Process Development and Integration for the Six-Year Program

Process Development and Integration for the Six-Year Program and the Statewide Transportation Improvement Plan Progress Report Department of Systems and Information Engineering and Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems University of Virginia November 19, 2003 Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems University of Virginia, Charlottesville 1

Agenda • Background • Purpose • Progress review – Task 1: Recommendations for Public Involvement – Task 2: BPWin Process Model of SYIP and STIP Development – Task 3: BPWin Process Model of Amendment Process • Discussion Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems University of Virginia, Charlottesville 2

Background • STIP is a federal three year programming document and an abridgement of SYP • Lag of three months between the financial year of SYP and STIP • Process review report on the development process of STIP – Joint FHWA/FTA/VDOT/VDRPT, November 2002 • Committee implementing recommendations of November report – – Chairs: Mr. Charles Rasnick, Mr. Kenneth Lantz Procedure Chair: Ms. Deborah Grant Finance Chair: Mr. Robert Hofrichter Public Involvement/Education: Mr. Ben Mannell Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems University of Virginia, Charlottesville 3

Purpose • Deploy analytical methodologies to support the SYIP/STIP committee • Provide research on other state processes for SYIP/STIP development • Provide a “how-to” document with recommendations for the SYIP/STIP update process Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems University of Virginia, Charlottesville 4

Tasks and Schedule Tasks Duration (months) Start month End month 1. Evaluation of Public Involvement 12 1 12 2. BPWin Process Model of SYIP and STIP Development 4 1 4 3. BPWin Process Model of Amendment Process 4 3 6 Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems University of Virginia, Charlottesville 5

Task 1 Recommendations for Public Involvement Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems University of Virginia, Charlottesville 6

Recommendations for Public Involvement • • • Review the 2003 pre-allocation hearings, CTB meetings, etc. Review the recent VTRC public involvement report and other literature Review progress of other states Identify and characterize the relevant public involvement activities in the SYIP/STIP process model Perform critical evaluation of the new public involvement process Develop recommendations for evolution of the public involvement process for the SYIP Develop recommendations on how the STIP can receive public comment as a separate document from the SYIP Support the STIP/SYIP committee currently working on a public involvement plan Review outcome of the recent process review on public involvement (FHWA) Make recommendations for the evolving public involvement policy of VDOT (1995) Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems University of Virginia, Charlottesville 7

Public Hearing Schedule * Staunton, Bristol – Not attended Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems University of Virginia, Charlottesville 8

Objectives of Public Outreach • The engineering focus group participants readily pointed out several broad objectives they thought VDOT needed to achieve in its public outreach: – To meet all legal mandates for public involvement in transportation project (specifically, those of FHWA) - To educate citizens about how government works (public affairs staff also emphasized this objective). Source: O'Leary, A. A. , Kyte, C. A. , Arnold, E. D. , Perfater M. A. (2003) An Assessment of the Virginia Department of Transportation's Public Involvement Practices and the Development of a Public Involvement Toolkit: Phase II Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems University of Virginia, Charlottesville 9

Citizens’ Information Needs and Preferences • VDOT’s planning process is not well understood by citizens. • VDOT’s project development process is not well understood by many citizens. • VDOT’s public involvement processes (for planning and for project development) are not well understood by most citizens. • Most citizens indicated they wish to be updated quite often on the status of VDOT projects (i. e. , at least quarterly). Source: O'Leary, A. A. , Kyte, C. A. , Arnold, E. D. , Perfater M. A. (2003) An Assessment of the Virginia Department of Transportation's Public Involvement Practices and the Development of a Public Involvement Toolkit: Phase II Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems University of Virginia, Charlottesville 10

Citizens’ Information Needs and Preferences Cont’d • Citizens want to know VDOT’s realistic expectations for projects • Citizens continue to rely on the newspaper and written materials (e. g. , newsletters) for notification about VDOT meetings and updates on VDOT plans and project. • Citizens (as well as VDOT staff and MPOs) rate the agency’s more personal approaches to presenting project information positively • Citizens would like more feedback from VDOT about how their input is really used, and VDOT staff agree that this is a need. Source: O'Leary, A. A. , Kyte, C. A. , Arnold, E. D. , Perfater M. A. (2003) An Assessment of the Virginia Department of Transportation's Public Involvement Practices and the Development of a Public Involvement Toolkit: Phase II Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems University of Virginia, Charlottesville 11

Intra-Organizational Factors in VDOT’s Public Outreach • Many on the division staff involved in VDOT’s public outreach do not believe their work is wellunderstood by other divisions or VDOT executives. • VDOT staff in the study’s focus groups had different views about the required technical content of the agency’s newspaper notices, as well as the best review process for them. Source: O'Leary, A. A. , Kyte, C. A. , Arnold, E. D. , Perfater M. A. (2003) An Assessment of the Virginia Department of Transportation's Public Involvement Practices and the Development of a Public Involvement Toolkit: Phase II Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems University of Virginia, Charlottesville 12

Sample of findings from previous efforts • Early and continuous public involvement in decision making • Frequent communications with citizens about plan or project status • Consistency in public communications from different parts of VDOT • Personalized communication approaches • More feedback to citizens about how their input has been used • More coordination of public outreach by different divisions or units in VDOT • More strategic communications planning and evaluation (for major projects, in particular) Source: O'Leary, A. A. , Kyte, C. A. , Arnold, E. D. , Perfater M. A. (2003) An Assessment of the Virginia Department of Transportation's Public Involvement Practices and the Development of a Public Involvement Toolkit: Phase II Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems University of Virginia, Charlottesville 13

The Toolkit of Outreach Techniques • Public Involvement Toolkit is a means of providing VDOT staff with techniques for public outreach – For example, a staff member could look up techniques for communicating with a small group of neighborhood residents very early in the project. – Or use information provided to help develop means of communicating information to a large workgroup • However, the toolkit does not address the issue of the staff member responsible for choosing the technique or who will provide feedback to the public – Depends of VDOT policy Source: O'Leary, A. A. , Kyte, C. A. , Arnold, E. D. , Perfater M. A. (2003) An Assesment of the Virginia Department of Transportation's Public Involvement Practices and the Development of a Public Invovlement Toolkit: Phase II Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems University of Virginia, Charlottesville 14

Survey Developed Source: Development and Financial Constraint of Virginia's STIP (2002). Joint FHWA/FTA/VDOT/VDRPT Process Review Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems University of Virginia, Charlottesville 15

Minnesota’s Toolkit Source: Development and Financial Constraint of Virginia's STIP (2002). Joint FHWA/FTA/VDOT/VDRPT Process Review Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems University of Virginia, Charlottesville 16

Recommendations from Public Involvement Document • VDOT staff involved in public outreach should use the toolkit and the soon-to-be released FHWA electronic public involvement planning tool in selecting outreach techniques for specific plans or projects. • VDOT’s Transportation & Mobility Planning Division and the Office of Public Affairs should explore ways to increase the public’s understanding of the planning process. • VDOT’s Office of Public Affairs, L&D Division, and other technical staff should explore ways to increase the public’s understanding of the project development and project public involvement processes. • VDOT’s L&D Division and Office of Public Affairs should explore more effective ways to inform citizens about how their collective input has been used for project or plan development. Source: O'Leary, A. A. , Kyte, C. A. , Arnold, E. D. , Perfater M. A. (2003) An Assessment of the Virginia Department of Transportation's Public Involvement Practices and the Development of a Public Involvement Toolkit: Phase II Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems University of Virginia, Charlottesville 17

Recommendations (cont) • VDOT should provide the 4. 0 FTEs recommended for an Outreach Section in the Office of Public Affairs as soon as the budget situation permits. • VDOT should consider creating a task group of engineering project managers from the L&D Division and staff of the Office of Public Affairs to identify ways to maximize the quality and consistency of newsletters for the public. • VDOT should periodically commission broad assessments (such as the SMC communications audit (Siddall, Matus and Coughter Consultants, 2002 b) to assess the effectiveness of communications among agency staff and between VDOT, the public, local officials, and legislators. Source: O'Leary, A. A. , Kyte, C. A. , Arnold, E. D. , Perfater M. A. (2003) An Assessment of the Virginia Department of Transportation's Public Involvement Practices and the Development of a Public Involvement Toolkit: Phase II Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems University of Virginia, Charlottesville 18

Mapping the Public Involvement Process • Using the joint process review by FHWA, FTA, VDOT, and VDRPT entitled Development and Financial Constraint of Virginia’s STIP, the processes central to public involvement are identified – November 2002 • Each road system has a differing process of public involvement – – – Tentative SYP Program Secondary Roads Urban Programs MPO Planning STIP Development Process Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems University of Virginia, Charlottesville 19

STIP Development Process Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems University of Virginia, Charlottesville 20

Tentative Program Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems University of Virginia, Charlottesville 21

Secondary Roads Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems University of Virginia, Charlottesville 22

Urban Programs Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems University of Virginia, Charlottesville 23

MPO Planning Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems University of Virginia, Charlottesville 24

Task 2 BPWin Process Model of SYIP and STIP Development Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems University of Virginia, Charlottesville 25

BPWin Process Model of SYIP and STIP Development • • • Document SYIP and STIP relationships to other databases and activities to include FMS II, PPMS, cost estimation system, etc. Describe a calendar-based process model for SYIP and STIP development using BPWin software Review the current i. SYP functions and help menus Review and benefit from ITAD application of BPWin to cost estimation Describe the STIP/SYIP business processes using BPWin (IDEF 0 and IDEF 3) Build on the process descriptions of – the 11/02 FHWA/VDOT/VDRPT report on 'Development and Financial Constraint of Virginia's STIP' and – the latest version of the STIP calendar • • • Seek additional detail of activities, which may be required for the BPWin process model Support ITAD adding a STIP module to the ISYP system by December/January Demonstrate that the BPWin process model supports IT development of the electronic STIP environment (e-STIP) Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems University of Virginia, Charlottesville 26

Business Process Modeling • IDEF – Integrated Definition – Used to analyze business processes • IDEF 0 • IDEF 3 • Software used – All. Fusion Process Modeler (formerly known as BPWin) Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems University of Virginia, Charlottesville 27

Process Modeling Methodology – IDEF 0 • Procedure: Activity decomposition • Design: Model decisions and activities of a system • Use: Aids in communicating and analyzing functional perspective of a system • Sequence of activities cannot be depicted Source: http: //www. oliver. efzg. hr/~vbosilj/iceis 2000. pdfidef. com http: //www. oliver. efzg. hr/~vbosilj/iceis 2000. pdf Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems University of Virginia, Charlottesville 28

Process Modeling Methodology – IDEF 0 • Basic modeling unit: ICOM model Control (C) Input (I) Function Name Output (O) Mechanism (M) Source: http: //www. cit. gu. edu. au/~noran/Docs/UMLvs. IDEF. pdf Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems University of Virginia, Charlottesville 29

Process Modeling Methodology – IDEF 0 • Inputs - consumed or transformed by the process • Outputs - created through the consumption or transformation of inputs of process • Controls - guide the process such as guidelines, regulations, policies • Mechanisms - accomplish the actions of the process such as people, manual or automated tools Source: http: //www. cit. gu. edu. au/~noran/Docs/UMLvs. IDEF. pdf Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems University of Virginia, Charlottesville 30

Process Modeling Methodology – IDEF 3 • Procedure: Process based decomposition • Design: Scenario-driven process flow modeling • Use: Captures precedence and causality relations between situations and events • Sequence of activities is depicted Source: http: //www. oliver. efzg. hr/~vbosilj/iceis 2000. pdfidef. com http: //www. oliver. efzg. hr/~vbosilj/iceis 2000. pdf Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems University of Virginia, Charlottesville 31

Process Modeling Methodology – IDEF 3 • Basic modeling unit: Unit of Behavior (UOB) • Logic junctions: AND, OR, Exclusive OR • Links between activities: – Precedence – Relational – Object flow Source: http: //www. oliver. efzg. hr/~vbosilj/iceis 2000. pdfidef. com http: //www. oliver. efzg. hr/~vbosilj/iceis 2000. pdf Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems University of Virginia, Charlottesville 32

STIP Development Process Source: Development and Financial Constraint of Virginia's STIP (2002). Joint FHWA/FTA/VDOT/VDRPT Process Review Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems University of Virginia, Charlottesville 33

STIP Development Process: IDEF 0 View Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems University of Virginia, Charlottesville 34

Revenue Forecasts Source: Development and Financial Constraint of Virginia's STIP (2002). Joint FHWA/FTA/VDOT/VDRPT Process Review Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems University of Virginia, Charlottesville 35

Revenue Forecasts: IDEF 0 View Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems University of Virginia, Charlottesville 36

Data needs for IDEF 0 • • • Activities Objective Title of responsible department/s Inputs Control Mechanism Key Decisions Impacted Activities Estimated Duration Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems University of Virginia, Charlottesville 37

Activity Building – IDEF 0 Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems University of Virginia, Charlottesville 38

Activity Properties – IDEF 0 Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems University of Virginia, Charlottesville 39

Activity Properties – IDEF 0 Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems University of Virginia, Charlottesville 40

Responsible people: MPO staff Mechanism: Solicits public involvement in the development of draft TIP Information used to develop MPO statement of priorities for pre-allocation hearing MPO’s Develop Draft TIP Pre-allocation Hearing Approval of drafted TIP Mechanism: Conformity testing Responsible People: Technical Committee and MPO Air Quality Demonstrate Conformity MPO’s Adopt Final TIP Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems University of Virginia, Charlottesville 41

Six Year Budget Responsible Persons: VDOT Updating: PPMS Project Cost Estimates Mechanism: Allocation of construction and non-construction cost to the draft program based on requirements on Code of Virginia Draft Program Outputs from Project Cost Estimates as Inputs to Draft Program Mechanism: First cost estimate generated based on 1993 review of award costs of projects statewide. Constantly adjusted to keep up with inflation and business process changes into Preliminary engineering, right-of-way and construction based on historical trends of similar projects. Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems University of Virginia, Charlottesville 42

Responsible Persons: CTB Pre-allocation Hearings Responsible Persons: Assistant Commissioner of Finance Secretary of Transportation Mechanism: Final figures received from Financial Planning and Debt Management Division and program adjusted as necessary. Inputs: Priorities developed by citizens and elected officials. Agency/CTB Review Revisions incorporated into tentative program Mechanism: Review district-by-district. Financial Planning and Debt Management Division runs the cash forecast. Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems Tentative Program Output from tentative program: Statewide and District summaries provided to CTB for approval. May result in minor changes. Following approval, document is made available to public via internet for comments. University of Virginia, Charlottesville 43

Final Public Hearing Mechanism: Hearings held in two locations: Salem (western district) Richmond (eastern district) Output: Final changes made to the tentative program by VDOT management. Final document is prepared for CTB meeting CTB Approval of Final Program Cash Forecast Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems Approved program is posted on the internet. Final Program University of Virginia, Charlottesville 44

Financial Constraint Demo Mechanism: Documenting revenues from the various funding categories STIP sent to Federal Agencies Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems MPO develop final TIP University of Virginia, Charlottesville 45

Task 3 BPWin Process Model of Amendment Process Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems University of Virginia, Charlottesville 46

BPWin Process Model of Amendment Process • Review the recent MOA addressing the amendment process • Characterize in BPWin the IDEF 0 and IDEF 3 activities that constitute the amendment process • Identify the process methods to track changes and document continued financial constraint as changes are made • Provide narrative documentation of the amendment process • Identify opportunities to improve or support the amendment process • Identify and prioritize those activities of the amendment process that are candidates for automation by ITAD et al. • Use the BPWin result to describe evolution of the current process to a process that utilizes the i. SYP/STIP database to generate understandable documentation of what is being changed--the revised table C from the STIP document, etc. Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems University of Virginia, Charlottesville 47

Discussion Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems University of Virginia, Charlottesville 48