Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
13 CHAPTER THREE SURVEY RESULTS on the Topic Panel, revised, and distributed to DOTs in a web-based format. This survey was designed to capture the existing state of practice and agency expectations for the next 3 to 5 years. The survey design balanced the level of detail desired with participant time demands by provid- ing common answers and reducing the number of open- ended questions. This second survey yielded 43 state DOT responses and 1 turnpike enterprise response. For clarity and ease of contrast among DOT agencies, the turnpike agency responses were omitted from the tables and discussion in the body of this report (results from the second survey, including the turnpike agency, are included within Appendix C). Early results from the second survey were presented at the 9th National Conference on Transportation Asset Manage- ment as a part of the joint midyear meeting, which included TRB Transportation Asset Management (ABC40) commit- tee members, AASHTO Asset Management Sub-Commit- tee members, interested conference attendees, and the Asset Management Pool Fund state members. This group provided input on the survey results along with general comments on the survey findings. The group also discussed the variability in state DOT responses on AM practices, and commented that this is most likely a result of the varied understanding of TAM principles and definitions. A discussion on the survey results specific to DOT participant information follows. GENERAL ASSET MANAGEMENT PRACTICES The use of TAM principles was expected to vary widely among DOTs. To understand and compare these differences, agencies were asked whether they are under any type of mandate to use TAM principles. The responses help determine if there is any relationship between those agencies that are farther along in the process and the pressure placed on them to implement. As shown in Table 1, 13 of the 43 responding agencies (see the list of participants in Appendix B) reported that they are under a mandate to use TAM principles. These mandate sources were associated with three categories (Internal, Legislative, and Fed- eral reporting requirements). Even though there is no federal mandate to use AM, two agencies (Maryland and Tennessee) reported that they consider the federal reporting requirements, such as bridge inventory and a highway performance moni- toring system, as a mandate to push for AM implementation in their respective agencies. This synthesis report includes a The financial impact of AM touches every aspect of an organization. Even with AMâs astounding potential positive benefits, it is a considerable challenge to change a transpor- tation agencyâs culture to initiate, embrace, and ultimately integrate TAM principles. Although there are only a few champion agencies that use TAM principles, the level of interest has been steadily increasing among state DOTs, fed- eral agencies, professional organizations, and the research community. As an example, the 9th National Conference on Transportation Asset Management (April 2012, San Diego, California) had more than 320 attendees and 34 states repre- sented. In addition, Congress has recently passed the Mov- ing Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21 Act), which will be a catalyst for agencies to adopt TAM principles. MAP-21 establishes an outcome-driven approach that tracks performance and will hold states and metropoli- tan planning organizations accountable for improving the conditions and performance of their transportation assets. Given the growing level of interest and performance- based reauthorization, this synthesis of TAM practice among state highway agencies is a timely resource for any agency trying to identify where it may want to focus it AM efforts. SURVEY METHODOLOGY The state-of-practice information in this synthesis report was obtained primarily through two separate web-based surveys, with additional input from practitioners. The initial survey requested that participants conduct a self-assessment to characterize their agencyâs AM prac- tices. The survey utilized the self-assessment exercise from Section 3.2 of the 2002 Transportation Asset Management Guide [NCHRP 20-24(11)], which was designed to probe basic functions and capabilities that contribute to good AM regardless of an agencyâs particular characteristics and situ- ation. The self-assessment results reflect current and future (5-year) business practices and the agenciesâ institutional, organizational, financial, and IT environments. This survey yielded 18 DOT participant responses (see Appendix D). From the results of the initial survey, and input from the Topic Panel, a second state-of-the-practice survey question- naire was developed, pre-tested among state DOT members
14 â¢ ArkansasâDeputy Commissioner for Highways, Deputy Commissioner for Aviation, Deputy Commissioner for Marine Transportation, Chief Engineer, Statewide Maintenance & Operations Chief, Division Director â Program Development Division, Director-Administration Services Division, Director-Central Region Office. â¢ AlabamaâIt starts within the Maintenance Bureau; specifically, in the Management Section, with some responsibilities delegated down to division offices. â¢ CaliforniaâAll State Highway Operation and Protection Program (SHOPP) Divisions, as well as representatives from Strategic Planning. â¢ ColoradoâAn informal task force jointly led by staff branches under the chief engineer and the Division of Transportation Development. The group meets monthly in development of a Multi Asset Management System. Other divisions such as Finance and IT also attend. Individual asset categories, such as Bridge or Pavement, have used asset-specific groups for more than a decade. Modes included are highways. â¢ ConnecticutâOrganizationally, this task is assigned to the Infrastructure Performance Management Unit located in the Bureau of Policy and Planning. However, with limited staffing, work on this task has been lim- ited. The department has also established a Standing Committee on Performance Measures. â¢ Florida Turnpike Enterprise (FTE)âAsset manage- ment group consists of a project manager (AM cham- pion), data maintenance, annual inspection, and software maintenance as part of the Bond Requirements area under the General Engineering Consultant contract for the FTE Production Department. This group also consists of Asset Team Leaders in various departments throughout FTE who act as liaisons for their respective department to ensure the AM group meets their needs. â¢ GeorgiaâOPM (Organizational Performance Management) is a small unit created 2 years ago tasked with AM, performance management, and strategic planning. Tasks have included development of a strate- gic plan based on AM principles, launch of an Agency Dashboard, development of an AM strategy, and acqui- sition of a consultant to further AM efforts. â¢ IowaâDesign, Bridge Design, Traffic and Safety, Motor Vehicle, Planning, Districts, Information Technology, and Finance. â¢ IdahoâEffort involves several subgroups that report to the chief engineer. To date, the efforts are concentrated on highway issues (roads, bridges, and equipment). â¢ IndianaâThere is an oversight team, made up princi- pally of department directors who meet weekly (more often at certain times of the yearâs cycle, for certain events) to discuss progress, challenges and opportuni- ties, enhancements, etc. â¢ KentuckyâState Highway Engineerâs Office, Division of Maintenance, Division of Planning, and Division of Traffic Operations. section on the differences in AM practices between agencies that do and do not operate under a mandate (see chapter four). The Colorado, Michigan, Virginia, Vermont, and Washington State agencies have a legislative mandate; the remaining seven agencies rely on department policy and/or a department direc- tor initiative to practice AM. Asset management activities can be integrated broadly across an agency. One of the critical actions that any agency can take lies in the way they staff and support the TAM initia- tive. Table 2 shows that 60% (26 of 43) of the agencies have an AM task force or group. Agencies were asked to describe their AM task force and based on these descriptions the com- position and location of the group within the organization was identified. The composition of these groups is dominated by major asset managers followed by planning and top execu- tives. The AM groups most often reside across divisions/ offices which imply no formal AM unit; however, AM activi- ties are conducted across multiple divisions/offices. Some agencies have a more structured approach to the group with defined functions, whereas others provide general guidance and support. Several agencies provided descriptions of their AM group details:
15 â¢ LouisianaâTAM Steering Committee: Management and Finance, Engineering, Multimodal Planning, Road and Bridge Design, Statewide maintenance, ITS, IT, Districts, and Traffic Engineering. â¢ MarylandâOur Asset Management Steering commit- tee includes representatives from several offices, such as, planning, maintenance, traffic, pavement and struc- tures. The main purpose of this committee is to assist in the progress and process of using AM principals as they relate to the assets they manage. â¢ MichiganâThe Transportation Asset Management Council (TAMC) is a legislated body of representatives from agencies who own roads or are responsible for road funding; representation is from all levels of government in Michigan. The TAMC has focused on pavements and bridges to date. The MDOT Asset Management Division provides expertise and staff support to the council with backing and guidance from MDOT director. â¢ MinnesotaâWe have a working group that is devel- oping a framework. We have representation from data management, IT, maintenance, risk management, performance management, finance, district staff, and department leadership. â¢ MontanaâThe Project Analysis Bureau, within MDTâs Planning Division, provides the primary direction for AM. However, other MDT divisions provide input (data, information, etc.) utilized in the P3 Process. Additional, all strategic initiatives route through MDT Management (directorâs office, etc.) and concurrence is gained through partners (FHWA, locals, etc.). â¢ North DakotaâThe department has a division dedi- cated to Asset Management, similar to other divisions (Construction, Bridge, Design, etc.). â¢ New HampshireâThere used to be a very active AM group that was more focused on identifying critical assets to be collecting inventory and condition for. The group was made up of project development and operations man- agers and staff, but lacked the ability to directly assign resources to make work efforts priorities. A more recent leaner AM task force is reviewing New Hampshireâs overall approach to AM in relation to other states to assess our overall approach and progress. This new group is cur- rently made up of upper-level management staff. â¢ New JerseyâNJDOT has an Asset Management Steering Committee made up of senior leaders to establish AM goals and to guide policy relating to AM. â¢ NevadaâStrategic Data Group (various divisions) and Maintenance and Asset Management Offices. â¢ OhioâThe Asset Management Leadership group is a multidisciplinary group made up of the various âbusi- ness ownersâ in the department. This group includes representation from planning, pavement, bridge, safety, hydraulics, maintenance, construction, and long-range planning (modes). â¢ OregonâAsset Management Integration Section serves to facilitate and coordinate efforts across ODOT; current emphasis is on highway assets, includ- ing bicycle and pedestrian facilities; steering commit- tee includes representation from most ODOT divisions. â¢ PennsylvaniaâWe have formed an Asset Management Division within the Bureau of Maintenance and Operations. Division is responsible for primary assets including bridges and pavements, but also overall efforts including ancillary assets and planning and pro- gramming activities. An Asset Management Steering Committee and Working Group have also been formed. â¢ South DakotaâEach type of asset has a task force assigned to it. Each task force is comprised of indi- viduals from various offices as the nature of the asset would require. Individuals from Operations, Road Design, Bridge Design, Materials & Surfacing, Project Development, and Administration are included in the task forces. â¢ UtahâSenior management, quarterly meetings chaired by deputy director with a focus on pavements and bridges. â¢ Washington StateâGroup includes Pavement Management, Bridge, Traffic, Safety Executives, Hydraulics and Ferry Operations. â¢ WisconsinâBureau of State Highway Programs provides AM data and guidance to Wisconsin DOT regions to assist with highway program planning. ASSET MANAGEMENT AND DATA Inventory AM is a strategic approach to managing infrastructure and places a premium on good information in all aspects and in all departmental units. The integration of TAM principles requires agencies to know the condition of each managed asset, which leads to the need for an asset inventory. As shown in Table 3, all 43 responding agencies have an asset inventory. This response is of no surprise given the commonality of pavement and bridge inventories. There are seven asset categories beyond pavements and bridges, with signs being represented in 77% (33 of 48) of the inventories.
16 Managing asset condition is directly dependent on the methods used for collection and resulting data quality achieved. Each asset can have unique features which, for various reasons, favor manual or automated collection. Agen- cies are left to determine which method to use (automated or manual) for each inventoried asset. Choosing the collec- tion method involves careful consideration of many factors, including manpower, accuracy, availability, and costs. Table 6 shows the variability in data collection methods among asset types and responding agencies. For example, Survey participants identified a variety of âotherâ assets in their inventories. Table 4 shows the other assets main- tained within various state inventoriesâsuch as ITS, sig- nals, and noise wallsâthat were listed by multiple agencies. Condition Assessment An essential element of AM is knowing the condition of each inventoried asset. However, selecting the frequency to collect and update this information can vary by agency, given the cost to collect the information, the methods used to manage the asset, and the ability to staff these activities. To this point, participating agencies provided the frequency at which condition surveys are conducted for eight common assets (Table 5). The results suggest the extent of collection and maturity of AM practice by asset type. For example, 100% of the pavement and bridge condition information is either collected annually or biennially (every other year). Pavement markings and signs had the highest (nonpave- ment/bridge) annual collection among agencies at 30% and 27%, respectively.
17 integration. Data integration is essential to transform the data into information that is able to support decision mak- ing at the various management levels. Transportation agen- cies must organize the available data into suitable forms for applications at the different organizational levels of decision making (FHWA 2009). This venture presents a significant challenge because of the difficulty of data integration. Of the 42 responses, 37 agencies (88%) reported having a data integration effort. Of the 42 responding agencies, 22 (52%) had completed an assessment of data needs for AM, have a QA/QC process, and are conducting integration efforts. Out of these 22 agencies, 13 (60%) reported having an AM group to guide their efforts in contrast to 9 agencies (40%) that do not have a AM group. ASSET MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES When agencies summarized their AM progress to date and anticipated activities over the next 2 to 5 years, it became clear that a great deal of effort and priority was being placed on development of these systems. As shown in Table 7, the majority (70%) of agencies are expanding inventories beyond bridges and pavements with considerable management capabilities and integration under future consideration. The survey results show that state DOTs have made significant advances in the implementation of AM practices because none (0 of 43 responses) selected the first two options (mini- mal effort or inventories for only pavements and bridges). The results also show that more progress needs to be made to move from expanding inventories (31 agencies), to compre- hensive inventories and implementation (currently at 12 of 43 agencies). The AASHTO Transportation Asset Manage- ment Guide: A Focus on Implementation (2011) can provide those agencies with the tools and processes needed to make those advancements. Agencies were asked to report on the extent to which the AM information is being used within their organization. As shown in Figure 2, the majority of responses showed that they are integrating assets beyond pavements and bridges (90%), were working to integrate policies in resource alloca- tion (85%), and integrating AM as part of their performance requirements (75%). Nearly 35% of the agencies are using AM at the highest level to assess return on investment for infrastructure spending. 93% of the agencies reported collecting pavement condition information in an automated or semiautomated method. In contrast, 80% of the bridge, 83% of culverts, and roughly 60% of the signs and pavement marking condition surveys are conducted manually. The maturation of field technolo- gies and changes in compliance requirements can influence how these condition surveys are conducted in the future. As an example, sign and pavement marking assets have tradi- tionally been collected manually. Recent FHWA rulemaking has established minimum retroreflectivity levels for signs and introduced potential policies for pavement markings. These actions, along with advancements in the capabilities of mobile vans to acquire these types of data, are reflected in automated or semiautomated collections being 34% for signs and 32% for pavement markings. Data Needs âData collection, data management, and data integration are essential parts of the Asset Management framework that are critical to its success and utilization within a highway agency. Timely and accurate data lead to information and form the basis for effective and efficient decision makingâ (FHWA 2009). The success and maturity of any AM process relies on the identification of primary AM data needs across the orga- nization. Of the responding agencies, 28 of 42 (67%) had completed this effort. This is an area where agencies need support to complete this critical activity. Identifying data needs to support AM practices streamlines the data collec- tion process, minimizes collection costs and allows agencies to plan and allocate staff resources to accommodate access and integration needs. The data collected to support decision making must be rigorously defined and collected under specific parameters such as a data specification, documented frequency, accu- racy, and completeness to name a few. Assuring the quality of these data entails evaluating the data integrity, accuracy, and validity. Of the 42 responses, 31 (74%) reported that they have a process to assess the quality of the collected data. Given that transportation asset data are collected at dif- ferent times, groups, and methods, and are stored in vary- ing formats and media, there is naturally a need for data
18 ASSET MANAGEMENT PROCESS AND SUPPORT ACTIVITIES Agencies were asked to comment on the state of practice on the use of AM within their organization. As shown in Table 8, agency AM programs are at different points of integra- tion, with only one (Wisconsin) agency having developed a TAMP and fully implemented it into their business process. The results show that 14% of the agencies collect data but do not perform any AM management activities, while 44% have moved to the next step of developing a TAMP. Only 31% of the agencies (13 of 42) have either developed a TAMP or are using their TAMP to manage their assets. A TAMP is an essential management tool that brings together all related internal and external business processes and stakeholders to achieve a common understanding and commitment to improved performance. It is a tactical-level document that focuses its analysis, options development, programs, delivery mechanisms, and reporting mechanisms on ensuring that strategic objectives are achieved. Given this definition, participants were asked to identify how the TAMP is used within their organization and allowed to check all that apply. Most of the agencies that have a TAMP (13 of 31) noted that their TAMP was used for both short- and long-term planning efforts. Eight of these 31 respondents noted that their TAMP is kept up to date and serves as a resource document on a reg- ular basis, and 14 indicated that they would share their TAMP with the study team. Ultimately, only five agencies (Georgia, New Jersey, Nevada, Ohio, and Oregon) shared their TAMPs, which were assessed in terms of meeting the requirements of the AASHTO AM Guide and in being a TAMP rather than an implementation plan, (see chapter four). Recently, AAS- HTO has approved a research project as part of the AASHTO Standing Committee on Planning (08-36) program to develop TAMP templates for highway agencies. FIGURE 2 Agency use of asset management information (multiple responses allowed).
19 Participants were then asked to characterize their agen- ciesâ efforts in working with decision makers and other stakeholders to incorporate the TAMP as part of their business processes. As shown in Table 9, the majority of responses show that they are active and have made efforts across multiple departments and business units. To gauge the benefits of using AM in the decision-mak- ing process, participants were asked to identify the result- ing outcomes. As shown in Table 10, the majority indicated that their decisions are more data driven, defensible, and performance-based. Participants were also asked to characterize the state of practice on staffing and support of TAMP activities. Table 11 shows the results, with an encouraging 24 of 40 agen- cies (60%) indicating that the AM activities are led by top- level management and 25 of 40 (63%) indicating that they have identified an AM champion in the organization. Of those agencies that have identified an AM champion, 16 of 25 (64%) said that their AM efforts are led by top-level management. In contrast, only 9 out of 25 (36%) agencies without an AM champion indicated that their AM efforts are led by top-level management. This shows the impor- tance of having an AM champion in the organization to advance AM practices. When asked to identify the key asset performance data that drive decision making across the organization, the most common response was physical condition (98%) followed by safety (90%), as shown in Table 12. Items noted under the âotherâ category included the following: â¢ Data from the Maintenance Quality Assurance program â¢ Public perception â¢ Transit ridership â¢ Vicinity projects â¢ Work program funding â¢ Life-cycle cost and remaining life tradeoff considerations â¢ Balance of resources and operational capabilities (i.e., resources available may limit to mill and fill versus more ideal reconstruction). Table 13 shows the functions and processes included within the TAMP for the 31 responding agencies. The most frequent answer (81%) was that the TAMP provides a pro- cess to review and update asset performance targets, along with limitations of data collection and decision making. The next most common answer, at 65%, was that the TAMP pro- vides the ability to forecast asset performance as part of the decision-making process. Responding agencies also indicated the types of projects that are selected based on AM process and performance mea- sures. Table 14 shows that the majority of projects selected are for pavements and bridges (more than 90%), with the remaining project types selected using AM processes being below 50%. Table 15 shows agency decision-making processes related to performance, project selection, investment policies, tools, communications, and risk assessment. The results show
20 that agencies are incorporating AM practices in their deci- sion making (49% to 57%). However, fewer than 30% of the agencies indicated that risk is being incorporated into the decision-making process for either short- or long-term periods. One of the reasons for the drop in decision making, beyond pavement and bridges, is the lack of data. To this point, 27% of the agencies that are not using AM to select maintenance and operations projects also indicated that they do not have inventory/condition data for these operational assets (e.g., signs, pavement marking, guardrail). One of the keys to advancing agency AM practices lies in identifying and addressing the primary barriers to development and implementation. Accordingly, partici- pants were asked to identify the major barriers faced in developing and implementing their AM processes. Table 16 shows that a lack of resources and staff were the pri- mary barriers faced, followed by resistance to change and interdepartmental interactions. Twenty-two agencies (51%) identified lack of expertise and training as a major challenge which highlights a need for additional training support at all levels. Fourteen agencies (33%) selected executive commitment as a barrier to implementing AM. As shown earlier, executive-level support had a positive effect on the utilization of AM practices. Only two (5%) of the responding agencies noted that a lack of guidance and support from FHWA and/or AASHTO was considered a barrier to progress. These challenges will be a resource for target and advance AM support activities. SELF-ASSESSMENT SURVEY RESULTS The self-assessment survey results are based on responses from 18 participating agencies (see Appendix B). Two participants that completed the self-assessment survey did not complete the second AM state-of-the-practice survey. Although the self-assessment is an optional step in AM planning, it is extremely useful to help organize thinking, develop a consensus among top-level managers as to where the agencyâs strengths and needs for improvement lie, and structure an agenda for AM planning. The self-assessment survey presented lists a series of statements organized around the four key areas of AM (see Figure 3): â¢ Policy goals and objectives â¢ Planning and programming â¢ Program delivery â¢ Information and analysis. Each statement covers a key aspect of AM practice and is stated in a declarative form (e.g., âOur agency conducts life- cycle cost analyses for project alternativesâ). Respondents are asked to rate the extent to which they agree with each statement, using a scale of 1 to 4. A â4â indicates strong agreement with the statement, whereas a â1â indicates strong disagreement. The self-assessment survey is normally undertaken by multiple staff within the agency covering different offices and different levels in terms of responsibilities, and would include all the asset managers responsible for managing the agencyâs portfolio of assets. In this case, only one per- son per participating agency completed the survey (with help from multiple staff), and the results and analysis are geared toward national trends in terms of how AM princi- ples are practiced currently, and what is the desired level of practice in the next 5 years. The following sections briefly discuss the self-assessment survey results; Appendix D provides more detailed information and the actual data from the survey.
21 Figure 4 shows the results from the self-assessment sum- mary, divided into the following three areas: â¢ Current: These results reflect the 18 agencies (on average) assessment of their current AM practices as it relates to the 4 parts. Part D (Information and Analysis) had the highest numbers (52% of the agencies surveyed) in the categories of â1 and 2â (Strongly Disagree and Disagree) showing the need for more effective and efficient data collection, data and information sharing and integration, and the use of decision support tools. Only 7% selected âStrongly Agreeâ for this part. The lowest numbers in categories â1 and 2â come from Part C (Program Delivery) at 36%, indicating that agencies have made progress when dealing with cost tracking and esti- mating, program management, and alternative deliv- ery mechanisms. FIGURE 3 Self-assessment AM areas. FIGURE 4 Self-assessment summary results.
22 â¢ Desired in 5 years: These results reflect the desired AM practices by the 18 participating agencies. The majority of the responses (all areas above 54%) are all in category 4 (Strongly Agree), which means that those agencies are interested in making plans to further adopt AM prac- tices as part of their decision-making process. The high- est is for Part A (Policy Guidance) at 65% and the lowest was in Part B (Planning and Programming). When both categories (Agree and Strongly Agree) are combined, all areas are 98% or above. This indicates that the partici- pating agencies agree with the need to practice AM, but are still struggling to accomplish at all levels. â¢ Difference: The numbers represent the difference between current AM practices and desired within 5 years. The largest difference was for Part D (Information and Analysis), with 50% of the agencies desiring improved AM practices in this area. The lowest was for Part C (Program Delivery) with only 34% of the agencies indi- cating that it is an area where AM is not practiced. In addition to performing an aggregated analysis of the self-assessment, individual questions can be analyzed to identify national needs and focus areas to address training, development, and gaps in research. Table 17 shows the ques- tions under each of the four areas that result in a difference between the current and desired level above 50% (more than half the survey participants indicated that their agencies are not practicing AM principles in these areas but that they want to do so in the next 5 years). The majority of the issues are found in Part D (Informa- tion and Analysis). The following is a narrative for each question identified and a brief description of the findings. Part A: Policy Guidance â¢ A3 (policies support a long-term life-cycle approach to evaluating investment benefits and costs): 12 of the 18 responding agencies identified this as a major area of improvement with the majority moving from âdis- agreeâ to âstrongly agree.â This is consistent with the AM state-of-the-practice survey where only 52% of the responding agencies indicated that they had poli- cies to support their long-range planning process.
23 ery status): This question is related to communica- tion, and 12 out of 18 agencies indicated that they are not meeting this policy, with the majority moving from âdisagreeâ to âagree.â The AM state-of-the- practice survey showed that only 54% indicated that they have processes to share AM results with external stakeholders. Part D: Information and Analysis A range of 56% to 67% (10 to 12 of the 18 agencies) indi- cated the need to make an improvement from their current level of activity to the desired levels in 5 years, with almost all of the change coming from the âstrongly disagreeâ to the âstrongly agree.â These questions are very specific and have not been addressed directly in the AM state-of-the- practice survey. â¢ D4 (our agency regularly collects customer percep- tions of asset condition and performance). â¢ D6 (agency managers and staff at different levels can quickly and conveniently obtain information they need about asset characteristics, location, usage, condition, or performance). â¢ D8 (our agency can easily produce map displays show- ing needs/deficiencies for different asset classes and planned/programmed projects). â¢ D9 (our agency has established data standards to pro- mote consistent treatment of existing asset-related data and guide development of future applications). â¢ D11 (information on changes in asset condition over time is used to improve forecasts of asset life and dete- rioration in our AM systems). â¢ D16 (forecast future system performance under differ- ent mixes of investment levels by program category). â¢ D18 (our agency monitors actual system performance and compares these values to targets projected for its capital improvement program). â¢ D19 (our agency monitors actual system performance and compares these values to targets projected for its maintenance and operations program). â¢ A7 (our agency has a business plan or strategic plan with comprehensive, well-defined goals and objectives to guide resource allocation): Even though the self-assess- ment did not clearly identify this as a TAMP question, this is a major function that a TAMP can address. Eleven of the 18 agencies indicated the need for improvement in this area. The results from the AM state-of-the-practice survey support this, with only 35% reporting that their TAMPs support these functions. Part B: Planning and Programming â¢ B3 (capital versus operations tradeoffs are explicitly considered in seeking to improve traffic movement): Fourteen of the 18 responding agencies indicated their desire to make an improvement in this area, with the majority moving from âdisagreeâ to âagree.â â¢ B11 (project selection is based primarily on an objec- tive assessment of relative merits and the ability to meet performance targets): The majority indicates the need to improve this process; the difference between current and desired processes is primarily coming from mov- ing from âdisagreeâ to âstrongly agree.â â¢ B13 (a maintenance quality assurance study has been implemented to define levels of service for transpor- tation system maintenance): Even though the AM state-of-the-practice survey did not have a direct ques- tion to address this point, all of the respondents in the âstrongly disagree/disagreeâ categories for current levels change to âagree/strongly agreeâ for the desired in 5 years indicating the importance of this activity. Part C: Program Delivery â¢ C7 (projects with significant changes to scope, sched- ule, or cost are reprioritized to ensure that they are still competitive in cost and performance): Ten out of 18 agencies reported that their current practices fall short of this goal. â¢ C9 (external stakeholders and policy-makers believe that they are sufficiently updated on program deliv-