PROCESS DEVELOPMENT AND INTEGRATION FOR THE SIX-YEAR PROGRAM AND THE STATEWIDE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM

Transcription

1 Proceedings of the 2004 Systems and Information Engineering Design Symposium Matthew H. Jones, Stephen D. Patek, and Barbara E. Tawney, eds. PROCESS DEVELOPMENT AND INTEGRATION FOR THE SIX-YEAR PROGRAM AND THE STATEWIDE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Ryan P. Tiffany Eric L. Issadore Rory T. Smith Priya Sarda James H. Lambert Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems and Department of Systems and Information Engineering University of Virginia Charles H. Rasnick Marsha Fiol Virginia Department of Transportation Wayne S. Ferguson Virginia Research Transportation Council ABSTRACT The Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), a three-year programming document required by federal regulations, has been prepared by the Virginia highway agency as an abridgement of its Six-Year Program (SYIP),which is required by state regulations. Generation of the STIP from the SYIP has been determined to not meet federal requirements. The innovation of this effort is the application of business process modeling to improve hierarchical integration of federal and state transportation programming using the IDEF format. Describing the statewide and federal program processes using the IDEF standards has several benefits. The high-level outputs of software models are charts with underlying characteristics of activities (inputs, controls, mechanisms, and outputs). IDEF models support the business analyst to describe the statewide and federal programs and other processes consistently. Use of the IDEF standards for process improvement may evolve to be a common practice across the agency. 1 INTRODUCTION In past years the federal program (STIP), a three-year programming document required by federal regulations, was prepared by department of transportation and Virginia s research council as an abridgment of the state program, which is required by Virginia law. The department of transportation and Virginia s transportation research council would in turn receive a joint letter from federal agencies (FHWA and FTA) giving federal approval and funds for the Virginia transportation program. Virginia's approach to the federal program of past years has been inadequate to satisfy federal regulations, which require that state transportation agencies declare to federal agencies the expenditures to be obligated in each federal fiscal year by project. To be eligible for a federal obligation of funding, a project needed to appear in each of the applicable: (i) long-range state transportation plan (ii) regional transportation improvement program (iii) the Virginia federally funded program In recent years, significant projects appearing in the state program, and consequently in the federally funded program, could not be undertaken because the financial constraint used in programs development was not meaningful. In programming, objective and technical evidence were increasingly dominated by short-term fiscal and other expediencies. The state program articulates an overall funding strategy for the Commonwealth. However, it does not obligate federal funding. The state program reflects six-year funding and financing strategies that are internal to the Commonwealth and which are typically not needed in the federal oversight of the annual obligations of federal funds. In contrast, the federal program articulates the intentions of state transportation agencies (VDOT and VDRPT) to obligate federal funds to highways and transit by federal fiscal year. The federally funded program document compiles project listings of the eleven Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPO), the state program, the federally funded Secondary System programs, federally funded forest programs, and other participating programs. Federal programs are required by federal regulations to be submitted every two years, but the Virginia STIP has been submitted annually. Currently, the MPO project listings are not generated in a common format, although some MPOs use the relevant 227

2 sections of the state program. A particular challenge to harmonizing the MPO is that the MPO that encompasses Northern Virginia also contains parts of Maryland and the District of Columbia. Beginning in the 2003 fiscal year, the Virginia state program and the Virginia federally funded program are distinct documents. A state program developed in an electronic environment will contain the data needed for generation of the federal program. The Virginia federally funded program will no longer present the future allocation of federal funds. For example, past STIP submissions represented an accrual of funds in fiscal years, such as when ten million dollars is reserved in each of three years and associated to an obligation of thirty million dollars in the third year of the federal program. The federal three-year program is amended multiple times between its biennial submissions/approvals. Amendments to the federal program are straightforward when the amendment does not affect air quality. Thus, amendments are typically neutral with respect to air quality, e.g., projects of alignments and turning lanes. For 2003, federal allocations that might have been available in 2002 were not ready until April Projects that had been removed in December 2002 due to financial constraint were hurriedly resubmitted in 2003 to address the revised allocations. The 2003 federal program of, applicable through 2005) was approved by federal agencies (FHWA and FTA) in recent months. 2 PURPOSE AND SCOPE The purpose of this effort by the University of Virginia Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems (CRMES) is to develop and demonstrate analytical methodologies that support the planned evolution of the state and federal program development processes. The effort will help state agencies (VDOT and VDRPT) in ongoing efforts to improve transparency and validity of the various planning and programming activities that are reflected in the federal and state programs. Current efforts of state agencies are addressing issues such as: - What is the best format for the compilation of the STIP, and its submission to federal agencies (FHWA and FTA), from the former state program, the Secondary System programs, and the eleven MPO project listings? - How can the federal program submission, which had been a stack of separate documents in a variety of formats, be integrated and made available to the public? - What can be learned from other states? - How can the various planning and programming efforts be harmonized? - How can the need for SYIP/STIP revision be balanced with the need for a stable platform in the near term? - How will innovative financing techniques be accommodated by the state and federal program processes? - How can the process of amending the federal program be streamlined? The effort consists of three tasks. The first task is to make recommendations for improving public involvement. The recommendations precede from a critical evaluation of the current public involvement and a literature review of the recent progress in Virginia and in other states. Our second task is a documentation of the business process of the statewide and federal program development using Integrated Definition (IDEF) standards. We import the existing statewide and federal business processes into software, requesting additional detail of process activities as needed to meet the requirements of the process description format (IDEF0 and IDEF3). The third task is the development of a process model of the amendment process for the federal program. IDEF standards are used to develop a model by documenting the sub-process for tracking amendments and maintaining fiscal constraint. 3 BPWIN MODELING SOFTWARE The following section will describe the computer software used to create the process models and describe the IDEF (Integrated Definition for Function Modeling) standards that guide process modeling. The software used is BPWin, created by ALLFusion and allows the use the IDEF0 and IDEF3 standards, which are described in this section. 3.1 BPWin Software BPWin is a comprehensive process model software program that allows an organization to analyze its operational processes in a systematic way and determine how these processes interact with the data flowing through the organization. A process model presents a system as a collection of activities in which each activity transforms some object or collection of objects. Figure 1 below shows a screenshot from BPWin showing the process of the development of the federal program. Activities are represented 228

3 Figure 2. IDEF0 Description - Description of IDEF0 Format of Mapping 3.3 Data Collection for IDEF Figure 1. Highway Maintenance and Operating Fund Revenues Process Model - Process Model for a Sub Process in the Development of the Federal Program. in graphic form as boxes and arrows, with the boxes labeled with a verbal description to explain what the activity accomplishes. The arrows are used to represent the interface between an activity and its environment. The mapping of interactions eliminates extraneous detail and highlights important detail. Use of the software allows the organization to assess current operations, evaluate any necessary alternative responses, and communicate operational changes quickly. In addition, the BPWin software is compatible with the software used by the state agency. Thus, no integration or training in the technical aspects of how to use the model will be needed for implementation purposes. 3.2 IDEF0 Format The particular component within the BPWin model used in this project for input and display purposes is called IDEF0 (Integrated Definition for Function Modeling). IDEF0 is the technique that breaks down the activities or functions of the organization or system into its component parts. It is a graphical language that assists in identifying the functions that are performed, the various elements needed to perform those functions, and what is efficient and inefficient about the system under study. For each activity, IDEF0 data needs are the objectives, responsible departments, inputs, outputs, controls, mechanisms, key decisions, estimated duration, and impacted activities. For the transportation public involvement process, controls consist of legislation, regulations, and policies related to the system. Mechanisms refer to the elements that accomplish the actions of the process, such as people, manual or automated tools, established procedures for holding hearings, etc. Figure 2 displays the IDEF0 format: In order to create these process models, the team created Excel Spreadsheets that contained all of the information about each activity completed in order to create the Six Year and Statewide Improvement Programs. These spreadsheets enabled the team to organize the data, and include all of the IDEF information about each process. These spreadsheets were used to gather the information from the members of VDOT. They allowed the team to ask specific questions during interviews, and fill in the data correctly. They also provided the team with an ability to know exactly what information was still needed in order to completed the process models. Each activity was given its own row in the spreadsheet, and the columns contained the IDEF standards as well as supplementary material. The columns in the spreadsheet included: inputs, outputs, controls, mechanisms, objective, BPWin diagrams, Responsible People, Key Decisions, External Links, Interview Transcripts, and Recommendations. Several Fields were only included to show from where the information was received. VDOT appreciated the added fields, so that they could check up on the team s research. The spreadsheet also included links to the Process Models that were created, and links to any recommendations the team had developed. The spreadsheet was monumental to the creation of process model and narratives of the SYIP and STIP processes. Below is a sample of the spreadsheet. Figure 3. Sample of Spreadsheet Workbook for STIP/SYIP Research. Aided with Team Research 229

4 4 CASE STUDIES 4.1 Recommendations for Public Involvement Applying the BPWin business process modeling software to the recent joint agency (FHWA, et. al.) STIP development process review, relevant public involvement activities from the state program and federal program were mapped. The public involvement activities take place prior to and during the pre-allocation (of transportation funding) hearings and the final public hearing, which is primarily concerned with project priority setting. The BPWin business process modeling software (along with the IDEF0 mapping format) identifies and displays the relevant fields of information - all the inputs, outputs, controls, and mechanisms for each public involvement activity. At the request of the Virginia Department of Transportation, a spreadsheet containing additional information fields was constructed. The extra fields consist of the objectives, responsible persons, BPWin diagrams, key decisions, start/end date, funding for construction, external links, review documents, reviews, miscellaneous data, and potential recommendations associated with each activity. The analysis performed used information available from notes taken at public hearings and state Board meetings, public involvement reports commissioned by federal and Virginia agencies, focus group and survey results made available to the group, study of the mapping activities from the BPWin Process Modeling, and documentation on the progress of other states in implementing public involvement activities. Table 1. Current Proposed Virginia Public Involvement Toolkit: Public involvement tool used in the selection of outreach techniques. From an examination of the available data, the following considerations are offered for the public involvement program of the state transportation department : A proposed public involvement toolkit (see Table 1) should be used in the selection of outreach techniques for specific plans or projects. VDOT should strive to increase the public s understanding of the project planning, development, and public involvement processes. Newsletters, , or possibly commercials are effective means of enhancing understanding. Citizens wish to know how their input has been used for project planning or development. Written summaries of citizens comments are not an effective way to convey feedback to citizens. The use of or posting the responses to the state transportation website are effective mechanisms. Applying systems engineering principles to public involvement argues for a quantification of assessment methods. Performance measures for public involvement need to be established. These should be related to how well the expectations of participants are met, the effects of the participation on the decisions that are made, and how the costs (including costs saved) compare to the benefits of the public involvement activities of the project. The next phase of analysis of public involvement activities should include a task to quantify the cost-effectiveness of such activities. 4.2 BPWin Process Models of SYIP and STIP Development Several process models were created to model the SYIP and STIP processes. The information gathered at interviews with members of VDOT, was inputted into a spreadsheet. Each activity at its own inputs, outputs, controls, and mechanisms. This information was used to create several process models using the BPwin software. The process models build on the FHWA report by describing the processes in more depth. The models describe the relationships between each activity and offer details about individual activities as well. VDOT will be able to use the models to create narratives of the STIP and SYIP development, which will aid the Programming Division in the transfer of responsibility for the creation of the STIP. Below is screenshot of a the Revenue Forecast Process. It shows the tree diagram capability of BPwin software, which allows for the hierarchy of steps to be easily understood. 230

5 The IDEF model and flowchart revealed that the biggest hindrance in the amendment process is the amendment authorization procedure. It is our recommendation that VDOT attempt to make the procedure more electronic and automatic. The amendment authorization process can be made more automatic by a couple of methods. One solution is to employ an automated approval form so officials can approve of amendments electronically instead of through paper mail. Additionally, a project comparison tool could be used by VDOT to expedite the amendment approval decision process. By comparing projects against one another, officials would have an objective way to decide which project(s) is more deserving of funding. 5 CONCLUSIONS Figure 4. A screenshot of the Revenue Forecast Process Model 4.3 BPWin Process Model of Amendment Process The STIP amendment review process encumbers the STIP generation. By applying IDEF modeling standards to the amendment process, a full process model was generated to display all pertinent activities relating to the review of amendments. In addition to developing an IDEF model of the amendment process, a flowchart was also developed to give a visual representation (as seen in Figure 4). Describing the SYIP and STIP processes in the BPWin has several benefits. Underlying BPWin models are the characteristics of activities (objectives, titles of responsible individuals, inputs, rules/controls including relevant legislation, mechanisms for data acquisition, outputs, receiving individuals, key decisions, impacted activities, and days to complete). BPWin is thus supporting a business analyst to describe STIP/SYIP and other processes (e.g., cost estimation) consistently. Once the processes are described in BPWin, evolution of the processes are more easily communicated to the ITAD. The BPWin software is from the same vendor as the model manager, data shopper, and related applications used by the ITAD, and increasingly by the 'data stewards' across VDOT divisions. A business process is generally of broader scope than its portion that is to be automated. Process description helps to set priorities and make analysis of feasibility of what can be done toward automation. Use of the IDEF standards (implemented by BPWin) may evolve to be a common practice across the agency. For now, ITAD expects that IDEF standards will assist understanding with the end users. The benefits of the research effort may thus prepare VDOT personnel to apply process descriptions (IDEF0 and IDEF3) to other critical processes of planning and finance. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Figure 5. A flowchart modeling the amendment review process Mr. Charles Rasnick of the Programming Division (VDOT) and Ms. Marsha Fiol of the Transportation and Mobility Planning Division (VDOT) are co-chairs of a committee of VDOT, VDRPT, FHWA, and FTA that is implementing the twenty-one recommendations. There are three subcommittees: (i) (ii) (iii) Procedures, chaired by Ms. Deborah Grant Finance, chaired by Mr. Robert Hofrichter Public-Involvement/Education, chaired by Mr. Ben Mannell An oversight group includes Mr. Jeffrey Southard (Chief of Planning and the Environment, VDOT) and Ms. Barbara Reese (Chief Financial Officer, VDOT). Mr. Ken Lantz of VDOT also participated in defining the current effort. 231

6 AUTHOR BIOGRAPHIES ERIC ISSADORE, from Hingham, Massachusetts, is a fourth-year Systems and Information Engineering student with a minor in Economics. He plans to attend law school. PRIYA SARDA <ps2y@virginia.edu>, is a graduate student at the Department of Systems and Information Engineering and Research Assistant at the Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems at the University of Virginia. She holds an undergraduate degree in Industrial Engineering and Management from Bangalore University, India. RORY SMITH, from Arlington, Virginia, is a fourth-year Systems and Information Engineering student with a concentration in Management Information Systems. He plans a career in engineering consulting. RYAN TIFFANY, from Winchester, Massachusetts, is a fourth-year Systems and Information Engineering student with a concentration in Economics. He plans to attend graduate school to pursue a master's degree in Systems Engineering. JAMES H. LAMBERT, <lambert@virginia.edu> is the Associate Director, Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems, and Research Associate Professor, Department of Systems and Information Engineering, University of Virginia. REFERENCES Department of Systems Engineering at the University of Virginia Capstone Project website. Retrieved September 10, 2003, from the World Wide Web: Joint FHWA/FTA/VDOT/DRPT Report. Development and Financial Constraint of Virginia s STIP - Process Review. November Retrieved from the Center for Risk Management of Engineering System s website: Accessed November 15, Lambert, J.H., K.D. Peterson, and C.A. Pinto Extended Comparison Tool for Major Highway Projects. Virginia Transportation Research Council Report Number 03-CR18. O Leary, A., Arnold, E., Kyte, C.A., and Perfater, M.A. An Assessment of the Virginia Department of Transportation s Public Involvement Processes: Phase I Results. VTRC 00-TAR2. Virginia Transportation Research Council, Charlottesville, VA, O Leary, A., Arnold, E., Kyte, C.A., and Perfater, M.A. An Assessment of the Virginia Department of Transportation s Public Involvement Practices and the Development of a Public Involvement Toolkit: Phase II. VTRC 03-R17. Virginia Transportation Research Council, Charlottesville, VA, Transportation Equity Act for the 21 st Century. (1998). Retrieved October 10, 2003, from the World Wide Web: Virginia Commonwealth Transportation Board. (2002). VTrans 2025 Virginia s Statewide Multimodal Long-Range Transportation Plan Phase One. Retrieved from the World Wide Web November 13, 2003: GA.pdf Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc. and Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade and Douglas. Public Involvement Techniques for Transportation Decision-making, September Prepared for the Federal Highway Administration and Federal Transit Administration: Accessed January 27, Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act. (1991). Retrieved October 10, 2003, from the World Wide Web: 232