Australasian Transport Research Forum 2011 Proceedings 28 - 30 September 2011, Adelaide, Australia Publication website: http://www.patrec.org/atrf.aspx
Improving traffic systems strategy and operations using a capability maturity approach Phil Charles, Luis Ferreira, Ronald John Galiza School of Civil Engineering, The University of Queensland Brisbane, Queensland, Australia 4072 Email for correspondence:
[email protected]
Abstract A structured approach is required to ensure significant and ongoing improvement in traffic systems strategy and operations. A review of improvement frameworks identified the Capability Maturity Model as a potentially useful approach to assess the current level of ‘capability’ of traffic management systems and identify future trajectories in the short to medium term. The paper outlines an application of the capability maturity process developed for traffic systems management, with a focus on improving the effectiveness of processes and institutional arrangements that lead to improved performance outcomes. The paper also discusses how the approach was used to provide tools to identify gaps in the performance of current practices, in relation to exemplar counterpart jurisdictions. Australian and international case studies were prepared to assess the concept framework and the findings are reported in this paper. It was found that the capability maturity approach was very useful, being readily understood by key stakeholders (both internal and external), and the tool enables an unbiased assessment of the current context and identification of priority actions for improvement. The Capability Maturity Model approach provides a useful basis for self or independent assessment and can be used to undertake benchmarking with a counterpart jurisdiction. Keywords: capability maturity model, evaluation and assessment, performance improvement, policy and planning, traffic systems operations.
1. Introduction How do traffic professionals ensure significant and ongoing improvement in traffic systems strategy and operations to push the boundaries of thinking to the next level? In this time of unprecedented technological advancement, organisations need to remain effective while confronting increasing demanding challenges. “It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent, but the most responsive to change.”1 As Flower points out, “understanding the reasons behind this change and managing them has become one of the primary tasks of management if an organisation is to survive” (Flower as cited in Forrester et al. 2011, p.81). Transport organisations are not immune to this wave of change. The ‘avoidable’ cost of congestion has been estimated to cost $13.5 billion in 2011 across the eight Australian capital cities and is expected to continue to rise through to 2020 and beyond (BTRE 2007). Improving the effectiveness of traffic management has to be part of a package of initiatives to address this enormous challenge.
1
Attributed to Charles Darwin (1809-1892)
1
ATRF 2011 Proceedings
In order to effect improvements in traffic systems strategy and operations, agencies need to assess their current capability levels. Knowing the current ‘capability’ provides a picture of the organisations’ core technical processes status quo and helps identify gaps in current practices, or opportunities for improvement. On the other hand, knowing where you want to go provides an opportunity to map out a clear path how to get there. A review of improvement frameworks identified the Capability Maturity Model (CMM) as a potentially useful approach to assess the current level of ‘capability’ of traffic management systems and identify future trajectories in the short to medium term. CMM focuses on improving processes in an organisation by describing “an evolutionary improvement path from ad hoc, immature processes to disciplined, mature processes with improved quality and effectiveness.” (SEI 2006, p.5). It is aimed at driving improvements across a division, an organisation or a region. Figure 1 illustrates how an organisation’s processes acts as the glue that holds the three critical dimensions (people; procedures and methods; and tools and equipment) in an organisation together. More details on CMM will be discussed in the succeeding sections. Figure 1: Three critical dimensions for process improvement
(Source: Chrissis et al. 2011)
CMM is a qualitative framework and here the concept has been adapted and developed specifically for traffic systems management, in order to facilitate innovative thinking at a strategic and tactical levels. It should be reiterated that the model aims to assess the current level of ‘capability’ of transport organisations focusing on their core processes. This paper is organised as follows: Section 2 reviews some popular improvement frameworks employed by other organisations. A more detailed overview of CMM is detailed in section 3. Other forms of CMM previously applied to transport are discussed in section 4 and the proposed model and case studies are discussed in section 5. Section 6 presents the findings and conclusions of this paper.
1.1 Review of Improvement Frameworks Success of organisations in achieving their objectives and addressing challenges being faced depends on their attitude towards continuous improvement. Implementing a process improvement program, especially in core business processes, is considered a critical step in order to keep pace with increased demands for higher levels of performance, constrained budgets and customer or community satisfaction. Which improvement framework that best suits the core business objectives of the organisation remains a key decision when initiating an improvement program. Most improvement frameworks were conceived as a response to the growing pressure from industry (especially in manufacturing and information technology) to improve product and service quality at reduced costs and more efficient delivery, hence may not be as appropriate for public sector programs. ACELG (2010) provides a comparison of 14 excellence frameworks, some of which are discussed below.
Improving Traffic Systems Strategy and Operations Using a Capability Maturity Approach
The following frameworks are some of the most frequently cited or used and were reviewed for the purpose of comparison for use in process improvement of traffic systems strategy and operations.
1.2 Benchmarking Benchmarking is a process improvement framework where processes and performance levels are compared to industry best practice. Early work on benchmarking was carried out in manufacturing but is being applied almost everywhere as a management tool for process improvement (Flower in Forrester et al. 2011). Benchmarking goes beyond measuring up and copying best practice of the best organisations in corresponding industries, with more benefits being gained by analysing successful processes in order to bridge performance gaps. By being aware how and where performance is lagging can motivate management to facilitate the change process. The process may be a one-off undertaking or can be treated as a permanent process to continually improve practices. A downside is that it requires a large number of jurisdictions to be prepared to invest time and effort in collating information on a consistent basis for comparison. However, there is no single benchmarking process that has been universally adopted, hence similar organisations implementing benchmarking exercises may not be able to make practical comparisons due to the differences in methodology. Kincaid points out that despite issues related to the differences in methodology and availability and quality of data and standardised data for meaningful comparison, it is still a useful tool to identify deficiencies in performance and can stimulate thinking (Kincaid and Tretheway 2006). Decision-makers need to be aware of the limitations of the analysis for it to be an effective decision-aid tool.
1.3 Balanced Scorecard The balanced scorecard (BSC) framework is described as a “strategic planning and management tool used to improve communications and monitor organisational performance against strategic goals” (ACELG 2010, p.15). It was conceived as a performance measurement framework that added strategic non-‐financial performance measures to traditional financial metrics, to give managers and executives a more 'balanced' view of organisational performance by Kaplan and Norton (1992). Figure 2: Typical Balanced Scorecard Framework
(Source: www.balancedscorecard.org)
According to D’Este (2010) a key feature of BSC is its ability to link objectives to measures (criteria) to targets to initiatives (responses) from a transport planning and performance
3
ATRF 2011 Proceedings
assessment point-of-view. Because BSC focuses more on assisting organisations to develop a strategic management system rather than on external benchmarking, comparison among similar organisations cannot be undertaken. An example of a typical balanced scorecard framework is shown in Figure 2. The challenge with BSC is that it is more applicable at a macro level and may not provide information on what specifically needs to be improved.
1.4 European Foundation for Quality Management (EFQM) EFQM is a ‘non-‐prescriptive framework that can be used to gain a holistic view of any organisation regardless of size, sector or maturity and provides a framework for comparison with other organisations’ (ACELG 2010, p.10). The framework is based on nine boxed criteria as detailed in Figure 3. Five of these are ‘Enablers’ which cover what an organisation does and four are ‘Results’ dealing with what it achieves and how. Founded in 1988, EFQM has 600 members comprising private and public organisations from different sectors. EFQM claim that their framework is the most widely used organisational framework in Europe and it is the basis for the majority of national and regional quality awards. In a review of process improvement frameworks by Evelina et al (2010) one of the advantages of EFQM is its ability to recommend possible concrete examples of how to achieve each criterion. However, it does not discuss implementation risk and also omits the organisation’s role handling within its framework. Figure 3: EFQM Model
(Source: Evelina et al. 2010, p. 322)
1.5 ISO 9000 Quality Management ISO 9000 is a quality management system broadly applicable to any service or product organisation. The requirements within the standard are included in Figure 4, which illustrates the process linkages presented in the standard clauses, although this figure does not show all processes at a detailed level. ISO 9001 is a very comprehensive standard, which tries to include guidelines for a whole organisation within eight clauses, and results in a rather non-specific content that is without concrete recommendations or examples. On the other hand, this enables application of the standard within any organisation. It is very ‘standard-wise’ in the language of the requirements and specific wordings, which cause inaccessibility for many potential users. Over the last two decades there has been a steady increase in the number of countries that have adopted ISO 9001 as their national quality standard, as well as a continual increase in the number of companies who certify to the standard (Evelina et al. 2010).
Improving Traffic Systems Strategy and Operations Using a Capability Maturity Approach
The standard has received some bad press because it fundamentally is focused on "say what you do, do what you say", making certification possible even if processes are not very good (Heston et al. 2007). Figure 4: ISO 9000 Quality Management System
(Source: Evelina et al. 2010, p. 321)
1.6 Capability Maturity Model (CMM) Maturity models have been used in a wide range of applications in sectors such as defence, information technology, health care, finance and transport. The best known is the Capability Maturity Model (CMM), developed by the Software Engineering Institute (SEI) of Carnegie Mellon University for information systems and technology assessment for organisations. It was originally conceived as a “method for assessing the capability of software contractors” for the US Department of Defence (Paulk et al. 1993). Maturity models evolved from a family of maturity grids describing in a few phrases, the typical behaviour exhibited by an organisation at a number of levels of ‘maturity’ or ‘capability’ (Fraser et al. 2002). CMM supports two improvement paths: continuous or staged representation. The continuous approach enables organisations to incrementally improve individual process area(s) selected by the organisation resulting in a ‘capability’ rating(s) (SEI 2006). Whereas the staged representation improves a set of related processes by incrementally addressing successive sets of process areas and yielding a ‘maturity’ level. Table 1 details the two paths and their corresponding levels. The differences are that there is no maturity level 0 for the staged representation, and at level 1, the capability level is ‘Performed’, whereas the maturity level is ‘Initial’. More details on the implementation of the continuous representation will be further detailed in the next section as this paper focuses on individual core transport processes of transport-related agencies which is the realm of capability levels. From the previous discussion of the limitations of the various alternative improvement framework approaches, CMM provides a potentially useful approach. One of the advantages of CMM is that its not just an assessment tool, but also a capability map that describes specific goals and practices required to reach the next level of capability or maturity (CaterSteel et al. 2006). CMM can provide the following information about an organisation’s set of practices and processes: • Current capability or maturity levels; • Target levels • Capability or maturity gaps (between current and target)
5
ATRF 2011 Proceedings
• • •
Critical gaps (biggest gaps) Industry best practice/ideal state Action plans
Table 1: CMM's two improvement paths and their levels Level
Continuous Representation Capability Levels
Staged Representation Maturity Levels
Level 0
Incomplete
N/A
Level 1
Performed
Initial
Level 2
Managed
Managed
Level 3
Defined
Defined
Level 4
Quantitatively Managed
Quantitatively Managed
Level 5
Optimising
Optimising
(Source: SEI 2006)
1.7 Overview of CMM As discussed above, CMM has two improvement paths, but since the focus of the proposed model deals with transport organisations’ core transport processes, the focus here will be on the continuous approach, yielding capability levels. Capability levels, which belong to a continuous representation, apply to an organisation’s process improvement achievement in individual process areas. These levels are a means for incrementally improving the processes corresponding to a given process area. There are six capability levels, numbered 0 through 5 as shown in Table 2. Table 2: CMM Capability Levels and Description Capability Level
Description
CL 0: Incomplete
Process either partially or not performed, process area goals not satisfied, no generic goals exist
CL 1: Performed
Satisfies specific goals in process areas, supports & enables processes to produce work products, processes not yet institutionalised
CL 2: Managed
Basic infrastructure, employs skilled people w/ resources, involves relevant stakeholders, practices retained in times of stress
CL 3: Defined
Process tailored from organisation’s standard processes, processes managed more proactively
CL 4: Quantitatively Managed
Process controlled using statistical and quantitative techniques, quality and process performance in statistical terms
CL 5: Optimising
Process improved based inherent variation, continuous process improvement through both incremental and innovative approaches
In CMM’s continuous approach, an agency’s core technical process is described at several discrete stages of capability, with a description of characteristic performance at various levels of granularity. The various components present are: • • • •
six levels of capability summary of the characteristics of each level a number of elements or activities (generic goals) in order to progress to the next level; and descriptions of each activity (generic practices).
Improving Traffic Systems Strategy and Operations Using a Capability Maturity Approach
2. Advancing Through Capability Levels A particular process area’s capability level consists of a generic goal and its related generic practices, which can improve its capability level. As the generic goals and practices in a capability level are satisfied, a strong foundation is established allowing progress to the next level. Because the previous levels serve as a foundation to the next, skipping capability levels is considered counterproductive.
2.1 Implementation Maturity assessments can be performed by self-assessment, either by an individual or a team, or by an external auditor or some combination. While an individual in isolation can perform self-assessments, it can be beneficial to approach as a team exercise. One reason for this is to eliminate single-respondent bias, and by involving people from different functional groups within an organisation, the assessment has a cross-functional perspective and provides opportunity for consensus and team building. When an organisation decides to implement a process improvement program in its core technical processes using CMM, a well-defined objective should be established. The next step is to constitute a process improvement team from suitable staff within the organisation. For the process improvement exercise to succeed, this team should be responsible to a toplevel executive and be committed to the change being implemented. Members of the group should be knowledgeable about all process work within the organisation. The team then conducts a comprehensive review of the activities, actions, and decisions for the identified process. The Standard CMM Appraisal Method for Process Improvement (SCAMPI) is normally employed during appraisals in order to compare an organisation’s processes to descriptions of effective practices in the reference model being used. Where a reference model is not available for a specific industry process improvement, the model should be formulated first by either conducting a Delphi method or a comprehensive review of industry-specific practices. The objectives of the appraisal are to understand the implemented processes, identify process weaknesses (“findings”), determine the level of satisfaction against the CMM model (“gap analysis”) and (if needed) assign ratings. Ratings are the extent to which the corresponding practices are present in the implemented processes of the organisation and are made based on the aggregate of evidence available to the process team. If the result of the appraisal does not meet the pre-defined target capability level, planned and recommended improvements should be made in order for it to advance to the next level.
2.2 CMM for Transport CMM has been adapted in a wide range of sectors including transport. Application in this field is still in its infancy and only a few applications have been identified. Generally, use of the model in transport requires a survey of transport experts or practitioners (e.g. using a Delphi approach). Alternatively a review of various jurisdictions’ practices, such as was carried out the IBM Intelligent Transport Maturity Model (Houghton et al. 2009) and the AASHTO Systems Operations and Management Guidance (Lockwood et al 2009). This results from a survey or review, which is then used to populate the maturity grid, from the base level to considered best practice. This can be used as a yardstick to measure processes and serves as a guide (from successful best practices) to effect improvement. As reiterated by Houghton et al (2009) that “all cities can learn from others’ experiences in order to accelerate their own programs”. Another approach proposed by D’Este (2010) utilised accepted levels of performance metrics.
7
ATRF 2011 Proceedings
2.3 IBM Intelligent Transport Maturity Model The IBM Intelligent Transport Maturity Model was formulated from interviews of transport officials and experts responsible for transport policies, programs and service operations in selected cities around the world (Houghton et al. 2009). The model specifically maps out strategies and plans in implementing Intelligent Transport System (ITS) deployment. It was found that some cities are more advanced in implementing ITS and that lagging cities can learn from the experiences of the former. IBM’s model consists of five levels of increasing maturity in ITS deployment namely: single mode; coordinated modes; partially integrated; multimodal integration; and multimodal optimised. The three main strategies where performance levels are evaluated are governance, transport network optimisation and integrated transport services. The model is a macro level multimodal analysis tool thus, hence not as useful or detailed for smaller single mode transport analysis. Like most maturity models, an organisation’s current and best practice levels can be mapped and gaps identified. Leading practice is considered to be shifting to the right over time (level 5: multimodal optimised). Figure 5 shows an illustration of the model. Figure 5: IBM Intelligent Transport Maturity Model
(Source: Houghton et al. 2009)
2.4 AASHTO Guide to Systems Operations and Management Improvement The AASHTO model guide was an offshoot of a research stream in the US Strategic Highway Research Program 2. The program researched what lies behind key processes and institutional features of state Department of Transportation (DOTs) that have improved. State DOTs exhibit distinct levels of capability in process and institutional dimensions from nominal to best practice (AASHTO 2010). The resulting guide is at the time of writing being developed online with a focus on self-assessment, and continuous improvement of process and institutional dimensions of systems operations and management of state DOTs (core technical processes have been excluded) (Lockwood et al. 2009).
Improving Traffic Systems Strategy and Operations Using a Capability Maturity Approach
There are four distinct levels of capability (performed, managed, established, and predictable) in the guidance structure for each of the six key dimensions (business processes, systems and technology, performance measurement, culture, organisation & workforce, and collaborations) (AASHTO 2010). A graphical illustration of the model is shown in Figure 6. The guide is not a ‘how to’ or ‘best practice’ guide to Systems Operation and Management (SO&M) but probes the current strengths and weaknesses of an agency’s current capability level in the six key dimensions. The guide also lists criteria and general strategies to reach the next level, specific actions to be implemented, staff responsibility and relationships and links actions to examples and references. Individual dimensions can be improved independently but the one with the lowest capability level should be improved first. As with any maturity model, capability levels should not be skipped. Figure 6: AASHTO SO&M Maturity Model
(Source: www.aashtosomguidance.org)
2.5 Hybrid Criterion-Referenced Assessment/Maturity Model This model was borne out of the need for a simple multi-faceted ‘at a glance’ format for evaluating transport system performance (D'Este 2010). The model was a variant of the criterion-referenced assessment/maturity model showing factors such as key performance measures, current and target level of performance, gap in performance, and lagging performance needing most attention, shown in Figure 7. 9
ATRF 2011 Proceedings
The number of performance levels is usually five but depends on the performance criteria (can be up to eight levels). The levels are sometimes adopted from existing widely accepted performance levels (e.g. star rating for safety). The levels span the range of possible performance from low to optimised but the highest level does not necessarily reflect best practice (more like an ideal situation). The target levels for each performance criteria may be exceeded at times on certain situations on the first instance of evaluation. Since the model is in its initial stages, it does not recommend measures on how to reach the target levels. Figure 7: Hybrid CRA/Maturity Model Approach
(Source: D'Este 2010)
3. Proposed CMM for Traffic Management 3.1 Development of a Concept Model The CMM concept developed for traffic management for this paper is outlined in Table 3. The top section comprises four core technical processes, Network Operations; Management of Incidents; Management of Special Events and Traffic Information, being described at a strategic level with succinct descriptors in each cell, although different or additional processes could also be used. The lower part of the table outlines business and institutional processes, viz: Planning; Processes; Data Collection and Analytics; and Performance metrics – strategic to operational and again these could be varied or added to. It is not a definitive or agreed framework but was developed by the authors as a demonstration concept for the purposes of this paper. Applying the model would involve considering objectives and strategies to the planning horizon, identifying opportunities and compiling actions, investigations, etc, that would be needed to proceed to implement improvements and move towards leading practice. It is a means of stimulating thinking, with a focus on outcomes. Implementation involves mapping out specifics, tactics, systems, and processes needed to move forward. This model can assist in making comparisons with other jurisdictions; and can also be useful as a means of identifying potential areas or practices worth investigating further in other jurisdictions. It can be used to map the as-is range of views from key stakeholders; and then consider the wouldlike-to-be position, say in 10 years. This is a qualitative framework, which does not necessarily suggest any service should generally move towards the right (i.e. towards level 5). The preferred state in any jurisdiction needs to consider the current operating environment, the extent of the problem that the particular service or function is aiming to address, and available resources. It should be reiterated that this is a subjective assessment and depends on the interpretation and judgment of the reviewer, and that there are no right or wrong answers.
Improving Traffic Systems Strategy and Operations Using a Capability Maturity Approach Table 3: Concept Capability Maturity Model for Traffic Operations Level:
1: Initial
Ad hoc, chaotic. Focus: Processes poorly controlled
2: Managed
3: Defined
4: Predictable 5: Optimising
Clear Defined Manage objectives. processes and processes Often reactive managed quantitatively
Performance optimised for future needs.
Core Technical Processes: Network Operations
Active traffic management
Incident Management detection, response, site of Incidents and traffic management
Centralised Ad hoc, largely passive traffic coordinated traffic management management
Automated network management
Managed motorways (ramps, speeds), multimodal
Manual detection, response and management
Automated detection and decision support
Dynamic multiStrategic multi- modal agency diversions, response plans using real time traffic info
Management Traffic impact of Special events and road Ad hoc Events occupancies
Traffic Information
Pre-trip, onroad, in-vehicle, mobile and location-based (LB)
Static traffic information with limited real-time alerts
Coordinated response
Coordinated planned Manage to response, agreed managed road outcomes occupancies Limited onroad traffic information, multi-channel information, subscription based alerts
Multi-modal response
Comprehensive on-road and On-road alerts, location based multi-channel, multi-modal on-journey location-based journey info
Real-time simulation, multi-modal traffic management
Multi-modal, multi-agency, managed events in realtime Location based traffic information, proactive rerouting
… etc Business & Institutional Processes:
Business Planning and Institutional Arrangements
Planning – actions to achieve outcomes
Minimal strategic Business plan Strategic and Integrated planning, with short term action planning multi-modal, functional area (1-2y) horizon agency-wide multi-user plans
Processes
Processes Few processes defined and defined documented
Comprehensive strategic plan, multi-agency, with longer term horizon (10y)
Processes are stable and predictable, integrated across organisation
Processes integrated with other responder agencies
Processes are continuously reviewed and systematically updated
Near real-time for major Data Collection corridors, Limited, ad hoc networked, and Analytics periodic analytics
Fused realtime on major corridors, combined interface, high level analytics
Real-time information on all major corridors, for road-based modes, detailed analytics
Data used to select improvements. System wide real-time multimodal analytics
Performance metrics – strategic to operational
Selective metrics, defined by key modal services
Multi-modal, system wide, systematic metrics
Strategic and operational metrics, regularly reported
Minimal metrics
Ad hoc metrics, limited agency integration
… etc
The second stage of the concept development involved taking one of the processes, in this case Management of Incidents, and developing Table 4 which outlines a more detailed approach to managing traffic incidents. The scope of the model can be adapted to requirements – whether an individual agency unit or geographic area, a single or multijurisdictional focus or even type of traffic network (motorway, arterial or both).
11
ATRF 2011 Proceedings Table 4: Concept Detailed Capability Maturity Model for Management of Traffic Incidents Level: Focus:
1: Initial Ad hoc, chaotic. Purpose generally achieved
2: Managed
3: Defined
4: Predictable
5: Optimising
Clear objectives. Performance tracked
Defined processes performed and managed
Manage processes quantitatively
Performance optimised for current and future needs.
Initiate
Ad hoc, reactive
TMC despatch
Agreed classes, ‘hotspots’ identified
Manage despatch according to potential impact
Dynamic response scheduling, using vehicle location
Respond
Baseline, eg maintenance crew
Dedicated IR, peak periods, motorways
Dedicated IR, business hours, all high traffic roads
Dedicated 24/7 IR, all high traffic roads, some HVR
Dedicated 24/7 IR + HVR, backup services
Manage traffic
Ad hoc, rely on Police
Traffic control support, motorway
TR all high traffic roads, responders traffic aware
Dedicated 24/7 TR, all high traffic roads
Dedicated 24/7 TR, backup service
Clear site
Ad hoc
Routine towing services
Towing + HVR in peak periods, motorways
QC policy for towing, all high traffic roads
QC target for towing + HVR + specialist clearance
Provide traffic information
Minimal, ad hoc
Limited on-road, radio broadcast
Location-based, subscription based alerts, fused multisource data
Comprehensive onroad & in-journey location-based, travel time estimates, route planning
Automated, locationbased (multi-channel), dynamic re-routing
Agency QC policy, strategy and action planning, medium horizon (2-3 y)
QC policy & target, multi-agency strategy and action planning, agency program (funded)
Comprehensive multiagency integrated strategy and action planning, longer term horizon (3-5y)
Strategy & planning
Minimal
Business plan, short term (1y) horizon
Processes
Few defined
Mostly defined and documented
Stable and predictable, use traffic systems (detect, monitor)
Integrated with other responder agencies
Integrated, continuously reviewed and updated
Limited, ad hoc
Some real-time, periodic analytics for major corridors
Near real-time for major corridors, high level operational analytics
Real-time for all major corridors, strategic & operational analytics, inter-agency sharing
Automatic data collection, used to select improvements. System wide real-time analytics
Minimal, ad hoc
Operational, periodic reporting
Some agreed measures, strategic & operational targets on key corridors
Agreed measures, regular reporting selective metrics, strategic & operational targets
System wide strategic and operational metrics, reported at least quarterly
Informal IR team, ad hoc partnerships
Formal IR team in TMC & field, clear accountability
Inter-agency forum (not regular), regular debriefings, training
Inter-agency teams, some agreements
Multi-agency agreements for all key responders, regular multi-agency forum, inter-agency team in TMC
Data & analytics
Performance metrics
Governance & partnerships
HVR: heavy vehicle response service IR: incident response QC: quick clearance TR: traffic (control) response service TMC: traffic management centre
Development of the model could be undertaken in different ways – using (a) individual expert practitioner; (b) a panel of experts/practitioners and a Delphi process; and/or (c) establish an agreed model across jurisdictions, eg develop an agreed national set of descriptions. Working through this process helps professionals think about the desired outcomes out to the planning horizon, mapping out the whole system and allowing a focus on priorities, which can then be translated into actions to achieve the desired ‘end-state’.
Improving Traffic Systems Strategy and Operations Using a Capability Maturity Approach
The CMM approach can be implemented in different ways (a) self-assessment – an individual or unit can use the model to develop and make a self-assessment of current practices and/or comparison case studies of other jurisdictions; (b) an independent review – by an independent expert or panel of experts, for the purposes of reporting to senior management or elected officials. This could be the basis of developing an improvement strategy and part of presenting a case for investment.
3.2 Case Studies To assess the practicality and applicability of the model, a series of limited desktop assessments were undertaken using the more detailed CMM for managing traffic incidents to test the concept and identify learnings from the process – see Figure 8 which shows two from examples Australia (Brisbane and Melbourne) and two exemplar international examples (UK and US). Note these assessments are based on the opinions of the authors for the purposes of demonstration only. The coloured cells indicate the range of the assessment of the current or ‘as-is’ state and the darker colour indicates the primary focus of the as-is assessment. This clearly indicates that different jurisdictions could be readily assessed to provide a benchmark of where leading practice might be sourced. The next step would entail identifying the ‘would-like-to-be’ target state, in say 5 or 10 years time, for each of the processes and from that develop a strategy and action plan. The Australian examples show similar levels of capability, with some areas of more advanced capability. The international cases indicate more developed capability, more than likely due to longer periods of development and more pressing traffic problems. This provides an opportunity for Australian jurisdictions to investigate leading practice areas of interest and adapt practices and innovations for the local context. Figure 8: Traffic Incident Response Capability Maturity Model Case Studies (a) Brisbane (b) Melbourne Level:
1: Initial
2: Managed
3: Defined
4: Predictable
5: Optimising
Focus:
Ad hoc, chaotic. Purpose generally achieved
Clear objectives. Performance tracked
Defined processes performed and managed
Manage processes quantitatively
Performance optimised for current and future needs.
Initiate
Ad hoc, reactive
TMC despatch
Agreed classes, ‘hotspots’ identified
Manage despatch according to potential impact
Dynamic response scheduling, using vehicle location
Respond
Baseline, eg maintenance crew
Dedicated IR, peak periods, motorways
Dedicated IR, business hours, all high traffic roads
Dedicated 24/7 IR, all high traffic roads, some HVR
Dedicated 24/7 IR + HVR, backup services
Manage traffic
Ad hoc, rely on Police
Traffic control support, motorway
TR all high traffic roads, responders traffic aware
Dedicated 24/7 TR, all high traffic roads
Dedicated 24/7 TR, backup service
Clear site
Ad hoc
Routine towing services
Towing + HVR in peak periods, motorways
QC policy for towing, all high traffic roads
QC target for towing + HVR + specialist clearance
Provide traffic information
Minimal, ad hoc
Limited onroad, radio broadcast
Locationbased, subscription based alerts, fused multisource data
Comprehensive onroad & in-journey location-based, travel time estimates, route planning
Automated, locationbased (multichannel), dynamic re-routing
Strategy & planning
Minimal
Business plan, short term (1y) horizon
Agency QC policy, strategy and action planning, medium horizon (2-3 y)
QC policy & target, multi-agency strategy and action planning, agency program (funded)
Comprehensive multi-agency integrated strategy and action planning, longer term horizon (3-5y)
Processes
Few defined
Mostly defined and documented
Stable and predictable, use traffic systems (detect, monitor)
Integrated with other responder agencies
Integrated, continuously reviewed and updated
Data & analytics
Limited, ad hoc
Some real-time, periodic analytics for major corridors
Near real-time for major corridors, high level operational analytics
Real-time for all major corridors, strategic & operational analytics, interagency sharing
Automatic data collection, used to select improvements. System wide realtime analytics
Performance metrics
Minimal, ad hoc
Operational, periodic reporting
Some agreed measures, strategic & operational targets on key corridors
Agreed measures, regular reporting selective metrics, strategic & operational targets
System wide strategic and operational metrics, reported at least quarterly
Governance & partnerships
Informal IR team, ad hoc partnerships
Formal IR team in TMC & field, clear accountability
Inter-agency forum (not regular), regular debriefings, training
Inter-agency teams, some agreements
Multi-agency agreements for all key responders, regular multi-agency forum, inter-agency team in TMC
HVR: heavy vehicle response service IR: incident response QC: quick clearance TR: traffic (control) response service TMC: traffic management centre
13
ATRF 2011 Proceedings (c) UK Highways Agency
(d) US Washington State DoT
3.3 Conclusions The concept Capability Maturity Model and case studies described above demonstrate several important features that make it a practical tool for traffic management. Some observations and learnings from the process include: •
successful process improvements come from clearly defined incremental steps – so provides a easy to understand logical framework for benchmarking and identifying areas for improvement
•
allows identification of the lowest capability level in the overall system (which is usually a constraint) and hence the desired focus for continuous improvement
•
allows for cross-comparisons with other jurisdictions to identify potential opportunities for improving current local practice. More detailed discussion of how the capability level was determined
•
covers both core technical processes, as well as supporting business processes
•
identifies strategic targets and priorities and facilitates implementation planning
•
can be adapted to unit level self-assessment, through to regional multi-jurisdictional multi-stakeholder applications
•
provides a ready means of illustrating current and proposed level of capability or practice for decision-makers (and funders)
•
using a practitioner team collaboration in developing the model, would enhance the practicality and credibility of the approach, hence encourages support and use.
Improving Traffic Systems Strategy and Operations Using a Capability Maturity Approach
The Capability Maturity Model approach combines into one single framework the key features of quality management, continuous improvement and business process reengineering concepts used in transport organisations. It provides a useful means for traffic professionals to develop a tool to qualitatively assess the current level of practice and identify priorities for continuous improvement in traffic systems strategy and operations to move towards best practice. The CMM approach provides a useful basis for self or independent assessment and/or can be used to undertake a benchmarking exercise with a counterpart organisation or jurisdiction.
References AASHTO (2010). AASHTO Guide to Systems Operations and Management Improvement [Online]. Available: http://aashtosomguidance.org [Accessed 10 August 2011] ACELG (2010). Overview of 14 Excellence Frameworks and Tools. Broadway, NSW: Australian Centre of Excellence for Local Government, http://www.acelg.org.au [Accessed 10 August 2011] BSI (2011). What is the balanced scorecard? [Online]. Cary, NC Balanced Scorecard Institute,. Available: http://www.balancedscorecard.org [Accessed 10 August 2011] BTRE (2007). Estimating urban traffic and congestion cost trends for Australian cities, Working Paper 71, Bureau of Transport and Regional Economics, Canberra. Cater-Steel, A; Tan, W G and Toleman, M (2006). Challenge of adopting multiple process improvement frameworks. In: 14th European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS 2006), 2006 Goteborg, Sweden. 1375-1386. Charles, P (2009). Eminently capable, Thinking Highways, Vol 4 No 2, June-July 2009, p. 4-6. Chrissis, M B, Konrad, M and Shrum, S (2011). CMMI for Development: Guidelines for Process Integration and Product Improvement, Upper Saddle River, NJ, Addison-Wesley. D'Este, G (2010). Exploring ways to convey the state of transport system performance in a simple non-technical way. 33rd Australasian Transport Research Forum. Canberra, ACT. Evelina, E, Pia, G, David, H, von Wurtemberg Liv, M and Waldo, R (2010). Process improvement framework evaluation. In: 17th International Conference on Management Science & Engineering, 2010 Melbourne, Australia. IEEE, 319-326. Forrester, E C, Buteau, B L and Shrum, S (2011). CMMI for Services: Guidelines for Superior Services, Boston, MA, Addison-Wesley. Fraser, P, Moultrie, J and Gregory, M (2002). The use of maturity models/grids as a tool in assessing product development capability. In, 2002. IEEE, 244-249 vol. 1. Heston, K M, Jewell, F W and Hamilton, D B (2007). Choosing the right improvement frameworks to achieve high performance. Accenture Houghton, J, Reiners, J and Lim, C (2009). Intelligent transport: How cities can improve mobility. IBM Research Report GBE03232-USEN-00. Kaplan R S and Norton D P (1992). The balanced scorecard: measures that drive performance, In: Harvard Business Review, Jan – Feb, 71–80 Kincaid, I and Tretheway, M (2006). Guidelines for benchmarking airports. In: GARS Workshop on Airport Benchmarking, 2006 Berlin. Lockwood, S, Tarnoff, P, Conrad, J and Margiotta, R (2009). NCHRP 3-94: Systems Operations and Management Guide. Manchester, NH: AASHTO SSOM Paulk, M C, Curtis, B, Chrissis, M B and Weber, C V (1993). Capability maturity model, version 1.1. IEEE software, 18-27. SEI (2006). CMMI for Development, version 1.2. Institute, Carnegie Mellon University
TEAM, C. P. Pittsburgh: Software Engineering
15
