accepted but
TSM&O business case not widely understood
Few agencies using operational objectives at
policy level
TSM&O not a “program” – no line item
budget/division status
New technology raising profile of TSM&O
(and public expectations)
18
Transportation Systems
Management and Operations (TSM&O)
Elements of the Culture Dimension
based on
FHWA Capability Maturity Model Workshops
 Perception: sounds fuzzy, but is the most basic institutional
dimension
 Definition: shared values, vision, and beliefs, experience
 Attitude: “taken for granted” (not managed)
 Influence: impacts all other dimensions of capability
20
21
 Occasional major incidents and events focus attention on
basic TSM&O strategies (pile ups, weather, major sports)
 Lip service given “We can’t build our way out of
congestion”
 Modest executive support regarding operational
performance
 “TSM&O” not yet conceived of as separate program
22
 Civil Engineering focus – facility design, maintenance,
traffic engineering orientation
 Professional engineering training/orientation
 Shared assumptions about agency mission
 Reflections in agency organization, program, life style
23
 Conventional strategies often separate freeway operations,
incidents, traveler information, weather, arterials, etc.
 Synergism now recognized – coordinated, comprehensive
development and operational management (a “program”)
 But Program concept needs a name (“ITS”, “congestion
management”, “operations”, “mobility services”, and so on)
 TSM&O includes a mission, strategies, program, career,
curriculum, and so on
24
 Vague mission statement
 Subsidiary organization
position
 Absence from planning
 Lack of program/budget status
 Shared operational authority
(public safety, local
jurisdictions)
Synergism
25
Capability Self-Assessment
Dimension
Level 1
Performed
Level 2
Managed
Level 3
Integrated
Level 4
Optimizing
Business
Processes
11
10
2
0
Systems and
Technology
7
12
3
1
Performance
Measurement
9
11
3
0
Culture
8
11
4
0
Organization and
Staffing
8
9
6
0
Collaboration
4
12
6
1
26
 Summary in slides to follow

Typical state-of-play

Progress being made

Self-improvement actions suggested by workshop participants
 The key elements of Culture

Business Case

Leadership and Champions

Outreach – Internal and External

Policy and Program

Needed Actions
27
 Importance: Presents convincing justification for DOT
program
 Limited leadership appreciation for concept of TSM&O as a
“program” of organized, managed activities
 Business case not made for formal TSM&O program –
except by negative events
 Lack of documentation – data, analysis, and cases
regarding payoffs from effective TSM&O
 Modest commitment by management for improved
operational performance
28
 Impact of FHWA performance measurement requirements
 Understanding by workshop states of need for business
case
 Potential of National Operations Center of Excellence
(NOCoE)
 Emerging top management commitment
 Examples provided by leading MPOs
29
 Establish working group to develop business case based
on performance data.
 Identify key audiences and “hot button” issues, along with
promising media formats and communication strategies
 Review peer experience and use available materials
regarding identification and presentation of costs & benefits
30
 Identify data, analytics, project-types for full range of cost
and benefit categories
 Develop both internal and external “stories” based on past
successes (project, major events) and national best
practice
 Look for opportunities to present materials at special
events that attract TSM&O stakeholders
31
 Limited top management leadership
 TSM&O at mid-level in hierarchy
 TSM&O reports to executive with other preoccupations
(often maintenance)
 Dependency on committed champions – able to work
around existing structure
 Vulnerability to staff turnover
32
 NOCoE and AASHTO activities are building TSM&O
community
 Some top management leadership set examples
 Growing external interest in more TSM&O
33
http://www.transportationops.org/
 Present business case materials to executive leadership
 Designate regional champions to advocate TSM&O during
the planning process
 Involve regional champions in Headquarters (HQ) TSM&O
strategic planning and performance strategy
 Leverage current efforts (TIM training, TMC management)
to engage stakeholders
 Manage the manageable aspects of Culture
35
 Field staff understanding often stronger than HQ
 Planning/project development staff often unrelated
 Reliance on persuasion rather than authority (with public
safety entities, local government)
 Collaboration often personal – not organizational – by
middle management (peer-to-peer)
36
 Some integration of TSM&O into standard project
development process
 Improved cooperation with public safety (TIM training)
 NOCoE to provide community-building
37
 Design a TSM&O internal/external program
communications strategy to promote activities and
achievements
 Identify and select case study opportunities to document
success stories and support outreach materials
 Establish a “brand” – based on business case
38
 Develop materials to address different audiences, such as
internal staff, the public, and political leaders.
 Identify opportunities to promote a TSM&O program,
activities, success stories through meeting presentations
 Bring additional stakeholders into TSM&O discussions to
help promote the TSM&O program and objectives
39
 Policy level – TSM&O not a formal “program” (no budget,
division status)
 TSM&O – a collection of separate minor activities
 Legal status – some specific – others dependent on public
safety entities
 Hierarchy – TSM&O is three or four levels down in the
organization
40
 TSM&O frequently stovepiped into engineering and
operational functions
 Not competitive for resources, funding, staffing (stealth
funding)
 TSM&O units not held to account for operational
performance
 Ambivalence regarding private sector support role,
outsourcing
41
 TSM&O mission penetrating: some states now citing focus
on “congestion reduction,” “efficiency,” and “mobility”
 Basic legal authorities achieved (quick clearance type
programs)
 Specific initiative funding available in several states
 Program structure models emerging – stand-alone vs
integrated model
 Performance regulations increasing focus on TSM&O
 Dependency on private sector growing for technical support
42
 Promote TSM&O as a separate formal top-level agency
program -- using business case materials,
 Establish specific mission, goals, performance measures,
and capital and operational budget
 Obtain legal authorization for a greater range of TSM&O
strategies and increased state DOT authority on the road
 Examine appropriate role/structure for improved public-
private partnerships
43
Action
Develop resources
and collect
examples of
TSM&O business
cases
Culture
Element
Sponsor(s)
Comments
FHWA, AASHTO,
National Operations
Center of Excellence
(NOCoE)
Build on material already included in
the NOCoE website knowledge
resources and incorporate case
studies and B/C material from ITS
Joint Program Office and FHWA
websites
FHWA, AASHTO,
NOCoE
No TSM&O forum for agency
leadership exists (top management is
not often involved in any peer-topeer discussion in AASHTO, Regional
Operations Forums, etc.)
Policy/Program
FHWA, AASHTO,
Status/Authorities NOCoE
Many DOTs remain unaware of the
dramatic payoffs from these types of
arrangements
Business Case and
Technical
Appreciation
Outreach –
Internal and
External
Establish regular
Leadership/
forum among state Champions
DOT leadership to
discuss TSM&Orelated issues
Identify and
communicate
payoffs from new
forms of publicprivate
partnerships,
44
A CASE STUDY: AGENCY
CULTURE AT COLORADO DOT
Ryan Rice
Director of Transportation Systems Management &
Operations for the Colorado Department of
Transportation (CDOT)
45