Customer-oriented level of service maintenance management system

              CUSTOMER-ORIENTED LEVEL
OF SERVICE MAINTENANCE
MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
Final Report 418
Prepared by:
Dye Management Group, Inc.
City Center Bellevue, Suite 1700
500 108th Avenue NE
Bellevue, WA 98004
December 2005
Prepared for:
Arizona Department of Transportation
206 S. 17th Avenue
Phoenix, Arizona 85007
in cooperation with
U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
DISCLAIMER
The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors who are responsible for the
facts and the accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily
reflect the official views or policies of the Arizona Department of Transportation or the
Federal Highway Administration. This report does not constitute a standard,
specification, or regulation. Trade or manufacturers' names which may appear herein are
cited only because they are considered essential to the objectives of the report. The U.S.
Government and the State of Arizona do not endorse products or manufacturers.
Technical Report Documentation Page
1. Report No.
FHWA-AZ-05-418
2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No.
5. Report Date
December 2005
4. Title and Subtitle
Customer-Oriented Level of Service Maintenance Management
System 6. Performing Organization Code
7. Author
Dye Management Group, Inc.
8. Performing Organization Report No.
9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No.
Dye Management Group, Inc.
City Center Bellevue, Suite 1700
500 108th Avenue NE
Bellevue, WA 98004
11. Contract or Grant No.
SPR-PL-1-(47) 418
13.Type of Report & Period Covered
Final Report
12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address
Arizona Department of Transportation
206 S. 17th Avenue
Phoenix, Arizona 85007
14. Sponsoring Agency Code
15. Supplementary Notes
Prepared in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration
16. Abstract
The PErformance COntrolled System (PeCoS) system has been used by the Arizona Department of
Transportation (ADOT) for over 25 years, with at least one upgrade (PeCoS II) during that period. It has
helped maintenance managers develop and carry out maintenance programs by providing tools for
planning, organizing, directing, and controlling maintenance work, including performance guidelines for
each maintenance activity and management reports on various aspects of the work accomplished and the
cost of performing the work. The thrust of the maintenance management system over the years has been
to develop and carry out programs in the most efficient way possible. However, PeCoS does not provide
information on level of service (LOS) outcomes, i.e., the effectiveness of the maintenance programs.
The objective of this project is to develop a customer-oriented LOS maintenance management system, a
unique approach that focuses on the needs of Arizona’s traveling public and identifies the results of
maintenance work. To achieve this objective, the functions have been defined and conceptual design
conducted for the new system. Industry best practices have been surveyed among twelve states to
identify how the new system can benefit from industry innovations. A highly detailed approach has been
employed for gathering public perception of Arizona’s highway maintenance program through statewide
focus groups and attitude surveys to identify customer needs and concerns. The project also employs a
rigorous approach to condition assessment and determining budget levels. Opportunities have been
evaluated to integrate life cycle cost analysis (LCCA) into ADOT’s maintenance activities. Finally the
project has developed a software strategy and implementation plan.
17. Key Words
Level of Service (LOS), Level of Effort (LOE),
Maintenance Management System (MMS), Life
Cycle Cost Analysis (LCCA)
18. Distribution Statement
Document is available to the U.S.
Public through the National
Technical Information Service,
Springfield, Virginia, 22161
23. Registrant's
Seal
19. Security Classification
Unclassified
20. Security Classification
Unclassified
21. No. of Pages
57
22. Price
SI* (MODERN METRIC) CONVERSION FACTORS
APPROXIMATE CONVERSIONS TO SI UNITS APPROXIMATE CONVERSIONS FROM SI UNITS
Symbol When You Know Multiply By To Find Symbol Symbol When You Know Multiply By To Find Symbol
LENGTH LENGTH
in Inches 25.4 millimeters mm mm millimeters 0.039 inches in
ft Feet 0.305 meters m m meters 3.28 feet ft
yd Yards 0.914 meters m m meters 1.09 yards yd
mi Miles 1.61 kilometers km km kilometers 0.621 miles mi
AREA AREA
in2 square inches 645.2 square millimeters mm2 mm2 Square millimeters 0.0016 square inches in2
ft2 square feet 0.093 square meters m2 m2 Square meters 10.764 square feet ft2
yd2 square yards 0.836 square meters m2 m2 Square meters 1.195 square yards yd2
ac Acres 0.405 hectares ha ha hectares 2.47 acres ac
mi2 square miles 2.59 square kilometers km2 km2 Square kilometers 0.386 square miles mi2
VOLUME VOLUME
fl oz fluid ounces 29.57 milliliters mL mL milliliters 0.034 fluid ounces fl oz
gal Gallons 3.785 liters L L liters 0.264 gallons gal
ft3 cubic feet 0.028 cubic meters m3 m3 Cubic meters 35.315 cubic feet ft3
yd3 cubic yards 0.765 cubic meters m3 m3 Cubic meters 1.308 cubic yards yd3
NOTE: Volumes greater than 1000L shall be shown in m3.
MASS MASS
oz Ounces 28.35 grams g g grams 0.035 ounces oz
lb Pounds 0.454 kilograms kg kg kilograms 2.205 pounds lb
T short tons (2000lb) 0.907 megagrams
(or “metric ton”)
mg
(or “t”)
Mg megagrams
(or “metric ton”)
1.102 short tons (2000lb) T
TEMPERATURE (exact) TEMPERATURE (exact)
ºF Fahrenheit
temperature
5(F-32)/9
or (F-32)/1.8
Celsius temperature ºC ºC Celsius temperature 1.8C + 32 Fahrenheit
temperature
ºF
ILLUMINATION ILLUMINATION
fc foot candles 10.76 lux lx lx lux 0.0929 foot-candles fc
fl foot-Lamberts 3.426 candela/m2 cd/m2 cd/m2 candela/m2 0.2919 foot-Lamberts fl
FORCE AND PRESSURE OR STRESS FORCE AND PRESSURE OR STRESS
lbf Poundforce 4.45 newtons N N newtons 0.225 poundforce lbf
lbf/in2 poundforce per
square inch
6.89 kilopascals kPa kPa kilopascals 0.145 poundforce per
square inch
lbf/in2
SI is the symbol for the International System of Units. Appropriate rounding should be made to comply with Section 4 of ASTM
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY..................................................................................................... 1
CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................... 9
1.1 OVERVIEW.....................................................................................................................9
1.2 THIS REPORT...............................................................................................................11
CHAPTER II. FUNCTIONAL REQUIREMENTS AND CONCEPTUAL
DESIGN............................................................................................................................ 13
2.1 OVERVIEW.................................................................................................................13
2.2 SYSTEM OBJECTIVES ..............................................................................................13
2.3 REQUIRED FEATURES .............................................................................................14
2.4 SYSTEM FLOW DIAGRAM ......................................................................................18
CHAPTER III. INDUSTRY BEST PRACTICES ......................................................... 19
3.2 METHODOLOGY........................................................................................................19
3.3 RESULTS .....................................................................................................................20
CHAPTER IV. PUBLIC PERCEPTIONS....................................................................... 25
4.1 OVERVIEW.................................................................................................................25
4.2 GENERAL FINDINGS ................................................................................................27
4.3 ADOT MAINTENANCE STAFF FINDINGS.............................................................31
4.4 SUPPLEMENTAL FINDINGS....................................................................................31
CHAPTER V. CONDITION ASSESSMENT AND BUDGET................................. 33
5.1 OVERVIEW.................................................................................................................33
5.2 MAINTENANCE BUDGET DEVELOPMENT..........................................................34
5.3 DATA MODEL DEVELOPMENT..............................................................................36
5.4 BUDGET ASSUMPTIONS..........................................................................................36
CHAPTER VI. LIFE CYCLE COSTS.............................................................................. 37
6.1 OVERVIEW..................................................................................................................37
6.2 LCCA AND ADOT’S PAVEMENT PRACTICES......................................................38
6.3 LCCA AND OTHER MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES ...............................................39
CHAPTER VII. SOFTWARE STRATEGY AND IMPLEMENTATION
PLAN................................................................................................................................. 43
7.1 OVERVIEW..................................................................................................................43
7.2 FUNCTIONAL COMPONENTS.................................................................................43
7.3 ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES AND RECOMMENDATIONS...........................46
APPENDIX A: DEFINITION OF TERMS...................................................................... 49
APPENDIX B: SURVEY OF BEST PRACTICES....................................................... 51
REFERENCES........................................................................................................................ 53
LIST OFTABLES
Table 1: Comparison of Requirements with PeCoS Capabilities ..................................... 17
Table 2: Geographic Distribution for Telephone Survey ................................................. 25
Table 3: Maintenance Categories...................................................................................... 33
Table 4: Budget Summary Report .................................................................................... 35
Table 5: Description of Maintenance Activities ............................................................... 41
Table 6: Life Cycle Cost Recommendations and Needed Information ............................ 42
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Flow Diagram for an LOS-based Maintenance Management........................... 18
Figure 2: Focus Group Survey Sample............................................................................. 26
Figure 3: Current Perceived and Desired Maintenance Levels ........................................ 29
Figure 4: Evaluation of Arizona Highways Maintenance in Selected Area ..................... 32
Figure 5: Asset Management Functional Components..................................................... 45
1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The PErformance COntrolled System (PeCoS) system has been used by the Arizona
Department of Transportation (ADOT) for over 25 years, with at least one upgrade
(PeCoS II) during that period. It has helped maintenance managers develop and carry out
maintenance programs by providing tools for planning, organizing, directing, and
controlling maintenance work, including performance guidelines for each maintenance
activity and management reports on various aspects of the work accomplished and the
cost of performing the work. The thrust of the maintenance management system over the
years has been to develop and carry out programs in the most efficient way possible.
However, PeCoS does not provide information on level of service (LOS) outcomes, i.e.,
the effectiveness of the maintenance programs.
The objective of this project is to develop a customer-oriented LOS maintenance
management system, a unique approach that focuses on the needs of Arizona’s traveling
public and identifies the results of maintenance work. To achieve this objective, the
functions have been defined and conceptual design conducted for the new system.
Industry best practices have been surveyed among twelve states to identify how the new
system can benefit from industry innovations. A highly detailed approach has been
employed for gathering the public’s perception of Arizona’s highway maintenance
program through statewide focus groups and attitude surveys to identify customer needs
and concerns. The project also employs a rigorous approach to condition assessment and
determining budget levels. Opportunities have been evaluated to integrate life cycle cost
analysis (LCCA) into ADOT’s maintenance activities. Finally the project has developed a
software strategy and implementation plan.
FUNCTIONAL REQUIREMENTS AND CONCEPTUAL DESIGN
The new maintenance management system retains the capabilities that are now in PeCoS
(ADOT’s current system), but has the following additional capabilities:
• LOS Objectives. Pass-fail tests are used, showing a percentage of each feature
that either passes or fails the measurement criteria.
• Customer Involvement Process. Public opinion is sought to determine the
service levels desired by Arizona citizens.
• Condition Assessment Tracking and Trend Analysis. Assessments of existing
conditions are conducted at least annually to establish the current LOS for each
maintenance feature. Data is then studied to determine trends in road conditions
and to compare existing conditions with desired service levels.
2
• LOS to Level of Effort (LOE) Conversion Factors. A conversion factor
(workload factor) converts the difference between planned and actual LOS into an
LOE that will produce the annual work quantity needed to raise or lower the LOS
to the desired value.
• Service Request/Work Order System. Service requests are logged and a work
order generated and forwarded to the appropriate foreman for investigation and
resolution.
• Management Reports for LOS Outcomes. LOS outcome reports are provided,
such as actual LOS summaries, actual versus planned LOS, or trends in LOS
values over a period of time.
INDUSTRY BEST PRACTICES
Telephone interviews were conducted with maintenance managers in twelve states to
assess the state-of-the-practice and identify how ADOT’s maintenance management
system can benefit from industry innovations. Maintenance managers in three states
(Colorado, Florida, and Washington) were then contacted to provide additional details on
specific focus areas. The findings of these surveys are outlined below.
LOS Planning and Budgeting
• ADOT's process for obtaining district-level budget data is as detailed as any of
the states surveyed.
• Generally, the surveyed states have some form of LOS planning and budgeting
for pavements and bridges.
• With the exception of the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT), none
of the states has an LOS-based budgeting process for non-pavement and non-bridge
assets.
• Colorado Department of Transportation’s (CDOT) approach uses five defined
service levels (A through D, and F). The service levels are assigned numerical
scores so that the results can be aggregated into a single performance
measurement.
• FDOT is compelled by state law to maintain its road system at a specified LOS,
which is a composite Maintenance Rating Program (MRP) rating of 80.
• Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) uses a budget matrix
that relates funding requirements to desired service levels.
3
Customer Input
• Colorado, Minnesota, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Washington conduct customer
surveys on a regular basis.
• None of the states included in the supplemental survey have developed a direct
link that ties quantifiable customer expectations to LOS measurements.
• Minnesota Department of Transportation is recognized as a leader in conducting
customer surveys. However, it has not established LOS targets linked to specific
customer service measures.
• None of the states surveyed had an approach to obtaining customer input on
maintenance as detailed as ADOT's.
Performance Monitoring
• Colorado, Georgia, Florida, Maryland, Minnesota, North Carolina, and
Pennsylvania each have some form of performance monitoring process in place.
• Florida has the most rigorous performance monitoring program.
• Only Georgia has a formal process for monitoring pavement and bridge
performance.
Sampling Methodology
• None of the three states contacted in the supplemental best practice survey uses
sampling by individual assets.
• All three states base their sampling plan on the inventory of road miles.
• Virginia is the only state known to be implementing a comprehensive asset-based
condition assessment system.
Weighting Factors for Aggregating Performance Measurement Data
• Both CDOT and FDOT use numerical ratings that enable them to aggregate data
into a single-performance measure.
PUBLIC PERCEPTIONS
To help successfully establish a customer-oriented LOS maintenance management
system, public perception of Arizona’s highway maintenance program was obtained
using a statistically valid statewide telephone survey; focus groups with residents of
Phoenix, Tucson, and Flagstaff; and a supplemental survey. Focus groups were also held
4
with 92 ADOT maintenance staff from regions around the state. The findings are outlined
below.
General Findings
• While Arizona residents are generally satisfied with current maintenance
efforts, they would like improvements in all maintenance areas.
Current Maintenance Levels
• Arizona residents generally rate current maintenance favorably.
• Residents rate the current maintenance levels for traffic control and safety,
vegetation, snow/ice removal, and roadside maintenance the highest.
• Urban residents have the highest level of satisfaction with current service levels,
including the efficiency of ADOT maintenance staff.
• Arizona road maintenance is rated higher than maintenance provided by local
jurisdictions and other states.
• Actual maintenance conditions in all service areas are worse than the public
perceives them.
Desired Maintenance Levels
• Service levels should be improved in all maintenance areas.
• Safety should be the most important maintenance goal.
• Enhancement of traffic control and safety, bridge, drainage, and roadside
maintenance should be considered as key improvement objectives.
• Roadway surface maintenance is in need of the most improvement.
Program Funding
• Residents are willing to spend more tax money to achieve their desired levels of
service, if they are convinced that it is necessary.
• The maintenance areas of traffic control, safety and paved roadway surfaces
should have the highest funding priorities.
• State spending on preventive maintenance is strongly encouraged.
5
ADOT Maintenance Staff Findings
• Maintenance staff members are generally in touch with public perceptions
regarding maintenance.
• Maintenance staff members have significantly lower opinions of current
maintenance conditions than the public does.
Supplemental Findings
• Residents perceive paved shoulder erosion to be well controlled and ride quality
well maintained.
• Paved shoulder drop-offs are also generally seen as well maintained.
• Residents do not perceive unpaved shoulder erosion and unpaved shoulder
drop-offs to be well controlled .
• Residents seek high maintenance levels in all five areas tested.
CONDITION ASSESSMENT AND BUDGET
A two-year maintenance budget was prepared, based on the newly developed
maintenance management procedures. The development of this budget required
establishing:
1. The existing condition of the infrastructure.
2. The desired condition of the system (LOS).
3. The cause-and-effect relationship between maintenance activities and system
condition.
The various maintenance activities were grouped into nine categories to assess the
existing condition and to determine the desired condition of the highway system.
Cause-and-Effect Relationship Between Maintenance Activities and System
Condition
In order to determine the cause-and-effect relationship, four ADOT maintenance
personnel worked with Jorgenson & Associates at their Maryland office for one week.
The group was used as an expert task group to determine the amount of effort necessary
to obtain the five conditions for each of the PeCoS items related to the nine maintenance
categories. For each PeCoS item:
• The investment required to maintain each LOS was determined.
6
• The budget amount was then aggregated into a total budget for each of the nine
categories.
Budget and Data Model Development
The public’s subjective evaluation does not correlate directly with the quantitative
measurements used by ADOT to rate current conditions. For this reason, data models
were developed to represent the relationship between the investment and the resulting
LOS obtained for each of the nine maintenance categories.
Budget Assumptions
The budget was calculated using eighteen PeCoS maintenance items. The budget was
prepared for each of these items by:
• Adding the investment necessary to produce the improvement from the actual
perceived road condition to the desired condition to last year’s budget amount.
• Increasing that total by an inflation rate of 3.3 percent.
LIFE CYCLE COSTS
ADOT currently tracks cost data using its PeCoS maintenance management system;
however, costs are not directly linked to specific treatments applied at specific locations.
No formal treatment performance data are collected or retained in PeCoS, making cost
analyses highly problematic. For this reason, opportunities were evaluated to integrate
LCCA into ADOT’s maintenance activities. The results of the evaluation for various
maintenance activities are outlined below.
Pavement
Pavement maintenance is especially appropriate for this type of analysis because there are
alternative treatments available. There is also a mechanism in place (ADOT’s pavement
management system) for tracking impacts of treatments on performance; however, the
following modifications to the system are needed for performance monitoring and
modeling:
• A tracking system to keep track of treatments and the locations where they are
applied.
• A means of monitoring performance.
• A system to predict pavement condition and trigger the need for treatment.
7
• Assessment of treatment recommendations from the pavement management
system to assess the accuracy of the analysis and update the models.
Other Maintenance Activities
ADOT is also interested in evaluating the applicability of extending LCCA to other
maintenance decision processes beyond pavements. In all maintenance activities, LCCA
should be used to select among alternative treatments with non-equal costs and/or lives.
However, in considering LCCA in decision making for other maintenance features,
appropriate maintenance activities and factors affecting performance should be evaluated
(outlined in Chapter VI of this document).
SOFTWARE STRATEGY AND IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
An analysis of the requirements, ADOT’s information technology, and the availability of
viable vendor software products on the market was conducted, and four alternatives were
identified, each having the capability of satisfying ADOT’s requirements:
• Alternative 1 – Purchase a maintenance management system package that
includes both asset inventory and work management, and custom build an LOS
planning framework software application.
• Alternative 2 – Keep PeCoS and custom build asset inventory and LOS
planning framework software applications.
• Alternative 3 – Keep PeCoS, purchase an asset inventory system, and custom
build an LOS planning framework software application.
• Alternative 4 – Custom build a complete LOS-capable maintenance
management software application.
The evaluation of these alternatives resulted in Alternative 1 and Alternative 3 being very
close, with a slight advantage to Alternative 3 based on cost and risk criteria.
Based on this evaluation, the recommendation is to proceed with Alternative 3, and keep
the PeCoS system, purchase a packaged asset inventory system, and proceed with the
specification, design, construction, and implementation of an LOS planning framework
application. This is predicated on the assumption that the PeCoS system will prove to be
a viable tool for planning, organizing, and directing ADOT’s maintenance work. Once
the complete, detailed requirements for integrated asset management have been
documented, a formal evaluation of the PeCoS system should be conducted, and a
decision made as to whether PeCoS should be kept or replaced. If it is decided that
ADOT should replace PeCoS, then the recommendation would be to proceed with
Alternative 1.
8
9
CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION
1.1 OVERVIEW
The PErformance COntrolled System (PeCoS) system has been used by the Arizona
Department of Transportation (ADOT) for over 25 years, with at least one upgrade
(PeCoS II) during that period. It has helped maintenance managers develop and carry out
maintenance programs by providing tools for planning, organizing, directing, and
controlling maintenance work, including performance guidelines for each maintenance
activity and management reports on various aspects of the work accomplished and the
cost of performing the work. The thrust of the maintenance management system over the
years has been to develop and carry out programs in the most efficient way possible.
However, PeCoS does not provide information on level of service (LOS) outcomes, i.e.,
the effectiveness of the maintenance programs.
The Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) has recently adopted a new
performance based methodology for highway maintenance planning, the customer-oriented
LOS approach, and is now in the process of implementing the methodology. The
key concept of the methodology is the use of input from the traveling public to help
determine how tax dollars should be spent on highway maintenance, based on the
public’s preferences with respect to safety, preservation of assets, comfort, and aesthetics.
The new approach:
• Identifies the business needs (functional requirements) of ADOT to operate
under an LOS maintenance management methodology.
• Identifies existing maintenance items and their related maintenance activities.
• Defines LOS categories and identifies specific measures for each maintenance
item at each service level.
• Collects perceptions of current service levels and preferences for future service
levels from the traveling public.
• Estimates the standards used to forecast the level of effort (LOE) or work
quantities of each maintenance activity required to move from the existing
service levels to the desired levels.
• Prepares work and budget estimates using the LOS definitions, the LOE
forecasting standards, and maintenance work history.
A key benefit of this approach is that maintenance efforts, and thereby costs, are focused
on achieving the results most desired by the traveling public, thus increasing customer
satisfaction. As planned versus measured condition data is collected over time, the
agency can also improve its planning processes and target resources where they are most
cost effective, achieving maximum benefit from each tax dollar. In contrast, the previous
10
maintenance programs focused on the labor, materials, and equipment that are inputs to
the program, and allocated the resources based on work history rather than customer
preferences.
Thus, the implementation of the customer-oriented concept will require a change in
emphasis from management accountability for work program accomplishment to
accountability for using the work program to achieve service levels desired by customers.
The Central Office will establish LOS expectations and provide the Districts with the
budget and resources to achieve the target LOS. The Districts will have greater latitude in
applying the resources to achieve the desired results, and periodic condition surveys will
be required to determine the current LOS. The Central Office will then monitor results,
evaluate the planned versus actual results, and make the necessary adjustments to the
maintenance program to better meet the desired results in subsequent years.
The new approach will also require more efficient data collection and analysis. For fiscal
1999/2000, data was collected and work and budget estimates were prepared using labor
intensive, manual processes. To support the ongoing maintenance planning process, it
appears that computing technology can help reduce the time and labor effort, increase the
accuracy, and store historical data to be used in process improvement analyses.
During the research team’s analysis of ADOT’s requirements, three major business
functions emerged that are essential to the maintenance life cycle that starts with new
assets, goes through the planning of maintenance activities and budget, and finishes with
the management and execution of maintenance work. The business functions are:
• Maintenance work management.
• Asset inventory management.
• LOS planning.
Of these three, the maintenance work management function is the only one currently
supported by computing technology, via the PeCoS system.
The objective of this project is to develop a customer-oriented LOS maintenance
management system, a unique approach that focuses on the needs of Arizona’s traveling
public and identifies the results of maintenance work. To achieve this objective, the
functions have been defined and conceptual design performed for the new system.
Industry best practices have been surveyed among twelve states to identify how the new
system can benefit from industry innovations. A highly detailed approach has been
employed for gathering public perception of Arizona’s highway maintenance program
through statewide focus groups and attitude surveys to identify customer needs and
concerns. The project also employs a rigorous approach to condition assessment and
determining budget levels. Opportunities have been evaluated to integrate life cycle cost
analysis (LCCA) into ADOT’s maintenance activities. Finally the project has developed a
software strategy and implementation plan.
11
1.2 THIS REPORT
This report presents an overview for the implementation of the customer-oriented LOS
maintenance management system. The report is organized according to the following
focus areas:
Chapter II – Functional Requirements and Conceptual Design. This section outlines
the functional requirements and conceptual design for a maintenance management system
that uses a customer-oriented LOS.
Chapter III – Best Practices. This section presents the results of a survey of best
practices of other state departments of transportation, which was undertaken to discover
how ADOT’s maintenance management system can benefit from industry innovations.
Chapter IV – Public Perceptions. This section summarizes customer perceptions of
current and desired service levels for maintenance, gathered from the results of a
statistically valid telephone survey of 403 Arizona residents and from focus groups
conducted in Phoenix, Tucson, and Flagstaff. The results of a supplemental survey are
also included, which show current and desired LOS for five specific areas of
maintenance.
Chapter V – Condition Assessment and Budget. This section provides an overview of
the procedures for collecting data and assessing service levels on highways maintained by
ADOT. It also defines how LOS measures are related to budgeting, and outlines how to
prepare budget estimates using the LOS definitions.
Chapter VI – Life Cycle Costs. This section evaluates how life cycle cost analysis can
be integrated into ADOT’s maintenance activities, using information gathered from
interviews with maintenance practitioners and other knowledgeable Department staff.
Chapter VII – Software Strategy and Implementation Plan. This section offers four
alternate systems solutions software to implement a customer-oriented approach to
maintenance management, and recommends one of these solutions.
12
13
CHAPTER II. FUNCTIONAL REQUIREMENTS AND
CONCEPTUAL DESIGN
2.1 OVERVIEW
Implementation of the customer-oriented approach requires changes to the traditional
maintenance management system. In the traditional system, an LOE, or quantity
standard, is established based on assumed acceptable levels for the area, such as x
mowings per acre per year or placing x gallons of crack sealing material per lane-mile per
year. The LOE is multiplied by the maintenance feature inventory to obtain the annual
work quantity. With the new approach, the desired LOS and the current LOS will need to
be established. Then, the LOS must be converted into a corresponding LOE for each
maintenance feature using empirically derived workload adjustment factors.
2.2 SYSTEM OBJECTIVES
The new customer-oriented maintenance management system has the following
objectives:
• Establish a management approach geared to achieving desired outcomes, or
LOS, rather than achieving a specific quantity of work.
• Establish better accountability for achieving results.
• Incorporate customer input into the desired results of the maintenance program.
• Instill a customer service attitude in daily maintenance operations.
• Measure outcomes from the maintenance program in terms of quality and levels
of service provided.
• Continue to perform work in the most efficient way possible, making the best
use of available resources.
• Provide the necessary information for informed maintenance management
decision-making.
14
2.3 REQUIRED FEATURES
The new system retains the capabilities that are now in PeCoS, but will need some
additional capabilities as well.
1. LOS Objectives
To change from a work-oriented maintenance management system to an objectives-oriented
system, there has been a provision for establishing measurable LOS in terms
that customers can understand. These measurable levels are an indication of the
quality of service being provided. To facilitate interpretation of the LOS
measurements, pass-fail tests have been developed, showing a percentage of each
feature that either passes or fails the measurement criteria.
2. Customer Involvement Process
The traveling public plays an important role in the LOS process. Systematic methods
have been used to identify the public’s desired service levels. These methods,
discussed in more detail in Chapter IV of this document, include focus groups
conducted in different regions in the state, as well as statistically valid statewide
surveys. This customer information is used in conjunction with other data to set
maintenance targets.
3. Condition Assessment Tracking and Trend Analysis
To establish the current LOS for each maintenance feature, periodic surveys must be
conducted. This should be done at least annually to monitor the condition of the roads
that are being maintained, i.e., the outcomes of the maintenance program. The data
should be stored and maintained in such a way that management reports can be
produced to show current road conditions, trends in road conditions, and comparisons
with desired service levels.
4. LOS to LOE Conversion Factors (Workload Factors)
The LOS measures, or quality measures, are expressed in terms that the customers
and maintenance managers can see and understand, i.e., number of potholes, feet of
cracking, number of defective signs, etc. The LOS of the road is measured and
compared with the desired values to determine the degree to which the current road
conditions meet the desired LOS. The LOE, or quantity standard, values are applied
to the maintenance feature inventory to calculate an annual work quantity. Obviously,
there is a relationship between how much work is done and the condition of the
roadway. A conversion factor is needed to convert the difference in planned versus
actual LOS into an LOE that will produce the annual work quantity needed to raise or
lower the LOS to the desired value. This conversion factor is referred to as the
workload factor.
15
An example will clarify how the workload factor functions. Given an inventory value
of 1,000 asphalt lane-miles and an LOE of 0.5 tons per lane-mile for the last year or
two, the annual amount of patching would have been 500 tons per year. If a survey is
conducted and the difference between the actual and the desired LOS is analyzed, the
result might be a determination that about 50 percent more patching needs to be done,
a workload factor of 1.5. The LOE or, in effect, the annual work quantity, needs to be
multiplied by 1.5 to increase the amount of patching to bring the LOS for that feature
up to the desired level.
5. Maintenance Feature Inventory
An inventory of all maintainable features is needed. The inventory is the basis for
preparing the performance-based annual work program and budget. Typically, the
inventory is segregated by management unit and road class, e.g., number of asphalt
lane-miles on the Interstate System in Maintenance Organization X.
6. Quantity Standards, or LOE
The LOE values are used to convert the inventory into an annual work quantity. For
example, five mowings per year times the number of mowable acres equals the
planned annual quantity of mowing.
7. Activity Planning Values
The activity planning values are sometimes referred to as work performance
guidelines. They are needed, first, to define each maintenance activity so that
maintenance work is reported to the proper activity. Also, the preferred crew sizes
and equipment are identified for the way the work is most commonly performed.
Analysis of work history or the judgment of experienced foremen is used to establish
the optimum crew size for a given work activity under normal circumstances. The
activity planning values also define the measurement units for reporting work
accomplishment and the expected amount of work that should be done in a day with
the recommended crew and equipment.
8. Work Program and Budget Calculator
Maintenance management system software, such as PeCoS, provides a means for
calculating the annual maintenance work program and budget. This can be done by
applying the LOE and workload factors to the inventory to obtain annual work
quantities (the program) and applying activity planning values and unit costs to obtain
the resources and costs required by activity. This performance-based budget defines
the work that needs to be done to achieve the desired LOS. The work program and
budget is the primary source of information for describing the annual maintenance
program to any interested party.
16
9. Work Calendar/Workload Balancing
The annual work program needs to be broken down by month, using prescribed
distribution models, so that the number of crew-days of work by activity can be
shown throughout the year. If necessary, the monthly workloads are adjusted to level
the workload to the extent possible, without major peaks and valleys.
10. Resource Requirements Calculator
The adjusted crew-day calendar is converted into a resource requirements calendar.
To do this, the crew-days per month are multiplied by the number and types of
people, equipment, and materials needed to do the work. This helps managers to
make a better allocation of resources among the various maintenance organizations
and districts and to anticipate the need for material purchases. This exercise also helps
in making decisions about which activities to contract out.
11. Work Scheduling
Maintenance supervisors and foremen should use the monthly work calendars to
prepare short-term (weekly or biweekly) schedules. In general, computer-generated
short-term schedules are not very practical due to the many variables that are beyond
the manager’s control, such as weather, absenteeism, equipment breakdowns, service
requests, emergencies, status of last week’s work accomplishments, and so forth.
However, the managers can prepare a short-term schedule more easily if the monthly
computer-generated work calendars are available to guide the scheduling process.
12. Service Request/Work Order System
Service requests may originate from any number of sources, including ADOT
personnel, state troopers, the Governor’s Office, and the public. For road maintenance
work, the service requests are usually in the form of a complaint (damaged sign,
blocked drainage feature, dead animal, etc.), as opposed to a computer-generated
periodic work order for preventive maintenance on equipment after a certain number
of miles or hours of usage. The complaint is logged and a work order generated and
forwarded to the appropriate foreman for investigation and resolution. When the
problem has been resolved, the foreman should report that the work order has been
completed and also document the work that was done and the resources used.
Whenever possible, the work should be identified as a standard maintenance work
activity, otherwise a miscellaneous activity code should be used.
13. Daily Work Reporting Process
As work is performed, a work report should be prepared each day. This report should
summarize the work activity or activities done on that day, the resources used, and the
locations where the work was done. It should also provide any remarks that might be
17
helpful in interpreting the data at a later time, such as accident damage to guardrail
repaired, or equipment breakdown resulting in lower production than normal.
14. Management Reports
Three types of management reports are generally needed:
General information reports, such as personnel or equipment lists, road inventory
data, activity planning values, unit costs, etc.
Reports related to work accomplishment, cost, and efficiency, including planned
versus actual accomplishments.
LOS outcome reports, such as actual LOS summaries, actual versus planned LOS, or
trends in LOS values over a period of time.
15. Summary
The system requirements versus current PeCoS capabilities are summarized in Table 1.
Table 1: Comparison of Requirements with PeCoS Capabilities
Functional Requirement In PeCoS now?
1) LOS Objectives No
2) Customer Involvement Process No
3) Condition (LOS) Assessment Surveys No
4) LOS to LOE Conversion Factors No
5) Maintenance Feature Inventory Yes*
6) Quantity Standards, or LOE Yes
7) Activity Planning Values Yes
8) Work Program and Budget Calculator Yes
9) Work Calendar/Workload Balancing Yes
10) Resource Requirements Calculator Yes
11) Work Scheduling Yes
12) Service Request/Work Order System No
13) Daily Work Reporting Process Yes
14) Management Reports:
a) General Information Yes
b) Work Accomplishment, Cost, Efficiency Yes
c) LOS Outcomes No
*under revision
18
2.4 SYSTEM FLOW DIAGRAM
The diagram in Figure 1 illustrates the overall process for managing a customer-oriented
LOS maintenance program.
Figure 1: Flow Diagram for an LOS-based Maintenance Management
Define customer needs
Set level-of-service
objectives
Determine level of work
effort for various levels
of service
Determine budget needs
Define work priorities
and deploy resources
Measure outcomes
Evaluate performance
against established
objectives
Adjust to meet
available funds
Interactive
Planning
Process
Budgeting
Execution
Evaluation
Customer
Interface
Conduct Survey of
Current LOS
19
CHAPTER III. INDUSTRY BEST PRACTICES
3.1 OVERVIEW
An initial survey of best practices of other state departments of transportation was
performed to assess the state-of-the-practice and identify how ADOT’s maintenance
management system can benefit from industry innovations. This was followed by a
supplemental survey, which provided additional details on specific focus areas. The
results of these surveys will better enable ADOT to implement a customer-oriented LOS
maintenance management approach, and to design a system to support that approach.
3.2 METHODOLOGY
3.2.1 Survey Questions
The initial survey was designed to gather information in four primary areas:
• LOS-based planning and budgeting.
• Customer surveys.
• Performance monitoring.
• Life cycle cost analysis.
The supplemental survey provided details in four specific areas:
• Sampling techniques and methodology for measuring performance.
• Weighting performance measurement data.
• Developing workload factors and tying LOS targets to budgets.
• Using customer input to set LOS targets.
The survey questionnaire is presented in Appendix B.
3.2.2 States Surveyed
Twelve state departments of transportation were included in the initial best practice
survey:
• Colorado • North Carolina
• Florida • New Mexico
20
• Georgia • Oregon
• Illinois • Pennsylvania
• Maryland • Virginia
• Minnesota • Washington
Telephone interviews were conducted with maintenance managers in each of the states.
States that have documented procedures or other written information assisted by
providing the appropriate documentation. In addition to the telephonic surveys, literature
was gathered from previous similar studies conducted by Dye Management Group, Inc.
and Jorgensen and Associates and from NCHRP Synthesis 238 by the Transportation
Research Board [1]. The Virginia Department of Transportation’s best practices were
identified from the consultant’s recent work in that state.
Three states (Colorado, Florida, and Washington) were targeted for a supplemental
survey. They were contacted by telephone to discuss their practices in each of the areas
listed in section 3.2.1. Where it was available, documentation was obtained from the
states to augment the survey.
3.3 RESULTS
3.3.1 LOS Planning and Budgeting
ADOT’s LOS system is aimed at developing performance-based budgets for each district.
Workload factors – LOE factors – have been developed to link maintenance activity
workloads to ADOT’s service levels. The development of the LOE factors is based on
historical workloads and includes the following basic assumption:
• The current maintenance program budgets and LOE are maintaining the road
system in a steady-state condition. That is, at the present maintenance
investment level, the road system will remain in its current condition.
In addition to this basic assumption, several assumptions were made about the impact of
specific activities on LOS. In general, the process for developing ADOT’s LOE factors is
a pioneering effort for which there is no preceding research to support the assumptions
made. While the approach is deemed sound, ADOT wishes to consider how other states
are relating levels of service to budgets and how the performance data are used to make
programmatic and investment decisions.
Generally, the surveyed states have some form of LOS planning and budgeting for
pavements and bridges. All of the states have a pavement management system, which is
used to set budgets for specified LOS targets. The general approaches to pavement
management systems for rating pavements, defining rehabilitation strategies at the project
level, and defining programmatic budget needs are fairly consistent from state to state.
21
Some of the states have implemented the PONTIS Bridge Management System for
managing the bridge maintenance programs. Similar to pavement management systems,
PONTIS is capable of defining budget needs based on defined condition objectives.
Except for the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT), none of the states has an
LOS-based budgeting process for non-pavement and non-bridge assets. Most of the states
expressed a desire to implement such a process, and development work in this area is
under way in Colorado and North Carolina.
Colorado Department of Transportation’s (CDOT) LOS budgeting approach uses five
defined service levels (A through D, F). The service levels are assigned numerical scores
so that the results can be aggregated into a single performance measurement. The
ultimate outcome was the development of a matrix that ties maintenance costs to
activities for the five service levels. As a result of implementing its LOS budgeting
approach, CDOT was able to obtain an additional $2 million for its bridge maintenance
program and an additional $1 million for maintenance in the Denver metropolitan area.
FDOT does not directly relate budgets to optional service levels in the same way that
ADOT does. Rather, state law mandates that FDOT maintain its road system at a
specified LOS, which is a composite MRP rating of 80. Because FDOT has gathered data
over many years, it has developed an estimate of the work required to achieve the
specified MRP 80.
FDOT uses its MRP ratings at both the programmatic/budgeting level and the operational
level. The budgeting process is somewhat involved and has taken FDOT several years of
data collection and refinement to develop.
Washington State Department of Transportation’s (WSDOT) approach is similar to that
of CDOT. A budget matrix has been developed that relates funding requirements to
desired levels of service. WSDOT considers these to be maintenance investment options.
Dye Management Group, Inc. and Roy Jorgensen Associates, Inc. assisted WSDOT in
developing its initial investment options matrix. Maintenance management activities were
tied to outcomes, and work efforts were estimated for the five service levels from
historical data. Since the system’s implementation, WSDOT has continued to refine and
update the matrix as historical data is generated. As a result of WSDOT’s LOS approach,
it received $2.5 million in additional funds in 1997 to enhance service levels for some
targeted activities, and $1 million in 1998 to enhance noxious weed control.
3.3.2 Customer Input
In the development of ADOT’s LOS maintenance management system, customer surveys
were conducted to assess the public’s perception of ADOT’s maintenance performance.
The customer data was obtained from focus groups and telephone surveys of randomly
selected citizens.
22
Several of the states have implemented customer surveys in their maintenance operations.
Colorado, Minnesota, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Washington conduct surveys on a
regular basis. Illinois and Florida conduct surveys for their rest areas.
ADOT’s primary concern is that the methods used might not adequately provide a link
between LOS targets and public expectations. The supplemental survey was aimed at
determining how customer service data is used in setting performance targets and tying
customer expectations to budgets.
None of the states included in the supplemental survey have developed a direct link that
ties quantifiable customer expectations to LOS maintenance measurements. Minnesota
Department of Transportation (MnDOT) is recognized as one of the leading departments
of transportation in conducting customer surveys for maintenance. MnDOT’s approach
was reported in the interim report “Industry Best Practices Report” [2]. MnDOT uses the
customer input to determine where it should place programmatic emphasis. However, it
has not established LOS targets linked to specific customer service measures.
3.3.3 Performance Monitoring
A number of the states surveyed have some form of performance monitoring process in
place (Colorado, Georgia, Florida, Maryland, Minnesota, North Carolina, and
Pennsylvania). The approaches vary considerably from state to state – Florida
Department of Transportation conducts the most rigorous performance monitoring, while
Georgia only has a formal process for monitoring pavement and bridge performance. The
states recognize performance monitoring as a critical component of effective maintenance
management for measuring efficiency and effectiveness. All of the states monitor
pavement and bridge performance through their pavement and bridge management
systems. Performance monitoring for other maintenance assets was noted as desirable,
and many either have plans or anticipate projects in the near future to develop such
procedures.
3.3.4 Sampling Methodology
None of the three states contacted in the supplemental best practice survey use sampling
by individual assets. All three states base their sampling plan on the inventory of road
miles. Virginia is the only state known to be implementing a comprehensive asset-based
condition assessment system. Virginia Department of Transportation is currently in the
pilot phase of a project to develop and implement the system. A Phase One Report on the
project results was expected around the end of 1999. Several states have implemented
pavement and bridge management systems, which are asset based. Additionally, some
states are in the process of implementing sign management systems, which are also asset
based.
23
3.3.5 Weighting Factors for Aggregating Performance Measurement Data
ADOT’s LOS system is capable of aggregating actual performance data by district and
state. The system does not currently have the capability to roll data up into a single
number as a composite measure of performance. Both CDOT and FDOT use numerical
ratings and are, therefore, capable of aggregating data into a single-performance measure.
3.3.6 Life Cycle Costing
Life cycle costing is being used by the surveyed states for a limited number of
applications. Life cycle costing plays a key role in analyzing design alternatives for
overlay projects. It is used within the pavement management systems to develop
maintenance and repair strategies. The American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials’ Bridge Management System, PONTIS, uses life cycle costing to
develop repair and replacement strategies. None of the surveyed states used life cycle
costing in their routine maintenance and budgeting processes and none had plans to do
so.
Several respondents expressed their reservations concerning life cycle costing
calculations because assumptions concerning future discount rates and user costs could
skew the results of these calculations.
24
25
CHAPTER IV. PUBLIC PERCEPTIONS
4.1 OVERVIEW
In order to help successfully establish a customer-oriented LOS maintenance
management system, public perception of Arizona’s highway maintenance program was
initially obtained using two methods. First, a statistically valid telephone survey of 403
Arizona residents was conducted. In the survey, respondents were asked to clarify their
current and desired service levels for maintenance. The respondents were equally
distributed in various regions of the state, as Table 2 illustrates.
Table 2: Geographic Distribution for Telephone Survey
Region Counties Interviews Completed
Urban Maricopa, Pima, Pinal 101
Rural – High Temperature Mohave, La Paz, Yuma, Santa Cruz 100
Rural – Snow and Ice Coconino, Yavapai, Gila, Navajo, Apache 100
Rural – High Elevation Cochise, Graham, Greenlee 102
Total 403
Second, in order to validate telephone survey findings, focus groups were held with
residents in Phoenix, Tucson, and Flagstaff. The residents were randomly selected and
asked to clarify their current and desired LOS for maintenance.
Focus groups were also held with 92 ADOT maintenance staff from regions around the
state. The purpose of these focus groups was to gather perspectives on maintenance levels
and to learn how employees think ADOT’s maintenance efforts are perceived by
residents. An example of material used during focus group discussions is provided in
Figure 2 on the following page.
In order to supplement these overall findings, an additional survey was conducted to
determine current and desired levels of service for five specific areas of maintenance.
This was achieved using a three-step interviewing process with 113 Arizona residents.
26
Figure 2: Focus Group Survey Sample
Condition 1: This pavement is in very good to perfect
condi-tion. A road which is so smooth that at the speed
you are traveling you would hardly know the road was
there. You doubt that if someone made the surface
smoother that the ride would be detectably nicer.
Condition 2: This pavement is in good condition with
good ride quality.
Condition 1 Condition 2
Condition 3: This pavement is in fair condition
with fair ride quality.
Condition 4: This pavement is in poor
condition with poor ride quality.
Condition 5: This pavement is impassable. A road
which is so bad that you doubt that you or the car
will make it to the end at the speed you are traveling
– like traveling along railroad tracks along the ties.
Condition 3 Condition 4
Condition 5
27
4.2 GENERAL FINDINGS
Analysis of survey and focus group responses indicated that while Arizona residents are
generally satisfied with current maintenance efforts, they would like improvements in all
maintenance areas. This is reflected in issues related to current maintenance levels,
desired maintenance levels, and program funding.
a. Current Maintenance Levels
Arizona residents generally rate current maintenance favorably.
The telephone survey indicates that by a nearly four-to-one ratio, residents were
satisfied with current maintenance levels. Seventy-nine percent (79%) indicated
that they were “satisfied” with highway maintenance efforts, compared to 20
percent who indicated they were “not satisfied” and one percent who were
uncertain of their satisfaction level.
Residents rate the current maintenance levels for traffic control and safety,
vegetation, snow/ice removal, and roadside maintenance the highest.
Traffic control and safety and vegetation maintenance areas had the highest
number of respondents (72% and 68%, respectively) that gave a 1 or 2 rating of
current maintenance levels (based on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being “very well
maintained” and 5 being “very poorly maintained”). The snow and ice removal
and roadside maintenance areas were a close second and third, at 67 percent and
65 percent, respectively.
A majority of telephone respondents rated the current level of maintenance in
the ten maintenance areas as either “excellent” or “above average”. However,
residents in the rural-snow/ice region offered lower maintenance ratings than
those in other regions of the state.
Urban residents have the highest level of satisfaction with current service
levels, including the efficiency of ADOT maintenance staff.
Ninety-one percent (91%) of all telephone survey respondents in urban areas
indicated that they were “satisfied” with current maintenance service levels.
This is higher than the 79 percent of all respondents statewide who rated current
maintenance levels as satisfactory. Fifty percent (50%) of all urban residents
rated the efficiency of ADOT maintenance staff as “excellent” or “above
average,” compared with 41 percent of rural respondents who offered excellent
or above average ratings of the efficiency of ADOT staff.
28
Arizona road maintenance is rated higher than maintenance provided by
local jurisdictions and other states.
By a nearly seven-to-one ratio, telephone survey respondents indicated that they
were satisfied with ADOT road maintenance, when compared to local
maintenance efforts. Sixty-two percent (62%) of them rated ADOT maintenance
“better” than maintenance by local jurisdictions, nine percent rated it “worse,”
and 28 percent rated it as “about the same.”
By a better than four-to-one margin, telephone survey respondents indicated that
they were satisfied with ADOT road maintenance, when compared to
maintenance efforts by other states. Forty-seven percent (47%) of them rated
ADOT maintenance better than maintenance by other states, 11 percent rated it
worse, and 38 percent rated it as about the same.
Actual maintenance conditions are worse than public perceptions in all
service areas.
All eight of the maintenance areas examined during the actual condition survey
(in the field) rated lower than they did when ranked by the public. The roadside
shoulders maintenance area showed the greatest variance, with a difference
between public perception and actual condition of a level and a half (on five-level
scale).
b. Desired Maintenance Levels
Service levels should be improved in all maintenance areas.
Telephone survey respondents and focus groups indicated that overall service
levels should be increased. They perceived overall current maintenance levels to
be near a level 3, but desired them to be closer to a 2 (on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1
being “very well maintained” and 5 being “very poorly maintained”).
This trend follows individual maintenance areas, as illustrated in Figure 3 on the
next page.
29
Figure 3: Current Perceived and Desired Maintenance Levels
Safety should be the most important maintenance goal.
Eighty-five percent (85%) of telephone survey respondents and 74 percent of
resident focus group participants rated safety as their number one priority.
Among telephone survey respondents, preservation was the second highest
rated, at 46 percent.
Enhancement of traffic control and safety, bridge, drainage, and roadside
maintenance should be considered as key improvement objectives.
Each of the maintenance areas with the highest desired maintenance level
ratings also showed significant room for improvement, as illustrated by the
difference between the perceived current LOS and the service level desired by
telephone survey respondents.
Drainage and structure maintenance had the greatest room for improvement.
The number of respondents who perceived these maintenance areas as currently
2.5 2.5
2.2 2.1
2.4 2.3 2.2
2.0
2.3
2.0 2.1 1.9
1.7 1.7
2.2
1.6 1.5 1.4
1.6 1.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
Paved Roadway
Surfaces
Road Shoulders
Roadside
Vegetation
Landscaping
Drainage
Structures
Traffic Control and
Safety
Rest Areas
Snow and Ice
Removal
Level
of
Service
Ranking
Current Perceived Level Desired Level
30
being a 1 or 2 (on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being “very well maintained” and 5
being “very poorly maintained”) differed by as much as 30 percent from the
number of respondents who desired the service levels for these same
maintenance areas be at a 1 or 2 level. This is followed closely by the traffic
control and safety and roadside maintenance areas (each with a 22 percent
difference).
Roadway surface maintenance is in need of the most improvement.
Of telephone respondents who indicated dissatisfaction with current
maintenance levels, 80 percent identified roadway surface maintenance as the
single largest improvement they would like to see made to ADOT maintenance
efforts. The improvement calls for fewer potholes, cracks, and rough roads. This
finding was generally consistent across all regions, rating the highest in the
rural-high elevation region. In that region, 96 percent of the respondents
indicated that roadway surface maintenance was the single largest improvement
they would like to see made.
c. Program Funding
Residents are willing to spend more tax money to achieve their desired
levels of service, if they are assured that it is necessary.
Sixty percent (60%) of the telephone survey respondents, and 65 percent of the
focus group respondents, indicated that they would be willing to increase taxes
to meet increased maintenance service levels.
Traffic control and safety and paved roadway surfaces maintenance areas
should have the highest funding priorities.
The traffic control and safety and paved road surfaces maintenance areas tied
for the highest funding priorities, according to telephone survey respondents.
While this finding is generally consistent across regions, snow and ice removal
rated extremely high (80%) as a funding priority in the rural-snow/ice region.
State spending on preventive maintenance is strongly encouraged.
Ninety percent (90%) of all telephone respondents and 84 percent of all focus
group participants suggested that they would be willing to pay more now to save
money in the long term on maintenance.
The findings were generally consistent across all regions, with exceptions noted
above.
31
4.3 ADOT MAINTENANCE STAFF FINDINGS
Focus groups with ADOT maintenance staff indicate that maintenance staff members are
generally in touch with public perceptions regarding maintenance. For all but two of the
maintenance areas measured, ADOT staff ratings were within .5, on a scale of 1 to 5, of
correctly estimating what public perception was of ADOT maintenance efforts.
While ADOT maintenance staff focus group participants were adept at perceiving the
public’s opinions, their own views of current maintenance conditions were significantly
lower than those of the public.
4.4 SUPPLEMENTAL FINDINGS
a. Current Maintenance Levels
Residents perceive paved shoulder erosion to be well controlled and ride
quality well maintained.
Using a five point scale where 1 means “very well maintained” and 5 means “very
poorly maintained”, a majority of the residents surveyed rated maintenance levels
positively (ratings of 1 or 2) in the areas of paved shoulder erosion (68%) and ride
quality (64%). Also note that each of these maintenance areas received negative
ratings (ratings of 4 or 5) from less than one in ten residents.
Paved shoulder drop-offs are also generally seen as well maintained.
Half of the respondents (50%) also gave ratings of 1 or 2, while only 12% rated
paved shoulder drop-offs at 4 or 5.
Residents do not perceive unpaved shoulder erosion and unpaved shoulder
drop-offs to be well controlled .
These two maintenance areas received positive ratings from less than a majority of
surveyed residents. Unpaved shoulder erosion control received ratings of 1 or 2
from 43% of respondents, and scores of 4 or 5 from 26% of those surveyed.
Moreover, unpaved shoulder drop-offs were rated negatively more often than
positively (35% and 23%, respectively).
b. Desired Maintenance Levels
Residents seek high maintenance levels in all five areas tested.
Each of the five maintenance areas studied received high ratings from at least eight
in ten survey participants. Paved shoulder erosion control received the highest
volume of 1 or 2 ratings (93%).
32
As shown in Figure 4, there is a considerable difference between current perceived
levels of maintenance and desired levels.
Figure 4: Evaluation of Arizona Highways Maintenance in Selected Area
33
CHAPTER V. CONDITION ASSESSMENT AND BUDGET
5.1 OVERVIEW
A two-year maintenance budget was prepared, based on the newly developed
maintenance management procedures. The development of this budget required
establishing:
1. The existing condition of the infrastructure.
2. The desired condition of the system (LOS).
3. The cause and effect relationship between maintenance activities and system
condition.
To accomplish this, the various maintenance activities were grouped into nine categories
shown in Table 3. These categories were used to assess the infrastructure’s existing
condition and to determine the desired condition.
Table 3: Maintenance Categories
• Paved Roadway Surfaces • Vegetation Control • Traffic Control & Safety
• Road Shoulders • Landscaping • Rest Areas
• Roadside • Drainage
• Snow & Ice Removal
Existing and Desired Conditions
The existing condition was established in three phases. The first phase developed five
LOS (condition ratings) for each of the PeCoS items related to the nine categories, as
discussed in Chapter II of this document. During the second and third phases, focus
groups and interviews were conducted (discussed in Chapter IV of this document).
Maintenance personnel, in conjunction with Jorgenson and Associates, established the
five LOS for each PeCoS item.
Since the Jorgenson condition ratings were based on objective measurements that may
not be too relevant to the public, subjective definitions were used during the public
perception determination. It should also be noted that as many as ten PeCoS items could
represent the work contained in one of the nine categories in Table 3. This means that ten
objective measurements obtained during the condition assessments would have to be
described by one subjective statement during the public perception studies. This results in
some difficulties that will be described in the budget development section.
34
Cause and Effect Relationship Between Maintenance Activities and System
Condition
Perhaps the single most difficult aspect of this project is to establish the cause and effect
relationship. It should be understood that data has only been obtained for one point in
time (one snapshot in time). That is, although the amount of cracking on a certain
segment of roadway at this moment may be known, whether this cracking has remained
the same for many years or has been rapidly increasing is not known. Therefore,
determining a cause and effect relationship on this limited data is tenuous at best. It will
likely take several years of data collection to establish this relationship.
To establish the relationship, four ADOT maintenance personnel worked with Jorgenson
& Associates at their Maryland office for one week. The group was used as an expert task
group to determine the amount of effort necessary to obtain the five conditions for each
of the PeCoS items related to the nine categories in Table 3. For each item, the
investment required to maintain each LOS was determined. The budget amount for each
PeCoS item was then aggregated into a total budget for each of the nine categories.
5.2 MAINTENANCE BUDGET DEVELOPMENT
The maintenance budget, based upon a customer-defined LOS, is shown in Table 4.
Using the process described above, the researchers requested that the districts prepare
individual budgets. As of summer 1999, measurements were being refined and district-level
budgets were being developed.
Ideally, the public’s subjective evaluation would correlate directly with the quantitative
measurements obtained during the field condition assessments. In that case, it would be
an easy matter to determine the amount of improvement needed to achieve the public’s
LOS. However, as previously discussed, the subjective definitions used during the public
surveys make it difficult to relate quantitative measurements to public opinions. First, the
public’s impressions are subjective and based on each of their own experiences.
Secondly, as many as ten PeCoS items, with five standards each, had to be described by
only one category (such as Roadside Maintenance) with only five standards. This resulted
in difficulty in establishing the relationship between the public’s “existing condition” and
ADOT’s measurements obtained during the condition assessment phase.
3
Table 4: Budget Summary Report
PeCoS
No.
Program Description Current
Budget
LOS
Increase
Inflation
Adjustment
PeCoS No. Total
100 Paved Surface Maintenance $ 10,219,715 $ 2,618,141 $ 423,649 $ 13,261,505
120 Unpaved Surface Maintenance 291,373 0 9,615 300,988
130 Shoulder Maintenance 1,832,607 493,807 76,772 2,403,185
140 Vegetation Control 1,619,938 221,568 60,770 1,902,276
150 Roadside Maintenance 7,482,454 3,000,000 345,921 10,828,375
160 Drainage Maintenance 2,943,312 858,003 125,443 3,926,759
170 Snow and Ice 4,437,865 426,076 160,510 5,024,451
180 Major Weather 100,939 809 3,358 105,106
190 Miscellaneous Maintenance 70,949 0 2,341 73,290
200 Rest Area Maintenance 194,326 197,474 12,929 404,730
300 Landscape Maintenance 2,076,497 30,686 69,537 2,176,720
400 Traffic Control 10,418,609 495,520 360,166 11,274,295
500 Sign Shop 1,880,347 55,707 63,890 1,999,944
510 Traffic Signals 2,002,211 295,813 75,835 2,373,858
600 Other Highway Maintenance 17,664,205 4,712,364 738,427 23,114,996
700 Non Routine Maintenance 1,596,043 728,639 76,714 2,401,396
800 Maintenance Material Processing 1,819,866 1,304,283 103,097 3,227,246
900 Clerical and Support 2,927,474 300,293 106,516 3,334,283
Contracting – All 3,571,000 569,575 136,639 4,277,213
Program Total 92,410,616
35
36
5.3 DATA MODEL DEVELOPMENT
To address this difficulty in establishing a relationship, data models were developed to
represent the relationship between the investment and the resulting LOS obtained for
each of the nine categories in Table 3. These models provide a mechanism for
determining the total annual investment necessary to maintain any given condition for
each of the nine categories.
For each of the categories, the “Actual Condition” was found to be significantly lower
than the public’s “Perceived Condition.” This is probably a result of the difficulty in
relating subjective statements representing broad categories to objective measurements of
specific conditions. However, it makes the amount of improvement difficult to ascertain.
If the public’s perceived condition coincided with the measured actual condition, the
amount of improvement would simply be the difference between the perceived actual
condition and the desired condition. When the two points do not coincide, the amount of
improvement necessary to achieve the desired condition can be significantly different.
To overcome this obstacle, it was decided to use the difference between the perceived
actual condition and the desired condition as the amount of improvement necessary. The
logic for this was that it provided the amount of change necessary independent of the
actual condition. Therefore, it could be assumed that for somewhat linear curves, as long
as the specified amount of improvement was obtained for the specified investment
increase, the model would still be verified.
5.4 BUDGET ASSUMPTIONS
The budget was calculated using eighteen PeCoS maintenance items. The budget was
prepared for each of these items by adding the investment necessary to produce the
improvement from the perceived actual condition to the desired condition to last year’s
budget amount. That total was then increased by an inflation rate of 3.3 percent.
To obtain the additional investment necessary to cause the increase in LOS, the
difference between the public’s desired and perceived actual conditions was multiplied
by the difference between adjacent standard funding levels.
The annual budget, shown in Table 4, is simply the addition of the 1998 budget amount,
with the LOS increase amount and an inflation rate applied to it. It is understood that
additional contract items have not been included in this process and will need to be
included in the final budget once the amounts have been determined.
37
CHAPTER VI. LIFE CYCLE COSTS
6.1 OVERVIEW
As part of ADOT’s Maintenance Management System project, opportunities were
evaluated to integrate life cycle cost analysis (LCCA) into ADOT’s maintenance
activities. Because of the nature of the project under which this evaluation is performed,
the focus of this evaluation is on roadway maintenance activities. However, the
discussion is not necessarily limited to these. The study of opportunities to integrate
LCCA with ADOT’s maintenance management system was accomplished by carrying
out interviews with maintenance practitioners at ADOT, as well as with other
knowledgeable Department staff. The capabilities of ADOT’s existing management
systems were also considered.
According to information provided by ADOT, life cycle costs are not currently
considered in either pavement maintenance or rehabilitation (as triggered by ADOT’s
pavement management system). In PeCoS, ADOT’s maintenance management system,
maintenance cost data are tracked, but the costs are not directly linked to specific
treatments applied at specific locations. No formal treatment performance data are
collected or retained in the maintenance management system, making cost analyses
highly problematic. In ADOT’s pavement management system, overall pavement
performance is monitored, but pavement maintenance treatments are only tracked when
the projects are larger than $50,000, and then only if the work is done by contract. There
is thus no easy way to link important characteristics of maintenance treatments – what is
applied, where it is applied, how much the treatment costs, and how it is performing –
using either the maintenance management system or the pavement management system.
Even in ADOT’s pavement design practices, life cycle costs are only indirectly
considered. Projected lives are assigned to different designs and treatments by agreement
in order to carry out a generic analysis; the projected life data are not generated (or
verified) by performance models or other pavement management data. There is no
database with cost or performance data for any of the other roadside maintenance
activities, such as signage, pavement markings, drainage, and so on.
ADOT is likely to realize benefits through the use of LCCA methods in at least two
areas. The first is in making the decision to purchase or replace an asset. In such
instances, as long as there are alternative ways of completing the same job using
materials and procedures of different costs and lives, the costs and anticipated lives
should be considered for a number of alternatives.
LCCA also has the potential to provide benefits to ADOT in determining approaches to
maintaining assets rather than replacing them. Applying LCCA techniques can be a very
productive way of both improving performance and making more cost-effective use of
available maintenance funds. Pavement maintenance in particular is an area where this is
likely to be of great benefit to ADOT.
38
It must be emphasized that an examination of ADOT’s previous maintenance practices
may not be an appropriate way to predict the potential of LCCA to improve maintenance
strategies. If the previous practice has been to apply inappropriate treatments (either too
little, too late, or a combination of the two) the benefit side of maintenance will be hard
to measure. Similarly, if maintenance programs have been underfunded in the past,
benefits may have been hard to measure.
6.2 LCCA AND ADOT’S PAVEMENT PRACTICES
Pavement maintenance is especially appropriate for this type of analysis because there are
alternative treatments available. Applying various treatments at different times will have
different impacts; and there is a mechanism in place (ADOT’s pavement management
system) for tracking impacts of treatments on performance. Furthermore, ongoing efforts
at ADOT to look at pavement maintenance treatment performance and maintenance
effectiveness will provide additional beneficial information to assist in these analyses.
However, modifications to ADOT’s pavement management system are needed in order to
create a system that can assist in performance monitoring and modeling. The following
capabilities are needed if pavement management is to be of value to programmed
pavement maintenance activities that are analyzed using life cycle costs.
• A tracking system is an important part of the overall process. The system must
have the ability to keep track of what treatments are applied and where. These
data must be collected and stored in a database with very specific capabilities.
One important component of this system is locational referencing capabilities
with dynamic segmentation, so that the boundaries of various pavement
treatments do not become obscured over time. The tracking should follow the
same location referencing system used in ADOT’s pavement management
system and should distinguish between mainline and shoulder maintenance
activities.
• A means of monitoring performance is also of paramount importance. ADOT’s
current system tracks roughness, cracking, and flushing, but the current
monitoring system is not refined enough to be used to trigger preventive
maintenance treatments. Preventive maintenance treatments are triggered by
conditions such as the initiation of cracking, increased roughness, or loss of
friction. The performance measures ADOT uses to trigger the need for
treatments must be capable of being measured as part of routine evaluations.
Furthermore, the frequency of monitoring must be such that the need for
treatment can be identified, and predict the treatments applied before the
pavement condition has substantially changed.
39
• LCCA is appropriate for assets whose performance can be predicted. Therefore,
a system must be in place to predict pavement condition and trigger the need for
treatment. The performance condition projections must provide sufficient lead
time so that candidate treatments can be generated, selected, designed,
contracted, and constructed before conditions have changed. Available models
must be based on actual performance, including the performance of maintained
sections as described above, to be useful.
• As part of an annual field tour, pavement maintenance and pavement
management representatives should assess treatment recommendations from the
pavement management system to assess the accuracy of the analysis and to
update the models.
6.3 LCCA AND OTHER MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES
In addition to pavement maintenance, roadway maintenance concerns address a broader
range of needs, including shoulders, roadside appurtenances, drainage, vegetation and
landscaping, and winter maintenance. All of these are potential candidates for LCCA
considerations, especially when considering replacement alternatives. Their suitability for
other types of treatments, such as maintenance rather than replacement, should be
evaluated in terms of their ability to meet the criteria noted below.
Recommendations for the consideration of LCCA in decision making for other
maintenance features are presented in Table 5 and Table 6. Table 5 relates selected
maintenance features to the expected type of maintenance activity and the factors that
affect the performance of the feature. For example, for the maintenance feature striping
(or pavement markings) the maintenance activity is to replace the marking, and its
performance is affected by wear from traffic and aging due to exposure to environmental
factors.
The information in Table 5 forms the basis for the recommendations in Table 6, in which
the appropriateness of using LCCA, the recommended LCCA approach (such as present
worth [PW] analyses, equivalent uniform annual costs [EUAC], and probabilistic
analyses), and the information needed to move forward with LCCA in the decision
making process are presented. To decide if a maintenance feature is a candidate for
LCCA analysis, the maintenance activities described in Table 5 are considered. If the
maintenance activity is repetitive, predictable in some manner, and can be done in
different ways, LCCA are considered appropriate. The recommended LCCA approach
considers what causes the maintenance activity to be needed and the repetitive nature of
the activity. If the activity is to be performed annually, the use of annualized costs are
recommended. If the activity is primarily a replacement, and the replacement is expected
to last for more that a few years, then present work analyses are recommended. However,
if the need for replacement is triggered by accidents, vandalism, or certain environmental
factors, the use of probabilistic analyses is recommended.
40
Finally, in Table 6 some recommendations are made for implementation. These
recommendations are intended as broad guidelines for collecting information in order to
implement LCCA. It should be noted that these tables were developed on the basis of
several assumptions. It is assumed that for each maintenance feature there exists different
means of performing the activity or maintaining the feature, and thus LCCA is
meaningful. It is also assumed that for each feature there is some readily measurable
means of triggering the need for maintenance. And, unlike pavements or bridges, for this
group of features that is no reason to maintain or repair the feature before it reaches the
trigger value.
Table 5: Description of Maintenance Activities
Maintenance Feature Maintenance Activity Factors Affecting Performance
Shoulder Drop-Off Eliminate drop-off by rebuilding shoulder, using non-erodible
materials, or wear-resistant materials.
Traffic wear, environmental factors (wind,
rainfall), and the type of shoulder material.
Erosion Prevent erosion through control methods (use of non-erodible
materials and vegetation), and repair erosion effects.
Environmental factors (rainfall and wind)
and the type of material.
Roadside Barriers Replace barriers that are damaged and perform minor maintenance on
in-place barriers.
Traffic incursion.
Guardrail Ribbon Replace guardrail that is damaged and perform minor maintenance to
ensure that existing guardrail will perform when needed.
Traffic incursion.
End Treatments Replace end treatments that are damaged and perform minor
maintenance to ensure that existing treatments are functional.
Traffic incursion.
Crash Attenuator Replace when damaged. Traffic incursion.
Glare Screen Replace when damaged and perform minor maintenance. Traffic incursion.
Fencing Depending on the fence type, maintain condition and replace missing
sections as needed.
Traffic incursion, vandalism, and possible
wildlife.
Pipes/Culverts Maintain (clean and flush) silted or clogged drains, repair damaged
drainage features, and replace failed drains.
Environmental factors (rainfall), type of
natural materials and site layout, wildlife
(traffic loadings should not affect
performance).
Drop Inlets/Catch Basins Maintain features free from obstructions and replace when failed. Primarily rainfall (traffic loadings should
not affect performance).
Striping Replace pavement markings when no longer visible. Friction from tires and aging due to
exposure to solar, temperature, and rainfall
effects.
Signs Maintain signs to ensure verticality, visibility, and security, and
replace signs and posts that are either damaged or missing.
Weathering due to solar exposure, wear
from wind-borne particles, vandalism, and
traffic incursions.
Unpaved Ditches Regrade ditches when overgrown or silted over. Rainfall, materials type.
Vegetation (weed
control, grass)
Control vegetation growth, remove unwanted vegetation (safety,
aesthetics) and mow.
Amount of rainfall and sunlight, frequency
of mowing, use of chemicals.
Landscaping Maintain existing landscaping by watering and pruning; replace or
add landscape as needed.
Amount of rainfall and sunlight, type of
plants used.
41
Table 6: Life Cycle Cost Recommendations and Needed Information
Maintenance
Feature
Appropriateness of LCCA Recommended LCCA
Approach
Factors Affecting Performance
Shoulder
Drop-Off
Maintenance decisions, including
blading versus paving and type of
leveling.
Use EUAC, considering
annualized costs of different
maintenance approaches.
Frequency of current maintenance, cost of different materials, projected
effect on performance.
Erosion Maintenance decisions, such as the
use of erosion-resistant materials,
and planting vegetation.
In erosion susceptible areas,
use EUAC to compare the
annualized costs of
alternatives.
Frequency of current maintenance, cost on non-erodible materials. Use
probabilistic if variable environmental conditions significantly impact
maintenance needs.
Roadside
Barriers
Replacement decisions. Probabilistic (PW). Probabilities of accidents, replacement costs. Otherwise, assumes lives to
be equal.
Guardrail
Ribbon
Replacement decisions. Probabilistic (PW). Probabilities of accidents, replacement costs. Otherwise, assumes lives to
be equal.
End
Treatments
Replacement decisions. Probabilistic (PW). Probabilities of accidents, replacement costs. Otherwise, assumes lives to
be equal.
Crash
Attenuator
Replacement decisions. Probabilistic (PW). Probabilities of accidents, replacement costs. Otherwise, assumes lives to
be equal.
Glare Screen Replacement decisions. Use first cost comparisons. Costs of alternatives.
Fencing Replacement decisions. Use first cost comparisons. Costs of alternatives.
Pipes/Culverts Replacement decisions. Either PW or probabilistic
PW.
Sizing: costs of different sizes and materials, probability of rainfall or
flood that would exceed size, projected damage.
Drop
Inlets/Catch
Basins
Not appropriate Consider least first cost for
replacements.
Costs of alternatives.
Striping Replacement decisions PW. Realistic performance projections of different alternatives, warrants for
replacement (visibility, retroreflectivity).
Signs Replacement decisions. Probabilistic (PW). Realistic performance projections of different alternatives, warrants for
replacement (visibility, retroreflectivity), probability of vandalism or
accidents requiring replacement.
Unpaved
Ditches
Not appropriate. No application, grade as
needed.
None.
Vegetation
(weed control,
grass)
Maintenance decisions, such as
application of growth suppressants,
removal, and mowing.
Use EUAC, considering
frequency and costs of
suppression/control methods.
Develop warrants for vegetation control; compare costs and efficacy of
suppression versus maintenance. Consider probabilistic analysis if
variable rainfall significantly impacts maintenance needs.
Landscaping Both maintenance and replacement
decisions.
Use EUAC, considering
frequency of maintenance for
different types of landscaping.
Develop warrants for vegetation control; compare costs and efficacy of
suppression versus maintenance. Consider probabilistic analysis if
variable rainfall significantly impacts maintenance needs.
42
43
CHAPTER VII. SOFTWARE STRATEGY AND
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
7.1 OVERVIEW
As noted in the introduction, the maintenance work management function is the only
major business function for ADOT Maintenance currently supported by computing
technology, via the PeCoS system. The current version, PeCoS II, is presently being
rewritten to move from a standalone PC architecture to a distributed client-server
architecture. The new application is known as PeCoS III. At a minimum, new system
capabilities will be required for both asset inventory and LOS planning. A decision
whether to keep PeCoS or replace it should be made early in the system planning process.
7.2 FUNCTIONAL COMPONENTS
Overall, LOS maintenance management is naturally partitioned into three major
subsystems or functional modules: Asset Inventory, LOS Planning Framework, and Work
Management. A pictorial representation of these three functional modules and their
interrelationships appears in Figure 5. While all three are critical components of
integrated maintenance management information systems, the lines of demarcation
between the functional modules are based on the differing cycles within each business
function and the nature of the information that is central to the module.
The cornerstone of this structure is asset inventory, a complete and accurate inventory of
the state’s highway assets and features, maintained by an asset inventory database
system. Along with the complete description of all highway assets, features, and related
attributes1 (such as location information or drawings and photographs), the database
should store condition assessments collected in the field. In an integrated asset
management environment, the inventory system is the common asset repository used by
the pavement, bridge, and sign management functions. The inventory system also links to
the work management system used by the maintenance organization, allowing a reference
to the actual maintenance work completed for each asset or feature. The central activities
of the inventory system, asset identification and condition assessment, could be
conducted on a continuous basis as an integral element of general maintenance activities,
or periodically as part of an emphasis program, depending on the needs and resources
available. The central information of the inventory module is assets and features, their
history and attributes, and their conditions.
The LOS Planning Framework assists the maintenance planners with the definition of
levels of service, the collection and storage of customer preferences, and using
information from both the asset inventory and work management modules. It also
1 For an integrated asset management system, the inventory module would contain information relating to
pavement, bridges, and signs in addition to the maintenance features normally of interest to a maintenance
organization. Many of the vendor products use an integrated approach having modules used to manage the
work in each of these areas, yet maintaining a common inventory database.
44
determines the LOE (labor, materials, and equipment) needed to attain the desired levels
of service. The estimated labor, materials, and equipment are the basis for the
maintenance budget. The core functions of the LOS Planning Framework will be used
cyclically in conjunction with the annual budget process. The central information of the
LOS Planning Framework is the definition of service levels and their performance
measures, the service level targets based on customer preferences, and the rules used to
determine the required LOE.
The work management module (currently PeCoS) supports the planning and scheduling
of asset maintenance activities. Under an LOS-enabled approach, the work management
module schedules and tracks the maintenance activities that have been determined in
LOS planning as the work effort required to transition the condition of specific highway
assets to its targeted LOS level. The resulting work history and cost information becomes
input to the LOS Planning Framework for the next budget cycle. The core activities of the
work management module, planning, organizing, directing, and controlling maintenance
work, will be conducted on a continuous basis. The central information of the work
management module is planned work activities, resources, and work history (actuals).
This distinction made between the functional modules or subsystems is an important one,
especially alternative approaches to the desired solution are considered. The alternatives
considered and the approach selected sought out a balance between the “best in class”
approach to each functional module and the overall integration of the functions across the
agency.
The following diagram, Figure 5 illustrates the functional and cyclical aspects of a
customer-oriented LOS maintenance management system as described above.
45
Figure 5: Asset Management Functional Components
Asset Inventory
Maintenance Work
Management
(PeCos)
ADOT
Assets
Inventory and Conditions
(Continuous)
Construction and
Maintenance Work
(Continuous)
LOS Planning Framework
Assets and Conditions
(Annual)
Workload Plan and Budget
(Annual)
Work History
(Annual)
Work Completed
(Continuous)
Pavement Management
Bridge Management
46
7.3 ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES AND RECOMMENDATIONS
An analysis of the requirements, the state of information technology capability at ADOT,
and the availability of viable vendor software products on the market was conducted, and
four alternatives were identified, each having the capability of satisfying ADOT’s
requirements. An important consideration in the identification of alternatives is that no
packaged software was found that meets the LOS planning requirements. Using varying
combinations of purchased, custom, and existing software, the alternatives are:
• Alternative 1 – Purchase a maintenance management system package that
includes both asset inventory and work management, and custom build an LOS
planning framework software application.
• Alternative 2 – Keep PeCoS and custom build asset inventory and LOS
planning framework software applications.
• Alternative 3 – Keep PeCoS, purchase an asset inventory system, and custom
build an LOS planning framework software application.
• Alternative 4 – Custom build a complete LOS-capable maintenance
management software application.
An evaluation of the four alternatives was made using common information technology
issues as evaluation criteria. Each criterion was assigned a weighting factor based on its
importance to ADOT. Scores were then compiled for each alternative by totaling
individually weighted scores for each criterion. This evaluation resulted in Alternative 1
and Alternative 3 being very close, with a slight advantage to Alternative 3. The criteria
and scoring that most affected the outcome of this evaluation were those related to cost
and risk.
Based on this evaluation, our recommendation is to proceed with Alternative 3, and keep
the PeCoS system, purchase a packaged asset inventory system, and proceed with the
specification, design, construction, and implementation of an LOS planning framework
application. This is predicated on the assumption that the PeCoS system will prove to be
a viable tool for planning, organizing, and directing ADOT’s maintenance work. Once
the complete, detailed requirements for integrated asset management have been
documented, a formal evaluation of the PeCoS system should be conducted, and a
decision made as to whether PeCoS should be kept or replaced. If it is decided that
ADOT should replace PeCoS, then the recommendation would be to proceed with
Alternative 1.
It is estimated that the recommended approach would cost between $726,000 and
$869,000 for labor, software licenses, and equipment, not including workstations. To
allow for changes in organizational needs, equipment prices, and labor rates, a 20 percent
budget contingency in these estimates has been included. The estimated annual support
47
cost for this would be approximately $604,000, which includes the annual cost of
maintaining the PeCoS system.
In the event that ADOT replaces PeCoS as a part of this initiative, the recommendation is
to deploy Alternative 1, an integrated vendor package for work management and asset
inventory, along with a custom LOS planning application. It is estimated that the
packaged integrated solution along with the custom LOS planning framework would cost
between $853,000 and $1,007,000 for labor, software licenses, and equipment, not
including workstations. Again, to allow for changes in organizational needs, equipment
prices, and labor rates, we have included a 20 percent budget contingency. The estimated
annual support cost for this would be approximately $493,000.
By comparison, Alternative 2 would cost between $810,000 and $989,000 to develop and
$658,000 annually to maintain, while Alternative 4 would cost between $1,195,000 and
$1,418,000 to develop and $744,000 annually to maintain. The estimated support cost for
Alternative 2 includes the annual cost of maintaining the PeCoS system. These two
alternatives carry significant risk of development cost overruns and schedule delays
because they include a significant amount of custom developed software.
48
49
APPENDIX A: DEFINITION OF TERMS
Activity Planning Values = Also called work performance guidelines, which
describe the standard or preferred way to perform a
maintenance activity. Typically, these include a
description of the work, the recommended crew size
and equipment, the average amount of work that a
crew should be able to accomplish in a day, and a
measurement unit for reporting the amount of work
done.
Level of Effort (LOE) = Also called quantity standard, which is the
multiplier for a maintenance inventory value to
determine the annual work quantity. For example,
the LOE for mowing might be five times per year.
If the inventory value is 1,000 acres, then the annual
work quantity would be: 1 x 5,000 = 5,000 acres.
Level of Service (LOS) = A customer-oriented term that describes the
condition of certain features of the highway system.
LOS Measures = Quantitative measures to define the LOS for a
specific maintenance feature on a particular road
section or system, e.g., “Asphalt Pavement,
Potholes” might be measured in terms of Number of
Potholes per Lane-Mile.
LOS Outcome = The actual measured condition of a maintenance
feature, e.g., 1.5 potholes per lane-mile for primary
roads in District X.
LOS Target = The desired LOS for a maintenance feature on a
given road system. For example, the desired LOS
for Interstate highways might be defined as “Less
than 0.25 Potholes per Lane-Mile”.
Maintenance Management = Used for planning organizing, directing and
controlling a
System maintenance operation, e.g., ADOT’s PeCoS.
Performance-Based Budget = An annual maintenance budget that is derived from
application of a maintenance management system,
based on specific amounts of work planned for
specific maintenance activities, using inventory
values, quantity standards, activity planning values,
and unit costs, as is done in PeCoS.
Performance Measures = See LOS Measures.
(LOS Related)
Performance Measures = Quantitative measures of the amount of work
performed
(Work Related) per labor-hour or per unit cost.
Quantity Standards = See Level of Effort (LOE).
50
51
APPENDIX B: SURVEY OF BEST PRACTICES
Date __________________________________________
State __________________________________________
Contact Person __________________________________________
Title __________________________________________
Telephone __________________________________________
A. Level of Service Budgeting
1. Do you use a system to set condition targets or goals for maintenance assets?
Pavements ___________
Bridge ___________
Other Maintenance Assets ___________
If the answer is yes, describe how the goals are measured? Could you provide
documentation describing the system?
2. Are the condition goals used to determine maintenance work load levels or to
define maintenance needs?
3. Are goals factored into the budgeting process?
4. How were the goals established?
B. Customer Surveys
1. Do you perform public surveys specifically related to maintenance?
2. How are the surveys conducted?
3. How is the data used? Is the data used to set maintenance program goals or
performance targets?
4. Who conducts the surveys?
5. How often are they performed?
C. Performance Measurement
1. Do you have a system to measure performance or outcomes of the
maintenance program?
2. If yes, briefly describe the process.
a. What are the measures?
b. How are the measurements made, for example: condition inspections.
c. How often?
d. Who performs the measurements?
e. How is the information used?
Can you provide documentation of the process?
D. Life Cycle Costing
1. Do you use life cycle cost analysis in determining program and project
strategies in your pavement management system?
2. If yes, please describe how it is applied.
3. Do you apply life cycle cost analysis for any other maintenance assets than
pavement? Please describe.
52
53
REFERENCES
1. Poister, T. H. Performance Measurement in State Department of Transportation,
NCHRP Synthesis of Highway Practice 238, National Research Council,
Washington D.C., 1997.
2. Industry Best Practices Report, Interim Report (unpublished), Arizona
Transportation Research Center, Phoenix, Arizona, 1999.