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.
24 CHAPTER FOUR SURVEY RESULTS ANALYSIS This chapter provides an in-depth analysis of the survey responses regarding AM implementation processes and practices along the following parameters: â¢ The impact (importance) of having a mandate (internal or external) on implementing AM practices (13 had a mandate versus 30 without a mandate) â¢ The importance of having an AM group (26 had a group versus 17 that did not) â¢ Analysis of TAMP examples provided by agencies (5 agencies provided a copy of their TAMP) â¢ Outreach activities (TAM conferences in 2009 and 2012). IMPACT OF HAVING A MANDATE ON ASSET MANAGMENT PRACTICES Overall, 13 of the 43 (30%) responding agencies are under a mandate to use AM principles. Table 18 shows the agencies and their mandate type. Table 19 shows that 70% of the agencies that have a man- date also have an AM group, as opposed to only 56% of the agencies that do not have a mandate. Among the agencies with a mandate, the source of the mandate (internal versus exter- nal) influences the existence of an AM group (84% internal versus 43% external). Having an AM group that coordinates the organizationâs AM activities is very beneficial to adopting AM practices. The next section examines the impact of hav- ing an AM group on some of these AM practices. When comparing agencies on inventory practices, agen- cies across the board (mandate or no mandate) did not differ. But when comparing condition assessment practices, agen- cies with an AM mandate conducted more frequent condition surveys for most of the assets they managed, with a focus on pavements and bridges. This finding indicates how agencies have placed a focus on pavements and bridges as their initial attempt at AM implementation. Over time, a maturity in AM processes will further reduce contrast between asset types. Table 20 shows the results of the comparison of condition assessment practices. When identifying AM primary data needs, comparing agencies with an AM mandate to those that do not have one shows that there is really no difference between the two groups. However, when we look at efforts assessing the quality of the data (QC/QA), 85% (11 of 13) of the agencies under an AM mandate reported having a process to ensure data quality, compared with 69% (20 of 29 responses) of the agencies without a mandate. This shows that agencies that utilize the data for decision making put more empha- sis on the quality of the data. Table 21 shows the complete results of this comparison. When comparing data integra- tion efforts, there was no major difference between the two groups with 93% of agencies with mandate and 89% with no mandate.
25 When mandate and no-mandate agencies are compared for AM progress to date and future short-term anticipated activities (2 to 5 years), 32% of the mandate agencies indi- cated that they have complete inventories with future activi- ties focused on advancing AM capabilities compared with 26% for the no-mandate agencies. Even though the differ- ence is not substantial, when combined with other survey questions, this finding presents evidence that agencies with an AM mandate have made more progress in implementing AM activities. Table 22 shows the complete comparison. IMPACT OF HAVING AN ASSET MANAGEMENT GROUP ON ASSET MANAGEMENT PRACTICES In total, 26 agencies had an AM group, compared with 17 that had none. The agencies with an AM group are ahead in incorporating AM principles and practices to resource allocation, project selection, decision support tools, and performance reporting. Table 23 shows that, on average, the agencies that had an AM group were ahead of the others by 12%. This finding shows the impact of having an AM group that guides an organizationâs AM activity development and implementation. The existence of the AM group appears to have more influence on AM activi- ties. Agencies with an AM group exhibit more maturity in AM implementation. Thirty-one percent of the agencies without an AM group do not use AM principles, although they have asset inven- tories. In contrast, only 4% of the agencies that have an AM group report not using AM principles. Table 24 shows the complete comparison for the different categories. The remaining categories (on an increasing maturity scale) show more agencies in each category when the agency has an AM group. Most agencies with an AM group are either ahead in planning and have a TAMP, or are at various stages of implementation. This finding provides further evidence of the benefit of having a group to coordinate an organizationâs AM activities. Having an AM group within the organization helps the agency become more AM oriented when making decisions. Table 25 shows that agencies with an AM group score higher on every category of decision-making characteristics by an average of 18%.
26 When comparing the AM decision-making process between agencies with an AM group versus no AM group, the agencies with an AM group have made more progress in implementing performance-based resource allocation (58% versus 35%), AM processes (46% versus 41%), and bal- ancing preservation and capital expenditures (58% versus 41%). Table 26 provides the results for the different aspects of the decision-making process. The results show that agen- cies with an AM group have made greater progress when considering short- or long-term risk as part of the decision- making process. TRANSPORTATION ASSET MANAGEMENT PROGRAM ANALYSIS A TAMP is an essential management tool that brings together all related business processes and internal and external stake-
27 holders 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 (AASHTO 2011). Of the 31 agencies having a TAMP, when asked if the partici- pant could share their TAMP with the study team, 14 of 31 indi- cated that they would. Ultimately, only five agencies (Georgia, New Jersey, Nevada, Ohio, and Oregon) shared their TAMPs. When discussing the TAMP with other agencies, it was evident that even though they said that they have a TAMP, they did not have a single document describing the TAMP. Instead, they had bits and pieces of a TAMP that existed in different offices within the organization. This section provides an assessment of the provided TAMPs in terms of meeting the requirements of the 2002 AASHTO Transportation Asset Management Guide and in being a TAMP and not just an AM implementation plan. It does not assess whether the TAMP is satisfactory. The 2011 AASHTO Transportation Asset Management Guide: A Focus on Implementation presented a typical structure for an initial TAMP that is consistent with the 2002 AASHTO Transportation Asset Management Guide recommendations. This structure can change depending on the available content and ultimate use of the document. The TAMP concludes not only with a TAM improvement plan for the agency, but also in identifying short- and long-term financial program needs linked to the expected life-cycles of each asset: â¢ Executive summary â¢ Introduction â¢ Levels of service â¢ Life-cycle management â¢ Growth and demand â¢ Financial management â¢ TAM practices â¢ Improvement plan â¢ Appendices. A summary of the TAMPs provided by the five agencies follows. Nevada DOT (NDOT 2009) NDOT provided two documents as part of their AM plan. Even though NDOT stated on the survey that it had a TAMP, the documents provided were more of an AM implementa- tion plan. The two documents (TAM Implementation Plan and TAM Strategic Plan) covered some aspects of a TAMP and included the following components: â¢ Executive summary â¢ Introduction to AM â¢ Improvement plan â¢ Gap analysis using the 2002 AASHTO Transportation Asset Management Guide self-assessment tool. The NDOT AM implementation plan will consider resource allocation utilizing AM principles. Figure 5 shows the process. FIGURE 5 NDOT resource allocation process [Source: (NDOT 2011)].
28 This approach is in line with information gathered from other DOTs, where the TAMP does not exist as a single docu- ment that can be easily accessed, updated, and communicated. The NDOT documents are a good start, but fall short of a TAMP because they lack levels of service discussion, a life-cycle management section, and a financial management section. Ohio DOT (Ohio DOT 2011) The Ohio DOT is developing a TAMP; its current document is basically an AM plan. The AM plan lists eight recommendations to help the department develop and implement an AM process: â¢ Adopt TAM as its business process for managing criti- cal assets and making capital investment decisions. â¢ Establish Asset Task Committees sponsored by the appropriate Central Office Division to establish state- wide standards, procedures, and formats for a central- ized asset inventory database. â¢ Develop a centralized AM platform for integration of all asset inventory databases to reside in a geospatial environment. â¢ Make a concerted effort to collect AM data directly related to supporting a âSafety Firstâ philosophy in all aspects of transportation system development and operation. â¢ Leverage existing resources and new technology to enhance asset inventory collection with improved safety, efficiency, and data quality. â¢ Implement management systems around critical assets, with a focus on developing an integrated AM process. â¢ Require as-built plans and data for all future proj- ects and establish a work order-based asset inventory updating process to ensure that the centralized asset database remains updated. â¢ Utilize the Departmentâs Research and Development Program to support TAM activities. As per the recommendations, Ohio DOT is focusing on critical assets as shown in Table 27. The list of critical assets includes pavements, bridges, safety assets (e.g., signs, guard rail, signals), and multimodal assets such as railways and ports, which shows that Ohio DOT is no longer focusing only on pavements and bridges as part of its AM plan. As was the case with the NDOT, the Ohio DOT TAMP does not really fulfill all of the requirements as discussed in the 2002 AASHTO Transportation Asset Management Guide and fails to include any financial or level of service informa- tion. However, the document is a good start for an imple- mentation plan. The focus on developing an integrated AM process will be key for further improvements. Oregon DOT (ODOT 2011) The updated ODOT AM strategic plan (from November 2011) is provided here: (http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/ TD/asset_mgmt/docs/plans/04-amsp-10-111711_final. pdf). An updated vision for the future of Asset Manage- ment efforts was adopted in 2010 by the Asset Management Steering Committee: ODOT makes decisions and allocates funds for stewardship of transportation infrastructure stra- tegically, maximizing the life-cycle of each component to make the best use of constrained resources. These deci- sions are supported by reliable data that are collected once for use by many. Table 28 assesses the data available in terms of statewide accessibility, and shows that ODOT has been making improvements since 2005 in terms of data availability and coverage to other asset categories. ODOT is also focused on developing a technology strategy to guide the integration of asset data and decision making, as shown in Figure 6. However, this document is still more of an AM implementation plan than a TAMP.
29 FIGURE 6 Oregon DOT AM technology strategy/integration [Source: (ODOT 2011)]. New Jersey DOT (NJDOT 2010) The NJDOT document is the highest-level summary that is sup- ported by a number of more detailed documents for each sub- ject matter area (in some cases, asset specific), which are called tactical plans. The NJDOT is looking to update its TAMP in the near future to reflect the changes that have taken place since 2010 and to assess the impact of its 2011â2020 investment plan. The NJDOT TAMP includes all the components dis- cussed in the 2002 AASHTO Transportation Asset Manage- ment Guide, and includes the following sections: â¢ Executive summary â¢ Introduction â¢ Assets owned â¢ Level of service provided (by asset) â¢ Demand/growth (utilizing regional planning models) â¢ Life-cycle management plan â¢ Financial summary. Figure 7 shows the NJDOT Capital Investment Strategy targets, with projected and actual programmed dollars for all categories: bridge assets, road assets, congestion relief, mass transit, local support, multimodal, airports, and safety. FIGURE 7 NJDOT programmed dollars [Source: (NJDOT 2010)]. NJDOT developed a life-cycle management plan for each class of assets. The life-cycle management plan is a strategy to reach or maintain desired or targeted performance levels while minimizing long-term costs. These strategies outline maintenance, rehabilitation, and replacement plans. The life-cycle management plan should also consider the system expansion needs, though it does not apply to service invest-
30 not cover whether the level of service targets or investment plans are adequate; rather, it assesses the TAMP components recommended by the 2002 AASHTO Transportation Asset Management Guide. Georgia DOT 2011 The Georgia DOT TAMP is available online (http://www.dot. ga.gov/aboutGeorgiadot/Documents/Asset%20Management/ TAM.pdf), and an updated edition will be available online by the end of 2012 (http://www.dot.ga.gov/aboutGeorgiadot/ Pages/AssetManagement.aspx). It addresses all aspects of what a TAMP might include: â¢ Executive summary â¢ Introduction â¢ Levels of service â¢ Risk management â¢ Life-cycle management (pavements, bridges, and signs) â¢ Financial summary. Table 31 shows the Georgia DOT TAMPâs broad asset groups and values. The groups are not limited to physical assets; the summary includes facilities, vehicle and equip- ment, and IT equipment in addition to ITS infrastructure. The data provide a summary of the quantity, measure, and financial worth. This is part of the reportâs stewardship and life-cycle management section. As part the life-cycle management plan, the TAMP addresses the following aspects for each asset: â¢ Asset description â¢ Performance and service levels â¢ Plan to achieve performance levels â¢ Asset inventory â¢ Key issues â¢ Asset value (Table 32 shows the asset value for pave- ments by strategic objective. This helps the DOT ments such as safety and congestion. Table 29 shows the life- cycle management plan for structures and roads. NJDOTâs annual capital program totals approximately $2.1 billion. About $2.0 billion of the capital revenues are provided through federal and state formula funding, and the remaining $0.1 billion is provided through special federal high-priority project funding or other sources. These fund- ing levels are not predictable over an extended period. NJDOT assumes for its 10-year capital planning process that the federal funding act will be renewed in federal fiscal year 2010, and also assumes a 3% per year increase. As for the State Transportation Trust Fund, NJDOT is projecting that it will be renewed in state fiscal year 2012 at the same level with no annual inflation increase. Given these assumptions, NJDOT established a 10-year annual revenue level of $2.101 billion, as shown in Table 30. The table shows the investment category, annual invest- ment target, and percentage of the budget for each category. It is part of the NJDOT financial summary, as described in the TAMP. In summary, the NJDOT document is a true representa- tion of what a TAMP should include. This assessment does
31 in determining their needs that become part of their investment strategy) â¢ Remaining life â¢ Risk â¢ Revenue plan (Figure 8 shows the bridges revenue plan from 2001 to 2010. The figure shows how annual revenue needs far exceed budget for multiple years in this period.) â¢ Data reliability â¢ Improvement plan. FIGURE 8 Georgia DOT revenue plan for bridges [Source: (Georgia DOT 2011)]. Summary Out of the five agencies that provided what they termed their TAMP documents, only two (New Jersey and Geor- gia) provided TAMPs that are a good example of what a TAMP should be, according to the 2002 AASHTO Trans- portation Asset Management Guide. The remaining three agencies provided documents that are closer to implementa- tion plans or strategic plans to initiate comprehensive AM practices within their agencies. The material in these plans is encouraging as they are focusing on more than pavement and bridges, and consider integration, communication, and effective decision making. OUTREACH ACTIVITIES ANALYSIS To assess the impact of training and outreach activities on advancing AM practice among the state agencies, a comparison was made among agencies that attended the most recent AM conference in San Diego in April 2012 and the previous AM conference in Portland, Oregon, in 2009. A total of 26 DOTs attended the Portland meeting, compared with 34 that attended the San Diego meeting. Of the 36 DOTs represented in San Diego in 2012, 24 attended the 2009 Portland meeting. Table 33 shows the comparison between agencies attend- ing the AM conferences and AM state of the practice. It is interesting to observe that all but one of the agencies (11 of 12) that reported that they have complete inventories with future activities focused on advancing AM capabilities, training, and implementation have attended one or both conferences. When looking at AM implementation, Table 34 shows that among the six agencies that have not attended either of the last two AM conferences, four (66%) reported that they âcollect some asset information but donât do any man- agement.â Only two (5%) of the agencies that attended the AM conference have reported the same thing. In constrast, 10 of the 13 agencies that have developed a TAMP and are in various staging of implementing AM have attended the AM conference. Those differences may indicate that agencies that are developing and implementing AM look to these events to share knowledge, seek expert advice from other attendees, and learn what other agencies are doing to implement AM. An increasing level of awareness of AM at all levels leads to increased interest in AM, which helps agencies further understand the basic concepts of AM and why it is impor- tant. This in turn leads to more agencies adopting AM as a way of doing business.