Description

Transportation and its infrastructure are not ends in themselves but means for accessing places for economic activity, i.e., overcoming the friction between where you are and where you want to be. Transportation agencies, departments of transportation (DOTs), and other infrastructure owner-operators (IOOs) work to create public value in providing safe mobility. This is balanced with a desire to support societal goals and improve the quality of life. Many agencies continue evolving toward community-centered transportation by adopting more comprehensive and outcome-oriented goals for accessibility, affordability, resiliency, sustainability, public health, and security.
Measuring these less conventional outcomes (compared to traffic delay or pavement condition, for example) remains an immature practice and not widely done. There is a legacy of a strong, institutionalized bias toward infrastructure- and auto-oriented performance. Yet many emerging measures are closely tied to diverse societal goals, and practice is advancing in pockets around the country, including efforts to influence investment decision-making through a more comprehensive performance framework.

Literature Search Summary

There is limited published literature on measuring transportation performance related to the more comprehensive – or “non-traditional” – outcomes like equity or resilience, but some examples include:
• National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) 20-68D Scan 22-03: Leading Practices in Equitable Decision Making to Support Societal Goals within Transportation Agencies
• NCHRP Report 985: Integrating Effective Transportation Performance, Risk, and Asset Management Practices
• NCHRP Report 920: Management and Use of Data for Transportation Performance Management: Guide for Practitioners
• NCHRP 08-162: Guidance for Implementing Equitable Transportation Decision-Making
• NCHRP Project: 08-121 Accessibility Measures in Practice: Guidance for Transportation Agencies (research is complete, the final report is under review)
Apart from published guidance, a wealth of information and data are available on these topics from the numerous agencies actively developing and utilizing newer measures. This research project will include a scan of those agencies – e.g., Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT), California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) and others– to gather evidence and examples.
Comprehensive transportation performance management research should not be confused with social value analysis. Though related and often sharing the same data sources, the purposes and methods are very distinct.
Other ongoing research and development are available from efforts related to the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) 2022 Equity Action Plan and Justice40 initiative, the Federal Transit Administration’s work in these areas, Federally supported Geographic Information System (GIS) tools (example), measuring the benefits of access or public transportation, the 2022 greenhouse gas (GHG) rulemaking process, and others.
The research will also draw on best practices in performance management, emerging guidance from organizations such as the National League of Cities, international decision-making frameworks, and other sectors where these measures are not considered “non-traditional.”

Objectives

From the perspective of getting to a more coherent national practice, the objective of this research is to get our proverbial arms around how to do this better. This begins with documenting the current state of the art, identifying methodological and institutional gaps, and charting a path toward elevating practice nationwide.
This research goal will take lessons learned from the evolution of traditional measures like pavement condition or level of service, each decades in the making and continuing to evolve, be reimagined, or even discarded. Once-novel travel time reliability is also now a “traditional” measure, but not before the Second Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP2) began 15 years ago. This research will evolve contemporary measures, help expand emerging leading practices for adoption by agencies around the nation, and advance improved measurement, integration, and incorporation of important policy goals into investment decision-making.
The objectives of this research also directly support the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials’ (AASHTO’s) current formulation of the moonshot to reorient our transportation goals and investments to support communities. More effectively measuring the “non-traditional” strategic goals is fundamental to tracking our moonshot progress.

Urgency and Potential Benefits

The public, society at large, is demanding that we consider transportation outcome performance in a wider range of dimensions, requiring measures that more effectively capture the impacts of the system and services delivered by DOTs/IOOs. While charting the needed changes over the next ten years there are many gains to be made much sooner through this research:
• Evaluating the public value of transportation initiatives, e.g., equitable access to education, Utah’s work on measuring quality of life.
• Identifying high quality measures to address arising areas of importance such as accessibility, resilience, and equity.
• Developing new measures and using measures that exist but are less familiar in the transportation domain.
• Representing non-traditional strategic goals and policies in the decision-making process.
• Connecting with the broader societal goals that the public really wants to achieve.
• Measurement areas may include resiliency, equity, maintenance, usage, supply chain, and climate change, security, privacy, safety, public health, affordability, sustainability, or others.
Just as some DOTs are reconsidering legacy measures such as level of service from investment decisions, our transportation agencies nationwide must be on guard against unintended consequences of measures that may be relatively easy (or even mandated) but which risk obscuring negative impacts on communities and the environment. The Federal measures arising from the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century/Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (MAP-21/FAST) Acts have been a welcome infusion of energy into the practice of transportation performance management, but they are just one small part of an agency’s responsibilities to its constituents.
The so-called leveling of the playing field amongst competing interests is gaining some momentum, and this research will serve to accelerate adoption of best practices to reach public benefits faster.

Implementation Considerations

Ongoing coordination between AASHTO, NCHRP, USDOT, and Transportation Research Board (TRB) (e.g., Performance Management Committee)

Author(s)

Others Supporting Problem Statement

Potential Panel Members

Person Submitting Statement

Notes

Description

Research to improve DOTs capability and capacity for data-driven decision making.

Literature Search Summary

Objectives

Urgency and Potential Benefits

Implementation Considerations

Author(s)

Others Supporting Problem Statement

Potential Panel Members

Person Submitting Statement

Notes

Description

Great research has been done to help integrate Asset Management, Performance Management and Risk Management (NCHRP 08-113) and for implementing Enterprise Risk Management (NCHRP 20-24(105)). Agencies often have programs (performance management, Risk management, and process improvement) that operate separately but are linked rather linearly. Performance management shows where we’ve been, Risk management highlights what would inhibit us from achieving a desired future, and process improvement links well to development of mitigation measures. In the vein of the above-mentioned research, a guide to step from one area to another would make these programs more effective and linked within the agency.

Literature Search Summary

All transportation agencies must effectively manage asset condition and performance while identifying and addressing risks potentially undermining performance goals. In order to provide well maintained, reliable, and up to date networks, three management practices work together within an agency. Process improvement is the task of identifying, then proactively improving the current processes within an organization in order to achieve greater efficiency, functionality, and quality. Performance management utilizes system information to strategically achieve investment or policy goals. Risk management works to identify and mitigate uncertainties that may arise by using analytical and managerial strategies. Past research has often focused on these management practices separately, or one in conjunction with another. This study aims to show how effective linking of these management practices leads to improved organizational functions overall.

Process improvement is of general interest to DOT’s as well as any large organization seeking to improve internal efficiency and quality of established processes. As a result, past study has been performed into the subject of improving internal processes within an organizational framework, though less research exists on process improvement within DOT’s. Study often focuses on improvement in a specific process, as opposed to a more holistic view of overall process improvement within an organizational context. Process improvement has also been linked in study to risk management, as risk management processes require consistent improvement to meet new challenges.

Risk management has been a particular focus of much past research. It has been suggested that by managing performance to achieve objectives the risks to those objectives can be identified and mitigated accordingly. A well-considered evaluation can lead to substantial rewards and accomplishments. Whether it is at the top of an organization's strategy, or it is on the frontline of the organization's daily operations, risk management should be ingrained in the daily operations of the organization. From the active discipline perspective, risk may also be defined as: “The systematic application of policies, procedures, and practices to the identification and management of uncertainty or variability on achievement of agency objectives.” In order to describe boundaries, similar to the risk appetite, the agency needs to consider general guidance on risk treatment-selection decisions. Since risks differ, it is unlikely that there will be a precise guide that is suitable for all decisions. An analysis of benefits and costs should be considered in categories where costs and benefits can be estimated. Research has also been performed into how risk is now inferred or implicit in many decisions concerning agency investments. The selection of pavement treatment sections is based in part on the risk associated with providing poor pavement to high-volume roads compared to low-volume roads. The project selection process takes into account the risks caused by missing or inadequate traffic control devices or by potential structural failures.

Regarding the relationship of performance measures to other management practices, past research has suggested that current FHWA rules do not workably link performance and risk, leaving a DOT’s management of these elements to be uneven. However, research has indicated that these systems of management prove to be most effective when working hand in hand. Effective Performance measures and related management, along with the definition and quantification of risk, is essential to risk management. Likewise risk management informs performance management about the projection of uncertain elements such as funding.

Overall, this study will build on past research by creating an effective frameworking linking process improvement, performance measures, and risk management within the organizational context of a transportation agency. This will provide more detail on the relationship between these management practices and the benefit that a strong relationship between them brings to an organization.

Objectives

The objectives of this research are:
1. Gather information on best practices for each discipline.
2. Clearly outline successes and best practices in each field.
3. Define any obstacles and opportunities that may exist in linking the disciplines.
4. Highlight common/uncommon language between the disciplines that may cause confusion.
5. Develop a framework on how to best link the disciplines.
6. Determine the best communication tools to support the framework.

Urgency and Potential Benefits

Without the establishment of a global framework that links performance measures with risk management, and process improvement, the future efficiency of DOT’s may be impacted and redundancies in workflow and information systems may be introduced. Additionally, communications between parties at DOT’s may be affected without the incorporation of process improvement, leading to disruption of plans due to mixed responses. Improving the framework by which risk and performance are measured may be financially beneficial, due to increased efficiency and more proficient communications between parties. Developing the relations between these three processes within a framework may mitigate the aforementioned issues while simultaneously aligning agencies in their efforts to reach key goals and objectives.

Implementation Considerations

Within a DOT, it is expected that employees and directors directly associated with development of process improvement, along with Risk and Performance Management departments will be the most likely to utilize the results of this research. Any departments within a DOT associated with Process Improvement and Risk/Performance Management through project work would also utilize this information. After research is complete, a DOT will be able to implement study findings by updating or strengthening their current risk management and performance measurement strategies based on the reported study results. Training, any required updating of systems, and development of new processes may be required. Presentation of study findings to risk or performance management managers, and other project managers within the DOT could be an effective method of creating awareness of updates to current risk and performance measurement and management practices. Communication of findings can be relayed to departments associated with risk or performance management, to ensure that updated practices can be implemented across multiple levels.

Author(s)

Others Supporting Problem Statement

Potential Panel Members

Person Submitting Statement

Notes

AASHTO Strategic Plan Alignment: This project aligns to the AASHTO Strategic Plan by developing transportation standards and guidance. This research will aid DOTs in the furthering of organizational excellence and effective services by providing a framework through which risk and performance can be effectively measured while creating improved processes organizationally. This framework will further align internal and external agencies and their transportation interests by suggesting global updates to effective performance and risk management. As current guidelines are analyzed and potential updates are identified, transportation agencies and systems can improve through the promotion and implementation of these new processes. From this endeavor, DOTs will be able to develop continual process improvement, ensure stronger alignment among committees, and in turn create effective transportation workforce capabilities.

Description

In many cases, states and other local government agencies have performance measures developed through the extensive public outreach in the various federally and internally required strategic planning efforts. Not surprisingly, these “local” performance measures are often related to but different from the federally mandated performance measures.

For example, freight mobility in an urban area often means travel time (i.e., traditional congestion), similar to the federal system performance measures (PM3); however, in a rural area, it means the system’s ability to carry the desired loads (i.e., height, width, and load restrictions not meeting expectations causing loads to be rerouted over longer distances). In either case, the results are wasted time, money, and fuel, and more greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Reducing this waste is really the goal of the federal measures above. Therefore, the same goal is being monitored, whether using the federal measures or the state and local (hereinafter, local) performance measures. This is just one example of many similarly developed local performance measures related to a national goal area but with different metrics and definitions than the national measures.

By definition, the local measures are important to the end users of the transportation system by virtue of being developed through public input. Therefore, local policymakers often want or require these measures to be used in the decision processes and to tell the local story of transportation performance, safety, condition, etc. (hereinafter, performance). It would reduce waste and improve public transparency if these local measures could also be used to tell the national system performance story. This would avoid potentially conflicting messages from local and national sources and avoid the duplicate work of collecting, monitoring, and analyzing similar measures related to the same basic goal. Additionally, the collective of local measures could be used to tell a more comprehensive and complete story of the nation’s overall movement toward its shared transportation goals through a “drill down” approach of providing greater and greater detail from the national level through the regional, state, and local community levels.

Literature Search Summary

Keyword searches in the Transportation Research Board’s (TRB’s) TRID and Research in Progress (RIP) systems were performed for research related to:
• Performance Measures, Communicating
• Communicating Performance
• “National Performance”
Several projects were found related to but not overlapping this proposed topic, with the newest one being a 2015 document specific to State Department of Transportation (DOT) performance story telling. The most relevant document was a 2011 periodical article titled “Measuring Infrastructure Performance: Development of a National Infrastructure Index.” However, not only is that article dated, but it does not address the underlying research question of if and how local measures, important to the public, can be used to tell a national story about national goals.

Objectives

Develop a means of consolidating the many related local measures into a set of national measures that describes and monitors how well the national transportation system is meeting (or not meeting) the traveling public’s needs as related to Congress’ strategic goals for the nation’s transportation system.

Urgency and Potential Benefits

The current system of detailed nationally-defined measures monitored and reported by States and MPOs, along with locally-mandated and -defined measures, yields state, local, and national messages to the public that are often conflicting or at least are not readily understandable to the public. Additionally, collecting data on related but different measures is a duplicative burden to States DOTs and Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) that is wasteful of scarce resources. Therefore, if measures that are developed with close input from the transportation system end users could be collectively used to monitor the national system’s ability to meet strategic goals, the messages to the public would be more understandable and would come at a lower cost. On a national scale, that lower cost is likely to be a very substantial savings over the current framework, given the sheer number of reporting entities (i.e., State DOTs, MPOs, transit agencies, highway safety offices, etc.).

Implementation Considerations

Complete implementation would likely require Congressional action through the transportation bill reauthorization because some federal measures are dictated in the current Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (also known as the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law). However, in most cases, implementation could be accomplished through the federal administrative rulemaking processes.

Author(s)

Others Supporting Problem Statement

Potential Panel Members

Person Submitting Statement

Notes

Description

Literature Search Summary

Objectives

Urgency and Potential Benefits

Implementation Considerations

Author(s)

Others Supporting Problem Statement

Potential Panel Members

Person Submitting Statement

Notes

Description

Literature Search Summary

Objectives

• Seek better data from the private sector and third parties, and fuse this data with DOT data to generate new comparisons and insights.
• Collect and develop datasets for mobility and traffic.
• Explore the availability of new datasets and identify ways to use datasets with DOT data for calibration of QA/QC.
• Compare the scope, availability, reliability, and accuracy of privately available transportation mobility and traffic datasets sold by companies such as INRIX, Teralytics, Streetlight, etc.
• Update and improve data definitions, especially for traffic. (State DOTs often measure traffic in discrete measures like AADT, but people are increasingly using a blend of modes to move from origin to destination, and traffic data should reflect that.)

Urgency and Potential Benefits

Implementation Considerations

Author(s)

Others Supporting Problem Statement

Potential Panel Members

Person Submitting Statement

Notes

Description

As funding for resource allocation increase and decrease each year it is critical for agencies to ensure that they are spending the resources the best they can and meeting as many needs as possible. The challenge of meeting condition needs vs operational needs vs quality of life is increasing each year for agencies. Thus, as agencies work each year to make resource allocation decisions for multiple service areas, and analysis the impacts of these decisions are often difficult to captured with performance measures. For example, condition measures for physical asset classes (pavements, bridges, etc.); performance measures for system operations (snow and ice control, traffic operations, emergency response) and quality of life measures (safety, accessibility, equity) are used by agencies to evaluate these resource allocations. State agencies generally have flexibility to adjust the level of investment of these categories, yet evaluation of the tradeoffs or optimization of these decisions are often limited to similar measures (bridge condition vs pavement condition). Is there potential benefit in expanding the scope of these analyses to include performance measures and investment classes of less similar nature. What tools do agencies use for this cross-asset allocation; How are the tools used for asset resource allocations to include services and quality of life investments?

Literature Search Summary

Keyword searches in TRB’s TRID and RIP systems were performed for research related to:
• “Resource Allocation”
• “Cross Resource Allocation”
• “Cross Investment”

A search was also conducted on the Transportation Performance Management (TPM) Portal :
• Tools>Featured Tools>MODAT
The National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 806: Cross-Asset Resource Allocation and the Impact on Transportation System Performance developed a cross-asset resource allocation framework, a spreadsheet tool and guidance.
A subsequent project culminated in NCHRP Report 921:Case Studies in Cross-Asset, Multi-Objective Decision Analysis , which updated the NCHRP Report 806 spreadsheet tool and developed case studies illustrating multi-object decision analysis (MODA) applications. The Multi-Objective Decision Analysis Tool (MODAT) developed as part of this project helps prioritize candidate projects on a range of different objectives. MODAT can be accessed at: https://multiobjective.org/.

The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) also developed a web-based training (WBT) training curriculum for performance-based prioritization using Multi-Objective Decision Analysis (MODA). This training is intended to educate and expose practitioners to the use of MODA.

Indiana DOT is scoring all of their projects based upon 7 categories including safety, congestion, environment, regional and state economic contribution, Intermodal connectivity, and total cost of ownership. This synthesis would be an extension of the research started here, specifically providing additional case studies of states implementing cross-investment allocation and considering investment categories other than physical assets.

1. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Transportation Performance Management (TPM) Portal. https://www.tpm-portal.com/. Accessed June 2022.
2. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 2015. NCHRP Report 806: Guide to Cross-Asset Resource Allocation and the Impact on Transportation System Performance. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/22177.
3. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 2019. NCHRP Report 921: Case Studies in Cross-Asset, Multi-Objective Resource Allocation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/25684
4. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. MODAT Tool. https://multiobjective.org. Accessed June 2022
5. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. “Performance-Based Prioritization Using Multi-Objective Decision Analysis (MODA). Web-Based Training. AASHTO Store. Washington DC. https://store.transportation.org/Item/TrainingDetail?ID=4506. Accessed June 2022

Objectives

Investigate, compile, and categorize examples of organizations’ efforts of using performance measures and data supported tools for cross resource allocation and goal-oriented decisions.

Urgency and Potential Benefits

As agencies make tough resourcing decisions every year, this synthesis would be useful to capture how the research products and tools described above are being used, along with any other methods state DOTs are using to make multi-objective resource allocation decisions. Research has shown that multi-objective resource allocation can be done. This synthesis could answer “Is it being done?” and if so, “How is it being done?”

Implementation Considerations

The product of this research would be a synthesis of the practice, facilitating knowledge transfer to performance management practitioners.

Author(s)

Others Supporting Problem Statement

Potential Panel Members

Person Submitting Statement

Notes

Description

Transportation agencies traditionally had a very steady workforce. The combination of changes in young people’s work patterns and the economic changes that drive workforce availability requires that agencies need to act more proactively on how to deliver transportation programs. Research is needed to understand the behavioral patterns and mechanisms to both mitigate variability in workforce availability and what can be done proactively to benefit the agency.

With the increased funding states are receiving based on the IIJA and BFP. One agency has identified the fact that they may run into contractor availability to meet the needs of the upcoming projects.

Changes in economy. Changes in young people's work styles. With IIJA money, how are agencies going to be able to spend it, manage it? NMDOT is getting $45M for bridge projects, they have to identify the projects and it will strain the workforce to meet the requirements.

Literature Search Summary

Objectives

• Understand changes in transportation workforce behavior
• Understand the economic forces that change transportation workforce behavior
• Determine ways that transportation agencies can better manage with these forces
• Recommend steps that agencies can take to work within these forces

Urgency and Potential Benefits

Implementation Considerations

Author(s)

Others Supporting Problem Statement

Potential Panel Members

Person Submitting Statement

Notes

Description

Literature Search Summary

Objectives

Update products of NCHRP 20-24(37)G – Technical Guidance for
Deploying National Level Performance Measurements.

Urgency and Potential Benefits

Implementation Considerations

Author(s)

Others Supporting Problem Statement

Potential Panel Members

Person Submitting Statement

Notes

Description

In July 2012 MAP-21 established requirements that each state developed a Transportation Asset Management Plan (TAMP) that, at a minimum to include pavement and bridge assets on the National Highway System (NHS) (23 USC 119). This requirement was further detailed, in October 2016, through the issuance of 23 CFR 515, that encourages but dos not require State DOTs to include all NHS infrastructure assets in their TAMPs, (23 CFR 515.9(c)). This can include major asset classes such as tunnels or “ancillary” asset classes, such as:
• Guardrail
• Sidewalks
• Small Culverts
• Sign Structures
• Retaining Walls
• ITS Equipment
• Traffic Signals
While many states are including these assets in their TAMPs, many others manage these assets outside their federal TAMPs in an effort to right-size the associated workload and costs.

Literature Search Summary

• FHWA’s Handbook for Including Ancillary Assets in Transportation Asset Management Programs (2019)
• FHWA’s Case Study 7 – Managing Assets Beyond Pavements and Bridges (2020)
• HIF-20-067 Case Study 7-Managing Assets Beyond Pavements and Bridges (TAMP Practices on Other Assets) (dot.gov)

Objectives

Recent research has documented approaches to performing this work and several states have developed programs of differing levels of maturity. A Synthesis project at this time will enable agencies to understand the current state of the practice and identify leading practices that can be adopted to advance their own programs.

Urgency and Potential Benefits

Implementation Considerations

Author(s)

Others Supporting Problem Statement

Potential Panel Members

Person Submitting Statement

Notes

Description

Research is needed on the importance of data governance from the conception of a project’s data dictionary, through the inventory and condition assessment and continuing with the data management and integration into transportation asset management systems. A question worth pursuing is whether all aspects of language, wording, numbering, and measurement units should be standardized or if template guides could be developed for each agency to standardize their unique asset type requirements, but in a nationally recognized format for easy translation.
After establishing governance routines for asset data collection and management, the next phase of research would involve the security aspects of an agency’s data as well as the quality assurance measures applicable to grow confidence in the data’s quality. A full review of best practices for data security procedures could break the barrier of IT to asset manager. Additionally, once definitions and governance procedures are established, the quality assurance process becomes more stream-lined and gives better confidence to the decision makers.
Asset managers know the data they need, and the data collection methods have been identified. What is needed is guidance on how to use the available data collection methods to meet the needs of asset managers.
BIM standards need to account for the fact that we have less data on existing assets than newer assets. However, it is existing infrastructure that has the most needs.

Literature Search Summary

● FHWA - Identifying Data Frameworks & Governance for Establishing Future BIM Standards
● AED80 has a subcommittee on BIM, who has a sub-sub committee on BIM & AM
● PIARC TC 3.3 has a group working on TAM/BIM integration.
● NCHRP Report 831: Civil Integrated Management (CIM) for DOTs.

Objectives

● Guidance on establishing BIM data governance and quality standards to support asset management.
● Recommend standards for data transfer between data collection and asset management systems.
● Develop maturity scales for BIM implementation and establish appropriate maturity level for integration of TAM
● Research on BIM applications to support DOTs' data governance specific to the collection of data by one part of the agency can be used directly by other parts of the agency
● Evaluate cost effectiveness of collecting and managing data through BIM at a sufficient level of quality.
● Aligning the focused but detailed project-level data with network-wide but less detailed TAM data.

Urgency and Potential Benefits

Implementation Considerations

Author(s)

Others Supporting Problem Statement

Potential Panel Members

Person Submitting Statement

Notes

TRB Research Ideas – Data Quality/Standardization
• Data quality and confidence
• standardize terminology between different systems so singles source can inform GIS/500 reports/DELPHI/FMIS etc. so reports all use the same words or numbers the same way
• Updated asset type definitions and extraction methodologies.
• Performance Metrics for Assets other than pavement and bridge, i.e.. signals, signs, barriers, culverts
• Asset ratings biases, potential to rate lower to obtain funding

TRB Research Ideas – Data Governance
• Our largest challenge is data governance, feature collection and maintaining asset/inventory data
• Data governance is still looming large from an implementation perspective
• Data history, implementation and its security (both cyber and other forms of security)

Description

State departments of transportation (DOTs) and other transportation agencies are working to deliver greater resiliency in their transportation systems. Agencies are changing established business processes, technical methodologies, tools, and systems to build resiliency. In order to achieve sustainable change and have lasting improvements in resiliency, agencies need to also address organizational culture in order to bring about greater enthusiasm and focus on resiliency building.

Organizational culture is defined as the underlying beliefs, assumptions, values and ways of interacting that contribute to the unique social and psychological environment of an organization. It focuses on building shared values to achieve the organization's goals and objectives. When transportation agencies have good organizational culture, employees know how agency executives want them to respond to any situation, employees believe that the expected response is the proper one, and employees know that they will be rewarded for demonstrating the organization's values.

Literature Search Summary

Objectives

Greater understanding of the elements of good organizational culture and how it can be applied to transportation agencies to achieve greater resiliency is needed. This research project would include identification of agencies that have had success in building resiliency and examine what elements of organizational change supported the successful resilience building. Research on sectors outside of transportation where resilience is important would be conducted to understand the organizational culture elements. The ingredients for building organizational culture to achieve greater focus on building resilience will be created for transportation agencies.

The proposed research be composed of the following components:
• Conduct a literature/practice review of the relevant information
• Identify organizational practices and determine how they can be generalized to support guidance
• Develop guidance for agencies
• Demonstrate/evaluate guidance through at least one case study
• Produce a final report including an executive summary

Urgency and Potential Benefits

Implementation Considerations

Author(s)

Others Supporting Problem Statement

Potential Panel Members

Person Submitting Statement

Notes

Description

Literature Search Summary

Objectives

• Understand state DOTs' rules governing their data sharing agreements and intellectual property
• Explore agency methods and examples for monetizing data
• Identify what IP exists for sharing and selling data
• Find and highlight best-practices in multi-state data agreements
• Understand what agencies and organizations are doing to support their data sharing agreements
• Recognize what data should be collected, sought, and shared

Urgency and Potential Benefits

Implementation Considerations

Author(s)

Others Supporting Problem Statement

Potential Panel Members

Person Submitting Statement

Notes

Description

Several states have established offices to implement continuous improvement processes such as Lean, Design Thinking, or Change Management. Over 30 of these offices participate in the Transportation Lean Forum (TLF), an informal group that operates in association with the AASHTO Subcommittee on Organization Management. In addition to formal offices, some states make less formal “grass roots” efforts to improve their processes. A synthesis would conduct a side-by-side study of the states’ efforts, including efforts in states that are not participating in the TLF, find what is working and what is not, assist states to identify improvements that they might implement, and set a baseline of the current “state of the art” that could inform future research on the outcomes of these efforts.

Literature Search Summary

Objectives

Lean Improvement research questions:

1. Are there other states and countries with Lean Improvement or similar offices?
2. In what types of work are they achieving success?
3. Are there difference in focus between the DOTs?
4. Are there lessons to be learned by DOTs about how they might best improve their improvement efforts? (e.g., the Lean effort in England focuses mainly on the application of Lean principles in construction, but US States have not yet adopted Lean Construction to any great extent.)

Efficiency research questions:

1. Are there other states and countries with efficiency reporting requirements?
2. How do the reported efficiencies compare?
3. Are there types of efficiency that are reported in some states but not others?
4. Are there lessons to be learned by DOTs about how they might best improve their efficiency?

Urgency and Potential Benefits

Implementation Considerations

Author(s)

Others Supporting Problem Statement

Potential Panel Members

Person Submitting Statement

Notes

Lean Improvement: Several DOTs have established offices to implement continuous improvement processes such as Lean, Design Thinking, or Change Management. These include a t least thirty US States, five Canadian Provinces, England, the Netherlands, and Sweden.

Efficiencies: Several state DOTs (e.g., CA, MN, OH) and England are required to submit annual efficiency reports.

(30 states + other agencies have initiatives). What can be learned from these efforts? For instance, in England, the focus is on construction-only. (Nigel) 

Description

Transportation agencies are required to use asset management systems, including pavement and bridge asset management systems, to comply with Federal requirements for developing asset management plans. These systems are valuable for supporting a number of business functions, including: analyzing the existing asset inventory and its condition; developing effective asset lifecycle strategies; determining resources required to maintain assets in good repair; and recommending priorities for asset treatments. However, a major challenge transportation agencies face is in using their asset management systems is in trying to develop realistic projects that utilize management system recommendations. The systems generally recommend specific treatments, but do not scope realistic projects. Thus, significant manual effort is required to review management system treatment recommendations, often from multiple systems, and combine these into candidate projects. Research is needed to determine how to extent existing asset management systems to better develop projects from the treatment recommendations these systems generate. Such research will help agencies better comply with Federal requirements, save staff time, and result in development of projects that best support agency asset lifecycle strategies and best practices.

Literature Search Summary

Objectives

Research is needed to determine how to extent existing asset management systems to better develop projects from the treatment recommendations these systems generate.

The proposed research would include the following tasks, at a minimum:
• Review of existing transportation asset management systems and the approaches agencies use for developing projects from management system treatment recommendations.
• Development of a framework for transportation asset project development. The framework should incorporate: asset lifecycle strategies, other investment objectives that may lie outside of existing asset management systems, such as improve equity, accessibility and mobility; major constraints and parameters related to development of projects; and other factors.
• Gap assessment to identify issues in current practice and opportunities for improvement.
• Development of prototype tools that supplement existing management system treatment recommendation to better support project development.
• Piloting the framework and tools with one or more transportation agencies.
• Development of a research report documenting the results of the research effort.

Urgency and Potential Benefits

This research will help agencies better comply with Federal requirements, save staff time, and result in development of projects that best support agency asset lifecycle strategies and best practices.

Implementation Considerations

Author(s)

Others Supporting Problem Statement

Potential Panel Members

Person Submitting Statement

Notes

Description

“Risk” can simply be defined as an uncertainty that presents either an opportunity or a threat regarding an agency’s ability to carry out their mission. Thus, agency success in risk management rests on the ability to quantify the impacts of the full range of uncertainties that may apply to them. Typically, these impacts are assessed in terms of the agency’s existing performance measures, like asset condition or safety. However, there may be much more to the story in terms of the potential for value creation or cost-cutting related to uncertainty. This would mean not only identifying and quantifying all sources of value/cost related to uncertainty, but would also mean considering risk management as integral to asset management, and not just an afterthought or add-on to traditional condition-based asset management.

As part of this, an agency would need to quantify the benefits and costs of their risk management efforts overall. For example, “We have met X% of our risk mitigation goals in the fiscal year”. Hence, depending upon the nature of the goals and objectives of an agency’s risk management program, it is essential for the agency to have a “framework” that satisfies their management needs with appropriate measures, tools, methods, and processes. The term ”metrics” is a useful term for not only defining appropriate “measures” for quantifying risk-related entities, but also in articulating how these measures will be utilized in the overall risk management framework. This research is intended to explore the current practices and state-of-the-art for metrics, and identify potential options that would be suitable for transportation agencies in the future.

Literature Search Summary

Much progress has been made in recent years regarding transportation agency capabilities in risk management. There are good examples across agencies regarding these successes, including risk management plans documented in their 2019 TAMP submissions. Guidance and clear objectives provided at the time were instrumental in driving agencies in their approaches and processes for identifying and managing risks, and documenting their plans accordingly. It was clear in 2019 that good things were happening.

But there is still significant room for increasing these capabilities, especially given the diversity of agencies, the types of risks and uncertainties they face, and the breadth and depths of the frameworks, methods, tools and valid processes that are needed to meet increasing requirements for consistency and success in risk reduction across agencies. The term “new metrics” has been coined for a reason, in order to elevate risk management to a new level, where a comprehensive examination of cost cutting and value creation options is conducted in managing the range of uncertainties that agencies face. The following section explicitly illustrates why additional research is necessary for agencies to be able to meet evolving requirements in risk management.

Objectives

Objectives:
The purpose of this research is to:
1) Document practitioners’ ideas and preferences for managing risks and assessing the value-add of risk management programs. Some of these may be based on their current practices, and some may be based on methods they have intended to try.
2) Gather best practices for managing risks, valuing risk management overall, and implementing process improvement across the public and private sectors, including the use of “metrics” as part of these sound practices.
3) Create the basis for a “roadmap” that defines a coherent evolution in the use of performance metrics for risk management which is sensitive to the differences in agency situations, maturities in risk management, and diversity of threats they face.
4) Develop practical, actionable guidance for developing and using risk management metrics in transportation agencies.

Urgency and Potential Benefits

Overall Requirements for Metrics: References for valid risk management processes and methods are helpful in getting organized to manage risk across an agency or enterprise. These include ISO 31000 and the AASHTO Enterprise Risk Management Guide. However, in order to fully cover the myriad types of threats that agencies may face, especially when these agencies are a diverse group in the first place, requires a robust approach to defining the metrics and the overarching framework they are used within. As a good example, the themes presented in 23 CFR 667 provide some help in understanding what a solid framework might consist of.

At first glance, a reasonable interpretation of key requirements from the “Evaluation” section of 23 CFR 667 might include the following:
• Consideration of a full spectrum of risks that may affect agencies, including threats on the transportation network, uncertainties in delivering projects as intended, risks associated with hitting performance targets (or not), and programmatic or organizational risks that could threaten success.
• Estimating future “risk costs” of each threat, across multiple criteria such as asset damage, safety impacts, traffic delays, environmental damage, and economic impact.
• Identifying and considering (“evaluating”) a full range of risk management strategies; some of which may present synergies and/or compromises to traditional, condition-based asset treatments and strategies that are also being proposed.
• Assuring that “risk management” is part of the discussion regarding resource allocation, and that risk reduction efforts are discussed “at the table” along with other asset management priorities
• Quantifying the risk reduction of each candidate solution in terms of annualized dollars.
• Estimating the cost and duration of each candidate solution, management strategy, etc.
• Managing implemented strategies over time by monitoring, continuously improving, etc.

Implementation Considerations

Challenges to Defining Metrics: Risk management methods vary across transportation agencies and if similar they are likely implemented inconsistently. Also important is not only “who” within an organization is responsible for managing a risk management program, but what the bounds of that program may be. As such, risk priorities can vary based on differences in geography, agency size, financial circumstances, politics, topography, climate, agency organization, and many other factors. Finally, the types of threats and uncertainties that affect any one agency may be wide-ranging, from flooding to workforce management issues to funding variability. As a result, the details of an effective risk management approach, including metrics, will need to be sensitive to these differences between agencies. These details include a robust set of applicable frameworks, processes, methods, tools, and sources of information.

Author(s)

Others Supporting Problem Statement

Potential Panel Members

Person Submitting Statement

Notes

Description

Agencies are becoming more reliant on asset inventory and condition data to create a virtual digital twin to the real world assets that exist and change over time. These changes can result from accidents, natural events, maintenance or construction activities. These changes need to be reflected in the digital twin as close to real time as possible to maintain the usefulness and validity of the virtual twin.
The purpose of this proposed research is examine emerging and established technologies used to capture and update changes to these assets in the field and the necessary steps to ensure that these changes are processed and integrated into the authoritative systems in as close to real time as possible to determine the utility of the data, and how to collect, manage, and apply it more effectively.

Literature Search Summary

• NCHRP 23-16: Implementing and Leveraging Machine Learning at State Departments of Transportation: Available here.
• www.tamguide.com/
• NCHRP 956 “Guidebook for Data and Information Systems for Asset Management” Available here.
• NCHRP 800 “Successful Practices in GIS-based Asset Management” Available here.
• NCHRP 508 “Data Management and Governance Practices” Available here
• NCHRP 491 “Use of Mobile IT Devices in the Field for Design, Construction and Asset Management” Available here

Objectives

Emerging and current technologies hold the promise of transforming asset data col-lection for transportation asset management such as the use of drones for inspec-tions, LiDAR field data collection, continuous monitoring of real-time sensor data, and more. While the technology has been transforming, MAP-21 and the Fast Act jump started at many agencies in attaining an inventory of infrastructure assets and trans-portation data. At the same time, accessibility and affordability to collect high volumes of asset inventory data, such as LiDAR point cloud data, present the problem of how agencies can visualize and manage such large amounts of data and integrate the many layers for each transportation asset management plan. Now that the need for such data is federally recognized, further research is needed to understand what the latest technologies for asset management can offer an agency as well as how fre-quently that information needs to be captured and optimized.

Research is needed in the following areas:
· Identification of key current and emerging technologies for the capture, extrac-tion, processing and updating of asset inventory and condition data in authori-tative asset management systems
· Examples of current and emerging technologies include: mobile data collection, (iPhone, tablet, laptop), high resolution imagery, mobile LiDAR, machine learn-ing, artificial intelligence, neural networks, internet of things (IoT), nanotechnol-ogy and microelectronics, ground penetrating radar (GPR), and other data col-lection and processing and integrating technologies.
· Address the challenges of the rapid pace of technological advancement and the application of these technologies in a cost effective and practical manner, con-sidering obsolescence, staff expertise, and willingness to adopt new technolo-gies.
· Evaluate the level of extraction detail and frequency interval needed to support TAM at both the state and local levels and how can the condition assessment can be applied to the performance measures of both pavement and non-pavement assets.
· Further investigate what tools are capable of visualizing and presenting data to all stakeholders in various formats (i.e GIS, systems of engagement) with standardized and consistent formats of presentation and interaction.
· Identify best practices for managing these technologies and systems as they work holistically across the agency as cost effective enterprise solutions, includ-ing but not limited to types of expertise and staff resources.
· The research should include use cases of efficient and effective applications of these technologies, processes and systems.
· The research should consider any refinements that would need to occur in net-work level and project level asset management data collection to make the data useful for compliance (i.e. ADA), safety (i.e. bridge clearances) or engineering purposes (i.e. BIM/CIM).

Urgency and Potential Benefits

State and local transportation agencies are rapidly adopting Asset Management prac-tices to optimize infrastructure conditions for the resources available and to meet Fed-eral Transportation Asset Management Planning reporting requirements. To meet these demands there is a profound need to invest in technology and systems to under-stand the fully inventoried condition of various transportation assets and to model the outcomes of various investment strategies.

The potential benefits of this research is to provide insights to decision makers at transportation agencies on how to navigate a world of constantly changing and evolving technology. It will help agencies work better with technology firms. It will provide guidance on how to minimize the impact of technology on staff and make more effec-tive use of taxpayer dollars. It will provide guidance on how to make data in these au-thoritative systems more useful and through visualization make that data more un-derstandable. By making these systems and data collection practices more efficient and effective it will enable transportation officials to make better informed investments in the transportation leading to a more equitable, sustainable and resilient system.

Implementation Considerations

Digital twins of physical roadway assets can model deterioration, forecast needed treatments, archive inspections, and be updated through subsequent field collection. It is like an API that allows multiple applications to interact with the managed data. Implementation of research may still require a need to manipulate with API, understand data interoperability, and account for differentiation between vendors data collection standards. Although vendors have a lot of solutions developed, the research will determine the best approach given the asset type, acceptable LOS, change detection, and general data management regardless of vendor.

Author(s)

Others Supporting Problem Statement

Potential Panel Members

Person Submitting Statement

Notes

Description

Risk communication is the act of sharing information about potential threats to people and infrastructure with the objective of saving life and property. This covers a wide range of information, including asset condition, mobility, safety, economic impacts, environmental impacts, and others. Effective verbal, visual, and written communication promotes the recovery of disrupted systems while maintaining public confidence in these systems. This requires that all communication tracks be congruent and effective.
Barriers to effective risk communication exist, both internally and externally. One major barrier to internal communication is organizational “siloing”. Staff working within different functional areas (such as safety, operations, and emergency management) may feel little incentive to collaborate if they believe their missions are independent of other departments. Organizational silos result in duplication of effort and inefficiency, and lack of various perspectives in approaching problems.
Another major obstacle is delivering the appropriate message at the right time with clear language that speaks to all audiences. If not properly delivered, communication may inadvertently create hysteria, unease, and confusion. Barriers to external communications with outside agencies stem from a lack of established two-way communications channels, dissimilar language, and varying definitions of risk. Communications with the public and others need to eliminate rumors, lack of expert consensus, over-hyped reporting, failure to understand of ethnic differences, and so on. Ultimately, overcoming these obstacles requires:
• Leadership direction including a reality-based vision, the "path forward", and incentives to interact
• Organizational support from multiple groups
• Clear definition of both Inter- and intra-agencies including:
- What collaboration may look like
- The reason and importance of the collaboration
- How and when collaboration takes place
• Partnerships with community organizations
• Defined and appropriate language for messaging that effectively outlines the hazards, severity, location, affected population, and uncertainty of risk
• Alignment of verbal, visual, and written communications to relay complementary messages.
• Selection of appropriate messaging vehicles (email, variable message sign, web site, etc.)
These efforts require research to identify the best methods and current examples of how to implement such communication at a DOT. As many options exist for internal and external risk communication, and various agencies and organizations have their own communication requirements, effective research will provide a path forward to establishing effective risk visualization and communication at a DOT.

Literature Search Summary

Review of existing literature on developing effective communication techniques, risk visualization, and implementing these initiatives in transportation agencies reveals that there are studies into aspects of these topics, but this proposed research will combine these aspects into a single topic. Previous research includes studies into project improvements through effective communication and its results, the relationship between collaboration and performance across regional safety coalitions, study into the issues of effectively conveying risk, especially among multiple assets, and the use of visualization and modelling to communicate ideas and facilitate communication among transportation planners and agencies. Literature on these topics and others provide information on aspects of communication that are useful to agencies. This research will combine the focus of these previous studies into specifically identifying how to effectively develop communication of risk visualization both within a DOT and with its partner agencies, as well as the public at large. This effort will provide specific inquiry into this subject, providing DOT’s and their partner agencies with valuable information on combining effective communication strategies with risk visualization techniques. This builds on previous study, which covered aspects of communication at DOT’s, risk communication, and other related topics, while not combining such study into a specific project.

Objectives

The objectives of this research are to develop guidance in the following initiatives which can be used to develop effective risk visualization communication within DOT’s, with external agencies, and the public in the by performing study into the following initiatives:
1. Establishing intra-agency communication.
2. Establishing external partnerships and two-way communications channels with community organizations.
3. Crafting an effective visual, verbal, and written communication strategy with materials (ie., metrics, dashboards, regular reports) with a clear explanation of uncertainty.
4. Determining the appropriate message vehicle.
This research will examine current strategies and methods of risk visualization communication at various DOT’s. Internal communication, two-way communication channels with external organizations, associated strategies, and other aspects of communication in relation to risk visualization will be extensively explored.

Urgency and Potential Benefits

Ineffective communication on Risk Visualization at DOT’s may lead to incomplete risk management and a lack of understanding of potential risks associated with DOT projects. This understandably can create severe issues that impact multiple people. Ineffective communication may cause breakdowns of information between agency departments internally, and with external parties. Lack of understanding of potential risks may lead to projects which do not mitigate these risks and create dangerous situations for users. Significant financial investment may be required to mitigate dangers that were missed due to ineffective risk management communication, or to ensure that missed information is eventually communicated. Ensuring that risk visualization is properly communicated and understood among DOTs, related departments, and the community, more effective lines of communications within an agency lead to effective understanding of potential risks, and the mitigation of these risk to create safe situations across transportation systems.

Implementation Considerations

Within a DOT, it is expected that employees and directors associated with Risk Management departments will be the most likely to utilize the results of this research. Any departments within a DOT associated with Risk Management through project work would also utilize this information. After research is complete, a DOT will be able to implement study findings by developing or strengthening their current risk visualization communication strategies based on the reported study results. Training, any required updating of systems, and development of new processes may be required. Presentation of study findings to risk management managers, and other project managers within the DOT could be an effective method of creating awareness of new techniques for improving communication related to risk visualizations. Communication of findings can be relayed to departments associated with risk management, to ensure that communication strategies can be implemented across multiple levels (and in order to prevent departmental ‘siloing’).

Author(s)

Others Supporting Problem Statement

Potential Panel Members

Person Submitting Statement

Notes

LINK TO 2021-2026 AASHTO STRATEGIC PLAN: This project aligns to the AASHTO Strategic Plan by providing information that will help DOTs develop further organizational excellence and effective services in knowing how to create the best risk communication strategies that will share risk information both internally and with external agencies and the public at large. Knowledge of risks will lead to better transportation products and services by helping to identify what aspects of transportation require improvement and safety enhancement. This will also lead to further examination of current and emerging trends present in transportation policies and practices, while promoting a range of new policy options that can be implemented. This project will align with AASHTO’s plan to provide safety, mobility, and access for everyone by providing blueprints for effective communication with external agencies and the public. By making the public aware of potential risks, and pursuing solutions to these risks, DOTs will be able ensure that social equity within the public sphere is preserved while transportation systems are made safer. Effective communication with community organizations, especially, will forge strong connections between transportation agencies with public interest.

The ability to effectively communicate risks both within an agency and externally to key stakeholders is important in decision-making and assuring effective mitigation strategies are assigned and appropriate resources are dedicated. Risk management is an effective tool for decision-making but communicating risks, potential impacts and likelihood of occurrence as well as appropriate mitigation is often not well understood.

This proposal builds off of a similar RPS developed as part of NCHRP 20-123(04) but adds in and emphasizes the element of visualization to improve communication. It also emphasizes the concept of risk tolerance.  

Description

Reimagine the DOT Organizational and Decision Making Paradigm from - one that is driven by planning, design and construction – to one driven by the need to maintain and operate an established system based on principles of asset management and transportation system operations

Literature Search Summary

NCHRP 08-138
www.agencycapability.com/library/nchrp-20-07-task-408-transportation-system-management-and-operations-tsmo-workforce-skills-positions-recruitment-retention-and-career-development/
www.tamguide.com/chapter/3-organization-and-people
www.trb.org/NCHRP/Pages/Report_to_AASHTO_TSO_775.aspx
· SHRP 2 Report S2-L06-RR1 “Institutional Architectures to Improve Systems Opera-tions and Management”
· FHWA-HOP-17-017 “Developing and Sustaining a Transportation Systems Man-agement and Operation Mission for Your Organization: A Primer for Program Plan-ning”
· NCHRP 08-138 (Pending) Guide to the Integration of Transportation Systems Management and Operations into Transportation Asset Management

Objectives

To rethink how a transportation agency should be organized to maintain and operate an existing system in real time. That includes a focus on preservation and maintenance of existing assets, responding quickly and effectively to incidents and emergencies, and operating the system at an optimized level of service given funding constraints. The research will consider what systems and processes need to be in place to monitor conditions and operations, the role of maintenance and asset management in programming and project development, effective use of agency forces, budgeting for maintenance and replacement over the lifecycle, and how to manage risk as a compliment to resource constrained asset management strategies. The research will look at various public and private sector models that look at organizational structure, element driven contracting, funding allocation models, and the role of in house vs contract resources to maximize the cost effectiveness of resource investments.
Project objectives envision developing a synthesis using the following guidance:
1. Identify organizational practices that integrate maintenance and operational needs into capital planning processes.
2. Perform a domestic and international scan of how and what transportation agencies do organizationally to implement effective Asset Management and TSMO practices for holistic decision-making throughout the asset lifecycle.
3. Identify decision-making, communication, and organizational practices to in-clude all stakeholders in the lifecycle of the assets.
4. Identify project criteria and business practices that can be used for realizing improved transportation system performance over time. This includes how or-ganizations take into account maintainability, sustainability, resiliency and functional performance in the development, design and construction of pro-jects.
5. Develop case studies on how capital transportation projects are delivered and the problems that occur across functional areas. Agencies will be interviewed to determine root cause analysis of projects to evaluate both successes and problems with the long term lifecycle management of assets arising from poli-cies, organizational practices, and knowledge transfer and how that impacts an agency’s ability to maintain a state of good repair for new and existing assets.
6. Evaluate how federal funding mechanisms could be employed to fund mainte-nance needs of new and existing asset types arising out of capital project prior-itization.
7. Evaluate how agencies integrate performance targets and measures into their maintenance, operations, program management and asset management pro-cesses to drive decision making.

Urgency and Potential Benefits

Asset management and transportation systems management and operations have become cornerstones of how transportation agencies prioritize how they maintain, op-erate and make capital improvements to their transportation systems. These have driven agencies to rethink how to develop their capital programs, how decisions are made and who is involved at various levels of decision making. The goal of this re-search is to share effective practices within agencies for the benefit of the overall in-dustry.

Implementation Considerations

The purpose of this is to research case studies to help agencies improve their own de-cision-making processes with regards to asset management and TSMO.

Author(s)

Others Supporting Problem Statement

Potential Panel Members

Person Submitting Statement

Notes

Description

Literature Search Summary

Objectives

• Explore current state of practice to establish a baseline.

Urgency and Potential Benefits

Implementation Considerations

Author(s)

Others Supporting Problem Statement

Potential Panel Members

Person Submitting Statement

Notes

Description

FHWA Directive 5520 encourages state DOTs to develop risk-based, cost effective strategies to minimize the impacts of climate change. Environmental stressors, such as extreme heat and extreme cold, and changes in the frequency and magnitude of extreme events, is changing the lifecycle of transportation assets; i.e, reducing service life, shortening replacement cycles, and increasing maintenance costs. Maintenance personnel offer valuable insight as to the costs associated with achieving performance goals. At the same time, maintenance personnel will require guidance as to how to incorporate risk models into maintenance, inspection, replacement, and repair cycles so that scheduled and routine maintenance continue to mitigate the risk from asset deterioration.

Literature Search Summary

This research differs from the existing body of research found in a review of relevant literature due to its focus on the integration of risk management with existing processes. During the review, there was no body of work that mentions incorporating risk management into the existing maintenance practices. In addition, transportation practitioners during multiple stakeholder engagements during the development of the NCHRP 20-123 project initiated the conversation and advocated for the need of this potential research topic.

Objectives

To fulfill the requirements of MAP-21 and FAST Act, state DOTs started to establish enterprise risk management (ERM) programs and develop risk-based assets management plan. FHWA Directive 5520 further encourages state DOTs to develop risk-based, cost-effective strategies to minimize the impacts of climate change and extreme weather events. Environmental stressors, such as natural disasters (e.g. earthquake, flood, high wind, wildfire etc.), higher average temperature etc. are changing the lifecycle of transportation assets, which also change the maintenance needs of infrastructure assets. Incorporating climate change into risk modeling and risk-based maintenance planning is important for an informative, forward-looking, and sustainable decision making and funding allocation strategy. Guidance and tools are not currently available to support the practice.

The purpose of the proposed project is to develop a guidance and prototype tool to help state DOTs assess and manage risk in maintenance practice. The specific research tasks to accomplish the main objective include:
Task 1 – Conduct a State DOT survey and in-depth interview with selected DOTs to determine the state-of-practice for
• the methodologies and tools used for risk assessment and management, and how they are integrated into asset management and maintenance practice (at enterprise level, program level, and project level).
• the methodologies for quantifying risks caused by climate change and extreme weather events
---- determine extreme weather events and climate factors need to be considered
---- determine performance matrices to measure the effects of extreme weather events and climate changes
---- quantify the risks associated with the performance effects
• maintenance actions and associated risk mitigation requirements; and effectiveness and cost of the actions.
Task 2 – Analysis the survey and interview results to find gaps that require more studies. Develop an interim report to document the survey, interview, and the results of the gap study.
Task 4 – Develop solutions for the gaps identified in Task 3.
Task 5 – Develop a draft guideline for incorporating risk management (including risks caused by climate change) in maintenance practice. Develop a prototype tool that implements the framework suggested in the draft guideline to facilitate trad-off decisions for better management limited resources and prioritize work.
Task 6 – Work with volunteer states to conduct at least two pilot projects to validate/test the developed guideline and tool. Feedbacks from the pilot states will be discussed and addressed to finalize the deliverables.

Urgency and Potential Benefits

Risk based asset management is still at its early stage in practice. Risk assessment and management framework that takes climate change and maintenance practice into consideration is rarely studied. This is an important topic for owners to make informed decision and allocate funding more effectively at enterprise, program, and project levels. Guidelines and tools are immediately needed to facilitate this practice.

Implementation Considerations

Workshops/Webinars will be developed and delivered to help state DOT personnel understand the developed guideline and prototype tool. The prototype tool will be tested and further developed into a product tool following the developed guideline and considering state specific risk factors. State DOTs will be responsible for engaging the necessary staff and conducting a risk assessment for their ongoing maintenance practices and implementing updated maintenance practices when possible.

It is a key that senior executives, policy makers and program managers need to have a communication plan to communicate with peers to effectively integrate risk management in maintenance decision making. Additional products and activities like training workshops to increase the integration of risk management into maintenances practices, as well as peer exchanges and informative presentations can help state DOTs adopt the concept in their practice with positive impacts.

Author(s)

Others Supporting Problem Statement

Potential Panel Members

Person Submitting Statement

Notes

Ranked 3 in 2021

Description

Financial risks can threaten the strategic objectives of transportation agencies - e.g., the safe and reliable and efficient movement of people and goods. For example, the Highway Trust Fund is tied to taxes on gas and diesel. However, the recent COVID-19 pandemic greatly reduced American consumption, thus dramatically reducing revenues. State DOTs have seen their budgets slashed by 30% or more, forcing delays in some projects. Furthermore, external mandates can impose both risks and opportunites. A well-funded mandate could mean state DOTs have additional funding for enhancing resilience, while an unfunded mandate could force a DOT to choose between maintenance and projects. The objective of this project is to help transportation leaders with decision-making tools for allocating limited resources when subjected to unpredicatable financial conditions.

Literature Search Summary

This research need was recommended and prioritized through multiple stakeholder engagements during the 20-123 project. No related literature was found that incorporated financial risk at the enterprise and program levels. In addition, the recent COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the consequences of income and financial instability in transportation agencies.

The importance of incorporating risk at the enterprise and program levels has been recognized, and AASHTO published a guide summarizing how DOTs can establish and benefit from an enterprise risk management (ERM) program (AASHTO Guide for Enterprise Risk Management, 2016). This guide divides risk into four levels: enterprise, program, project, and activity. Risks to the enterprise are identified as the risks that affect the organization and its strategic objectives; while risk to the program includes risks that are “common to group of projects that achieve strategic goals” or those that “could affect the performance of major programs such as safety, pavements, bridges, maintenance, information technology, local programs, project delivery, finance, and human resources”. The guide provides an overview on what enterprise risk management is, highlights the benefits, and also includes information of how to identify, assess and manage those risks. However, further guidance and methodologies on how to assess and manage financial risks at the enterprise and program levels are still needed.

Objectives

The purpose of the proposed research project is to provide state DOTs with the necessary tools to assess and manage financial risk at the enterprise and program levels.

The specific research tasks to accomplish the main objective include:

• Task 1 – Conduct an in-depth literature review of all studies related to assessment and management of financial risks in transportation agencies, especially at the enterprise and program levels, including national and international examples as available.
• Task 2 – Conduct a gap assessment of the state of practice to determine what is still needed to incorporate financial risk at the enterprise and program levels.
• Task 3 – Develop a methodology for identifying and quantifying financial risks at the enterprise and program levels.
• Task 4 – Develop metrics and performance indicators for evaluating effectiveness of financial risk countermeasures.
• Task 5 – Develop decision-making tools for resource allocation under conditions of financial uncertainty.
• Task 6 – Develop methodology and guidance on consideration of program and potentially project-level financial risk within the enterprise.
• Task 7 – Pilot test the developed processes with multiple state DOTs and revised methodology as needed.
• Task 8 – Develop an implementation guide to help state DOTs to incorporate these processes into existing agency programs and projects.

Urgency and Potential Benefits

The recent COVID-19 pandemic greatly reduced American consumption, thus dramatically reducing revenues. State DOTs have seen their budgets slashed by 30% or more, forcing delays in some projects and reductions in workforce. A well-funded mandate could mean state DOTs have additional funding for enhancing resilience, while an unfunded mandate could force a DOT to choose between maintenance and projects. Not having the necessary funding for certain programs or projects may have a short or long term negative impacts on agency mission (e.g., lack of funding to continue or improve safety programs).

This project aims to provide transportation leaders with the necessary decision-making tools for allocating resources when subjected to unpredicatable financial conditions in order to reduce risks and increase the return on investment (ROI).

Implementation Considerations

In order to implement financial risk assessments at the enterprise level, senior executives and policy makers need to take the lead and champion these initiatives.
Similarly, program managers need to take the major role on encouraging the implementation of financial risk assessments into program level.
It is key that senior executives, policy makers and program managers need to have a communication plan to communicate with peers on their areas in order to assess the financial risks to multiple programs and/or projects that may affect each other. In addition, providing staff training on the subject of financial risk, especially at the enterprise and program levels, is a key factor on successful implementation. Training material (including guidance, workshops, peer exchanges, etc.) to help implementation champions should be developed and used to create awareness and facilitate assessments.

Author(s)

Others Supporting Problem Statement

Potential Panel Members

Person Submitting Statement

Notes

Rank 5 in 2021

Description

Need to understand and demonstrate risk-tolerance associated with decision-making within agencies. This relates to both potential threats and opportunities. 

This proposal builds on the draft problem statement outlined in the NCHRP 20-123(04). The background has been acceptably defined. The objectives should be modified to further emphasize risk perception and development of ways to assess and communicate risk tolerance.

Literature Search Summary

Objectives

Emphasis on developing tools and methodologies to document risk tolerance and acceptance parameters associated with taking risks. 

Urgency and Potential Benefits

Implementation Considerations

Author(s)

Others Supporting Problem Statement

Potential Panel Members

Person Submitting Statement

Notes

Description

Literature Search Summary

Objectives

Urgency and Potential Benefits

Implementation Considerations

Author(s)

Others Supporting Problem Statement

Potential Panel Members

Person Submitting Statement

Notes

Description

Both federal and recipient agencies have the goal of maximizing the public benefits from investment of the limited transportation funding. Additionally, there is a cost and/or risk to every activity or inaction related to program delivery. Whenever an available dollar is moved from physical or operational improvements on the system to program administration, the public loses the benefit of that dollar. Similarly, every dollar that is lost from the system because of fraud or diverted away from the program goals due to whatever form of mismanagement, the public loses the intended benefit of that dollar. Therefore, the goal of all agencies should be to minimize the negative risks and costs associated with administering the funding programs, even if that means the occasional dollar is lost to fraud or mismanagement when the cost to prevent that loss is greater than the cost of the loss itself. It seems especially important to avoid duplicative administrative costs generated from the various governmental levels. The essential issue is determining the end-user public return on investment (ROI) from adding program requirements for both the federal agency and the recipient agency.

Literature Search Summary

Objectives

Develop a means of determining the balance between program requirements that minimize the risks of fraud and/or of not meeting program goals with maximizing the benefits to the end users (i.e., the public).

Urgency and Potential Benefits

Implementation Considerations

Author(s)

Others Supporting Problem Statement

Potential Panel Members

Person Submitting Statement

Notes

Description

Create a best practices guide for using data to inform equitable deployments of AVs and shared mobility.

Literature Search Summary

Objectives

• Identify the best locations for AV deployment which would deliver equity for all communities
• Understand the elements of equity surrounding AV and shared mobility deployment

Urgency and Potential Benefits

Implementation Considerations

Author(s)

Others Supporting Problem Statement

Potential Panel Members

Person Submitting Statement

Notes

Description

Research effective corridor planning strategies that promote sustainable capital asset improvements that impact asset class performance and other performance areas.

Literature Search Summary

Objectives

Urgency and Potential Benefits

Implementation Considerations

Author(s)

Others Supporting Problem Statement

Potential Panel Members

Person Submitting Statement

Notes

Description

Literature Search Summary

Objectives

Urgency and Potential Benefits

Implementation Considerations

Author(s)

Others Supporting Problem Statement

Potential Panel Members

Person Submitting Statement

Notes

Description

Literature Search Summary

Objectives

Urgency and Potential Benefits

Implementation Considerations

Author(s)

Others Supporting Problem Statement

Potential Panel Members

Person Submitting Statement

Notes