A performance audit of the Arizona Department of Transportation highway maintenance management system

              STATE OF ARIZONA
OFFICE OF THE
AUDITOR GENERAL
A PERFORMANCE AUDIT
OF THE
b
ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
HIGHWAY MAINTENANCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
DECEMBER 1982
A REPORT TO THE
ARIZONA STATE LEGISLATURE
REPORT 82- 8
DOUGLAS R. NORTON. CPA
AUDITOP GENERAL
STATE OF ARIZONA
OFFICE OF THE
AUDITOR GENERAL
December 9, 1982
Members of the Arizona Legislature
The Honorable Bruce Babbitt, Governor
M r . William A. Ordway, Director
Arizona Department of Transportation
Transmitted herewith is a report of the Auditor General, A Performance
Audit of the Arizona Department of Transportation, Highway Maintenance
Management System. This report is the fourth of a s e r i e s of reports to be
issued on the Arizona Department of Transportation and is in response to
Senate B i l l 1001 enacted by the T h i r t y - f i f t h L e g i s l a t u r e , Second Special
Session i n 1981,
The blue pages present a summary of the report; a response from the
Arizona Department of Transportation is found on the yellow pages
preceding the appendices.
My s t a f f and I w i l l be pleased to discuss o r c l a r i f y i t e m s i n the report.
Respectfully submitted,
V
Douglas R. Norton
Auditor General
S t a f f : William Thomson
Michael Murphy
Mary O'Connor
U r s Bauder
Enclosure
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
A PERFORMANCE AUDIT OF THE
ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
HIGHWAY MAINTENANCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
A REPORT TO THE
ARIZONA STATE LEGISLATURE
REPORT 82- 8
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
FINDING
C h a n g e s are needed to control and i m p r o v e the
productivity of h i g h w a y m a i n t e n a n c e c r e w s .
CONCLUSION
RECOMMENDATIONS
OTHER PERTINENT INFORMATION
WRITTEN RESPONSE TO THE AUDITOR GENERAL'S REPORT
APPENDIX
P a g e
i
1
5
R e p o r t f r o m Dr. M a r v i n E. M u n d e l to the A u d i t o r
G e n e r a l on the ADOT Highway M a i n t e n a n c e Management
S y s t e m ( P ~ C O S ) and r e s u m e ' of Dr. M u n d e l .
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1 - Arizona Department of Transportation
Highway Maintenance Five- Year Summary of
Appropriations and FTEs
TABLE 2 - Examples of Uncontrolled Maintenance Activities
TABLE 3 - Examples of Productivity Measurements for
Controlled Activities
TABLE 4 - Comparison of Earned Hours to ADOT Productivity
Measurement
TABLE 5 - Historical Analysis of Productivity Planning for
48 Maintenance Activities for Fiscal Years 1977- 78
through 1981- 82 12
TABLE 6 - Contract Maintenance: Contracts Awarded in Fiscal
Years 1981- 82 and 1982- 83 17
The Office of the Auditor General has conducted a performance audit of the
Arizona Department of rans sport at ion ( DOT), Highway Maintenance
Management System, i n response t o Senate B i l l 1001 enacted by the
Thirty- f i f th Legislature, Second Special Session i n 1981. This report i s
one of a s e r i e s to be completed on the Department of Transportation.
Highway maintenance is a major function of the Arizona Department of
Transportation ( ADOT). For f i s c a l year 1982- 83, the highway maintenance
program has a s t a f f of almost 800 full- time equivalent positions ( FTES)
and an appropriation of over $ 40 million. Further, these f i g u r e s address
only the routine maintenance performed by ADOT employees. Major highway
maintenance projects such as pavement overlays or reconstruction are
performed by p r i v a t e contractors and are not included i n the highway
maintenance program budget.
ADOT has developed and operated ( f o r t h e p a s t 10 years) a highway
maintenance management system c a l l e d " PeCos."* PeCos is an e s s e n t i a l part
of ADOT1s management of the maintenance function and is used t o measure
and control maintenance productivity. Therefore, the productivity
measurement of maintenance workers i n ADOT depends t o a large degree on
the work standards of PeCos.
To review the adequacy of PeCos, we employed the services of D r . Marvin E.
Mundel, an i n t e r n a t i o n a l l y recognized authority on productivity and work
measurement. D r . Mundel was employed because he 1) has p a r t i c u l a r
expertise and experience i n governmental productivity and 2) does
extensive work with productivity of groups which have varied tasks and
duties. For example, he has designed productivity measurement systems for
the U. S. Secret Service, design engineers, auditors and administrative law
judges. We found t h i s experience p a r t i c u l a r l y applicable for t h i s review
* PeCos is an acronym f o r " Performance Controlled . System1' and is used t o
r e f e r t o the Arizona Highway Maintenance Management System.
i
because ADOT highway maintenance also has varied tasks and d u t i e s due to
such f a c t o r s as weather, geography and the number of tasks performed.
Review of the highway maintenance management program revealed t h a t ADOT's
maintenance management system ( P~ COSd) o es not provide adequate control
over the productivity of maintenance workers. As a r e s u l t , our consultant
e s t i m a t e s t h e r e is an u n d e r u t i l i z a t i o n of ADOT maintenance labor
resources. Further, using PeCos ADOT cannot determine overall
productivity of a maintenance u n i t o r compare productivity among
maintenance units. By implementing r e l a t i v e l y inexpensive modifications
t o the existing PeCos s t r u c t u r e , ADOT could control, measure, plan and 1
take actions f o r increasing productivity of i t s highway maintenance
program.
Even small increases i n the productivity of the maintenance function would
yield s i g n i f i c a n t d o l l a r savings. For example, each 1 percent increase i n
maintenance p r o d u c t i v i t y r e p r e s e n t s a p o t e n t i a l savings of $ 173,667 the
f i r s t year.
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
The Office of the Auditor General has conducted a performance audit of
the Arizona Department of Transportation ( ADOT), highway maintenance
management system, i n response t o Senate B i l l 1001 enacted by the
Thirty- fifth Legislature, Second Special Session i n 1981. This report
is one of a s e r i e s t o be completed on the Department of Transportation.
Highway maintenance is a major ADOT function. As shown below i n Table
1, almost 800 employees ( i n f i s c a l year 1982- 83) are involved in
highway maintenance and the annual appropriation is approximately $ 40
million. Further, these figures address only the routine maintenance
performed by ADOT employees. Major highway maintenance p r o j e c t s such
as pavement overlays or reconstruction are performed by private
contractors and are not inc luded i n t h e s e f i g u r e s .
TABLE 1
ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
HIGHWAY MAINTENANCE
FIVE- YEAR SUMMARY OF APPROPRIATIONS AND FTEs*
Number of FTEs
@ I Personal services
Employee- related
expenditures
Trave 1
Other operating
B
expenditures
Materials
Equipment r e n t a l
Contingency
Total
* Full- time equivalent positions
Not only is highway maintenance a major function, it is also highly
visible to the traveling public. Additionally, there are indications that
the public is concerned about the productivity of maintenance workers.
The size of the program coupled with this concern were among the factors
considered in selecting this area for audit work.
Two approaches were considered for a review of the productivity of the
ADOT maintenance function: 1) actually measure the productivity of
maintenance workers or 2 ) review the adequacy of the system ADOT uses to
control productivity. In consultation with work measurement experts, we
determined that we did not have sufficient resources to perform actual
work measurements on a sufficient scale to be valid. In part this
determination was influenced by the following factors:
- Over 264 unique maintenance activities are identified by ADOT;
- The performance of many of these maintenance activities is
seasonal, and others are heavily influenced by weather
conditions; and
- The maintenance work sites are dispersed throughout the State.
Further, actual measurements of productivity would not by themselves
address the changes needed to control and improve productivity.
On the other hand, ADOT has developed and operated for the past 10 years a
highway maintenance management system called " PeCos."" PeCos is an
essential part of ADOT's management of the maintenance function and is
used to measure and control maintenance productivity . Theref ore, the
productivity measurement of maintenance workers depends to a large degree
on the work standards of PeCos.
To review the adequacy of the PeCos system, we employed the services of
Dr. Marvin E. Mundel, an internationally recognized authority on
( I
productivity and work measurement.""
* " PeCos" is an acronym for Performance Controlled System and is used to - d
refer to the Arizona Highway Maintenance Management System.
* Dr. Mundel's qualifications are set forth in the Appendix.
D r . Mundel was employed because he 1) has p a r t i c u l a r expertise and
experience i n governmental productivity and 2) does extensive work with
productivity of groups which have varied tasks and d u t i e s a s opposed t o a
controlled or assembly l i n e type of function. More than 90 percent of D r .
Mundel's work is performed for organizations which have l i t t l e o r nothing
t h a t resembles f a c t o r i e s or assembly l i n e productivity measures. For
example, he has designed productivity measurement systems f o r the U. S.
Secret Service, design engineers, auditors, v e t e r i n a r i a n s and
administrative law judges. We found t h i s experience p a r t i c u l a r l y
applicable f o r t h i s review because ADOT highway maintenance also has
varied tasks and duties due to such f a c t o r s as weather, geography and the
number of tasks performed. The r e s u l t s of D r . Mundel's work and our own
evaluation are contained i n the Finding. The f u l l t e x t of D r . Mundel's
report to our Office is contained i n the Appendix t o the report.
Audit Scope
For the reasons described previously, t h i s audit was limited to a review
of the adequacy of the PeCos system.
The Auditor General and s t a f f express appreciation t o the Director of the
Department of rans sport at ion and h i s employees f o r t h e i r cooperation and
assistance during the course of our audit.
FINDING
CHANGES ARE NEEDED TO CONTROL AND IMPROVE THE PRODUCTIVITY OF HIGHWAY
MAINTENANCE CREWS.
The Arizona Department of Transportation ( ADOTI, Highway Maintenance
Management System ( ~ e C o s ) does not provide adequate control over the
productivity of the highway maintenance workers. As a r e s u l t , our
consultant estimates there is an u n d e r u t i l i z a t i o n of ADOT maintenance
labor resources. Further, using PeCos ADOT cannot determine o v e r a l l
productivity of a maintenance u n i t o r compare productivity among
maintenance units. Adequate control could be provided and productivity
increased i f ADOT s t a f f would 1) modify the current PeCos system t o make
more a c t i v i t i e s measurable, 2) use " earned hours" to measure overall
productivity, and 3) actively plan ( and take the necessary actions) to
increase productivity.
Lack of Control Over
Maintenance Work
An analysis of PeCos revealed t h a t it is i n e f f e c t i v e i n influencing
productivity of maintenance crews because a majority of the labor hours
are expended on maintenance a c t i v i t i e s which have no measured outputs o r
accomplishments.
I n f i s c a l year 1980- 81 there were 1.6 million labor hours expended by
highway maintenance workers working on various maintenance a c t i v i t i e s .
These maintenance a c t i v i t i e s can be categorized as " controlled" and
" uncontrolled" as follows:
Controlled* a c t i v i t i e s : A c t i v i t y c a t e g o r i e s where the work- units are
expressed in quantified measures of work accomplished, e. g. swath
miles mowed, cubic yards of premix applied i n hand patching, etc.
* " Controlled" in t h i s context means " evaluating against a performance
standard," rather than " keeping a record of expenditures."
Uncontrolled a c t i v i t i e s : A c t i v i t y c a t e g o r i e s where the work- units are
manhours expended-- a value equal t o the resource input with no measure
of highway accomplishments.
An analysis of f i s c a l year 1980- 81 labor hours showed t h a t 48 percent or
763,000 maintenance labor hours were expended on uncontrolled maintenance
a c t i v i t i e s and only 37 percent of the labor hours were expended on
" controlled" a c t i v i t i e s . * This means that 763,000 hours were spent on
a c t i v i t i e s which had no quantified measure of work accomplished.
The table below provides examples of some " uncontrolled" a c t i v i t i e s .
TABLE 2
EXAMPLES OF UNCONTROLLED MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES
Standard Crew
Activity Description Hour s/ Day
152 - L i t t e r Pickup 8 hours
303 - Edge and Trim
Lawns 8 hours
309 - I r r i g a t i o n System
Maintenance 8 hours
611 - Material Handling 8 hours
Work-
Units** D e s c r i ~ t i o no f Duties
None Clean up isolated areas
of the roadway t h a t have
become l i t t e r e d with
trash
None The edging of lawns along
curb areas and the t r i m -
ming of grass around
t r e e s
None The maintenance and
adjustment of a l l i r r i g a -
tion systems
None The hauling and handling
of supplies and materials
.'.** The remaining 15 percent consists of leave hours. Work- units are the means of quantifying how much of an a c t i v i t y category 4
should be accomplished per crew day.
The " uncontrolled" a c t i v i t i e s shown above i l l u s t r a t e the lack of a
recorded or measurable accomplishment. For example, Activity 303, Edge
and T r i m Lawns has no work- unit attached. This means t h a t a crew could
edge 10 f e e t or 1,000 f e e t of lawn, but there is no recorded measure of
what was accomplished by the crew i n the 8 hours they were sent out to
perform t h i s a c t i v i t y . Therefore, ( aside from foreman supervision over
t h i s work) there is no way t o determine the recorded amount of work done
by a crew i n order t o compare it t o any established standard or even to
compare it t o the same work performed by t h a t crew on a p r i o r or
subsequent workday. Currently, there are some 175* " uncontrolled"
a c t i v i t i e s used in PeCos.
Because more labor hours are expended on " uncontrolled" versus
" controlled" a c t i v i t i e s , our consultant estimates there is a s i g n i f i c a n t
u n d e r u t i l i z a t i o n of labor resources. Reviewing the amount of
I I uncontrolled" labor hours he reported:
" It is usually taken as axiomatic that when an
organization does not work t o specific output goals,
and t h i s characterizes most of ADOT1s highway
maintenance, it is most common t o achieve only 65 to 70
percent of the 100 percent f e a s i b l e without undue
exert ion ."
To increase productivity, ADOT needs to begin by " controlling" more
a c t i v i t i e s . This involves e s t a b l i s h i n g q u a n t i f i a b l e work measures or
work- units for those a c t i v i t i e s t h a t do not have such measures. In
Attachment I11 of h i s report ( see Appendix), the consultant provides 175
suggested work- units t h a t ADOT can use i n t h i s process.
ADOT Cannot Compare Productivity
for Controlled A c t i v i t i e s
Not only are productivity measurements nonexistent f o r uncontrolled
a c t i v i t i e s , but the PeCos productivity measurements used f o r controlled
a c t i v i t i e s cannot be added to obtain an o v e r a l l productivity measure of a
* They include a l l individual maintenance a c t i v i t i e s .( including those
numbered a c t i v i t i e s with l e t t e r suffixes attached) c l a s s i f i e d by D r .
Mundel i n Attachment I of h i s report.
maintenance u n i t . This i n t u r n prevents comparison of the o v e r a l l
p r o d u c t i v i t y of a u n i t from year t o year or comparison of the o v e r a l l
p r o d u c t i v i t y among d i f f e r e n t u n i t s o r d i s t r i c t s . Table 3 shows some of
the measurements used f o r the c o n t r o l l e d a c t i v i t i e s .
TABLE 3
EXAMPLES OF PRODUCTIVITY MEASUREMENTS FOR CONTROLLED ACTIVITIES
P r o d u c t i v i t y Standard Mean Daily
A c t i v i t y Description ( per PeCos) Accomplishment*
Urban curb sweeping .348 manhours per 23.0 curb miles sweptlman
curb mile swept
Hand patch with premix 8.89 manhours per 2.70 cubic yards applied/
cubic vard aaalied three- man crew •
Central maintenance ,080 manhours per 500 g a l l o n s applied/
g u i d e l i n e p a i n t i n g gallon applied f ive- man crew
* Mean Daily Accomplishment i s the mean of the average d a i l y production
range of expected accomplishment f o r the work a c t i v i t y .
The above examples h i g h l i g h t why o v e r a l l p r o d u c t i v i t y cannot be measured
using the current system. Curb miles per man, cubic yards and gallons per
crew cannot be added t o make a meaningful t o t a l . I f a crew o r a d i s t r i c t
exceeds the ~ r o d u c t i v i t y standard f o r sweeping curbs but f a i l s t o meet the
standard f o r hand patching with premix, you cannot t e l l whether t h e i r
o v e r a l l p r o d u c t i v i t y f o r both a c t i v i t i e s is below, above o r a t the
p r o d u c t i v i t y standards. There a r e 57 " controlled1' maintenance a c t i v i t i e s
which contain ~ r o d u c t i v i t y standards which cannot be added among
a c t i v i t i e s t o a r r i v e a t a meaningful t o t a l .
Earned Hours
To measure o v e r a l l p r o d u c t i v i t y ADOT should modify i t s PeCos system t o use
the concept of " earned hours." Under earned hours, the amount of work
performed is converted t o an hour value based on the amount of work t h a t
should have been performed according t o the p r o d u c t i v i t y standard. For
example, using the standards i n Table 3 each mile of curb swept would
produce .348 earned hours. Twenty- three miles of curb swept would produce
eight earned hours. I f a worker is performing a t the standard, he w i l l
sweep 23 miles of curb i n an 8- hour day and h i s earned hours w i l l equal
h i s a c t u a l hours. I f a worker can sweep more than 23 miles i n an 8- hour
day, he can earn more than 8 earned hours; i f he sweeps fewer miles, he
earns fewer earned hours.
Earned hours can be computed f o r a l l a c t i v i t i e s t h a t have q u a n t i f i a b l e
work- units or p r o d u c t i v i t y standards. Further, because earned hours
provide a uniform measurement f o r a l l measureable a c t i v i t i e s , the earned
hours - can be added t o determine o v e r a l l productivity. Table 4 i l l u s t r a t e s
how t h i s concept works and compares it t o the current ADOT p r o d u c t i v i t y
measurement system f o r a sample of a c t u a l work performed by two BLCs* or
maintenance u n i t s . Although the Table r e p r e s e n t s only a sampling of
maintenance a c t i v i t i e s , a review of the Table shows the type of analysis
t h a t can be performed using " earned hours" but t h a t cannot be performed
using ADOT's c u r r e n t p r o d u c t i v i t y standards.
F i r s t , both BLCs have fewer t o t a l earned hours than a c t u a l hours expended;
t h i s means t h a t t o t a l p r o d u c t i v i t y f o r both BLCs was below what would be
expected using the performance standards of the PeCos system. Second, on
a percentage b a s i s , BLC C Z l l has a lower rzrl. - ,:* ,-- - A -. a c t u a l hours
( 60 percent) than does BLC C213 ( 82 percent). This means t h a t f o r the
a c t i v i t i e s shown, BLC C211 is l e s s productive than BLC C213. ~ h i r d , the
aggregated outputs ( earned hours) can now be used a s a baseline t o compare
the increase/ decrease i n maintenance ( BLC, d i s t r i c t o r s t a t e ) productivity
i n f u t u r e periods.
* Individual maintenance u n i t s a r e commonly r e f e r r e d t o a s BLCs. BLC is
an abbreviation f o r Budget Location Code.
COMPARISON OF EARNED HOURS TO ADOT PRODUCTIVITY MEASUREMENT
Amount of Actual
Activity Description Productivity Standard Work Performed Hours
Earned
Hours** ADOT Productivity Measurement
BLC* C211
Hand patch with premix 8.89 man- hours per cu yd 2 cu yd of premix 20 man- hours per cu yd*** applied
applied applied
Hand patch with premix 8.89 man- hours per cu yd 2 cu yd of premix 16
applied applied
8 man- hours per cu yd applied
Routine drainage 1.46 man- hours per drain 8 drain openings 16
maintenance openings serviced serviced
2 man- hours per drain openings serviced
Koutine drainage 1.46 man- hours per drain 16 drain openings 16
maintenance openings serviced serviced
1 man- hour per drain openings serviced
Clean c u t d i t c h e s .010 man- hours per l i n 1,500 l i n f t of 40
f t of ditches cleared d i t c h e s c l e a r e d
.026 man- hours per l i n f t of d i t c h e s c l e a r e d
Clean c u t d i t c h e s .010 man- hours per l i n 1,500 l i n f t of - 40
f t of ditches cleared d i t c h e s c l e a r e d
.026 man- hours per l i n f t of ditches cleared
+
0
Total BLC C211
BLC C213
Hand patch with premix 8.89 man- hours per cu yd 1 cu yd of premix 16
applied applied
16 man- hours per cu yd applied
16 man- hours per cu yd applied
1.14 man- hours per drain openings serviced
3.2 man- hours per drain openings serviced
.053 man- hours per l i n f t of ditches cleared
.005 man- hours per l i n f t of ditches cleared
Hand patch with premix 8.89 man- hours per cu yd 1 cu yd of premix 16
applied applied
Routine drainage 1.46 man- hours per drain 14 drain openings 16
maintenance openings serviced serviced
Routine drainage 1.46 man- hours per drain 5 drain openings 16
maintenance openings serviced serviced
Clean c u t d i t c h e s .010 man- hours per l i n 300 l i n f t of 16
f t of ditches cleared d i t c h e s c l e a r e d
Clean cut ditches .010 man- hours per l i n 3,000 l i n f t of - 16
f t of ditches cleared ditches cleared
Total BLC C213
* Budget Location Code which i d e n t i f i e s a s p e c i f i c maintenance u n i t .
** Earned Hours = Actual Accomplishment ( Standard IIours)
Mean Daily Accomplishment *** In t h i s example, it took 20 man- hours to apply one cubic yard of premix;
whereas the ADOT standard says t h a t it should take only 8.89 man- hours to
apply one cubic yard of premix.
By comparison, using ADOT'S productivity standards f o r d i f f e r e n t
a c t i v i t i e s you cannot add the outputs together to obtain t o t a l
productivity of the BLCs since the productivity measurements ( cubic yards,
drain openings, l i n e a l f e e t ) a r e not the same. In addition, you cannot
compare productivity between the two BLCs, although ADOT o f f i c i a l s have
stated that they examine productivity between crews and d i s t r i c t s on an
activity- by- activity basis, using ADOT1s c u r r e n t p r o d u c t i v i t y of the crews
o r d i s t r i c t s . Finally, there is no b a s e l i n e a g a i n s t which to compare any
future increaseldecrease i n productivity as e x i s t s with earned hours.
ADOT's activity- by- activity comparison does not provide needed information
about whether overall productivity is increasing o r decreasing.
Planning f o r Productivity
Improvement
Once maintenance a c t i v i t i e s have measurable outputs attached, then earned
hours can be compared and productivity improvement can be introduced and
evaluated. However, ADOT'S Highway Maintenance Management System has not
been used to plan f o r specific increases i n the productivity of the
maintenance a c t i v i t i e s . F i r s t of a l l , ADOT cannot plan f o r improvements
in productivity of " uncontrolled" a c t i v i t i e s since by d e f i n i t i o n these
a c t i v i t i e s have - no measurable accomplishments. Second, ADOT has not
planned f o r productivity improvements f o r those " controlled" a c t i v i t i e s
which - do have measurable accomplishments of highway crewmen. The
p o t e n t i a l e x i s t s f o r savings i f ADOT introduces o v e r a l l planning for
improving the productivity of highway maintenance crews and i f crew
supervisors expect and schedule more productivity f o r the work force.
" Uncontrolled" a c t i v i t i e s by d e f i n i t i o n do not have any measurable
work- units; that is, no outputs or accomplishments are recorded ( see page
6 of t h i s report). Therefore, no productivity standards e x i s t f o r these
175 individual maintenance a c t i v i t i e s ; thus, there could be no way to plan
for improving productivity of t h e s e c u r r e n t l y " uncontrolled" maintenance
a c t i v i t i e s .
Although there are 57 " controlled" activities which currently - do have
productivity measurements, very few of them have had a planned increase in
productivity.
We analyzed the annual productivity standards for 48 controlled
maintenance activities for a five- year period ( fiscal years 1977- 78
through 1981- 82, inclusive) and noted that the vast majority of the
controlled maintenance activities had - no planning for productivity
improvements but instead retained the same output standards.
TABLE 5
HISTORICAL ANALYSIS OF PRODUCTIVITY PLANNING
FOR 48* MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES FOR
FISCAL YEARS 1977- 78 THROUGH 1981- 82
Number Percentage
Maintenance activities which had virtually
- no planned productivity improvements 42
Maintenance activities which - did show
planned increase in productivity - 6 - 13
TOTAL -- 48 - 100%
* A productivity standard is developed annually by ADOT for each of 57
maintenance activities which have measurable work- units. However,
five- year data was available for only 48 activities.
Table 5 shows that 42 of the 48 a c t i v i t i e s with measurable productivity
standards have had no planning f o r productivity improvements i n the past
five years. When coupled with the 175 " uncontrolled"* maintenance
a c t i v i t i e s ( which did not have a method f o r measuring any change in
productivity), 82 percent of a l l the maintenance a c t i v i t i e s e i t h e r had no
method f o r measuring or no plan f o r improving productivity i n the
five- year period analyzed.
Introduce Productivitv
Improvement Planning
ADOT should plan to achieve increased productivity as a normal course of
events. Further, by planning f o r even small increases i n productivity,
ADOT could r e a l i z e s i g n i f i c a n t savings i n the highway maintenance area.
Our consultant noted it should be normal to see small ongoing increases i n
an organization's productivity. He pointed out t h a t nearly each country
in the world is undergoing, and has always undergone, slow, creeping
increases i n productivity because of changes i n equipment, materials and
procedures. He said he could find no evidence t h a t there had been any
change i n the productivity of ADOT' s maintenance function, but he found it
hard to believe that it was
1 I ... such a peculiar, unique organization that
productivity was absolutely and thoroughly inflexible."
Most importantly, he cautions t h a t f a i l u r e t o plan t o improve w i l l r e s u l t
i n ADOT not r e a l i z i n g any productivity improvement:
I1 I f no plan is made, during annual planning, t o a l t e r
the h i s t o r i c a l r a t i o between outputs and manpower no
change w i l l take place with respect to productivity.
Only i f ADOT under forecasts the work and the crews to
do a l l the work w i l l productivity f o r t u i t i o u s l y r i s e ;
over forecasts w i l l produce a reverse result."
( emphasis added)
* See pg. 7 of t h i s report f o r reference to these " uncontrolled"
maintenance a c t i v i t i e s currently used i n PeCos.
Potential Savings
Even a 3 percent increase i n the productivity of ADOT maintenance crews
could r e s u l t i n s i g n i f i c a n t d o l l a r savings, and/ or more work performed for
the same budget amount. For example, i f ADOT increases maintenance
productivity by 3 percent and continues t o perform the same amount of
maintenance work, the maintenance labor budget of $ 17,368,700 could be
reduced by $ 521,061.* Further, f o r each additional 1 percent increase in
productivity, the budget could be reduced an additional $ 173,687. I f , on
t h e o t h e r hand, p r o d u c t i v i t y i n c r e a s e s and the labor resource budget
remains constant ADOT can increase the amount of work performed.
The savings or increased work is dependent, however, on the a b i l i t y to
control, measure, plan and take actions f o r increasing productivity. This
i n turn e n t a i l s 1) e s t a b l i s h i n g c o n t r o l over " uncontrolled" maintenance
a c t i v i t i e s by establishing q u a n t i f i a b l e work measurements, 2) implementing
the earned- hour concept, 3) planning to improve productivity, and 4)
taking action to improve productivity. A l l of t h e s e a c t i o n s would require
r e l a t i v e l y inexpensive modifications which could be adapted t o the
existing PeCos structure. Although some r e p r i o r i t i z a t i o n of work loads
may be necessary, ADOT s t a f f has the expertise and resources required to
modify the PeCos system to control productivity. Further, the
c o n s u l t a n t ' s report contains many recommendations t o a s s i s t ADOT i n making
the modifications, including an extensive l i s t of suggestions for
q u a n t i f i a b l e work measures.
CONCLUSION
ADOT cannot control the productivity of i t s maintenance program using the 4
PeCos system as it currently operates. However, t h i s problem can be
corrected by making r e l a t i v e l y inexpensive modifications to the system
using existing resources.
* Personal services plus employee- related expenses = b17,368,700.
$ 17,368,700 x .03 = $ 521,061.
RE COPIMENDATIONS
1. ADOT should e s t a b l i s h control over " uncontrolled" maintenance
a c t i v i t i e s by defining measurable work- units ( suggested work- units are
contained in Attachment I11 of the ~ ppendix).
2. ADOT should develop an " earned- hour" system f o r measuring and
comparing outputs.
3. ADOT should develop and implement plans t o increase productivity a f t e r
following recommendations 1 and 2 above.
OTHER PERTINENT INFORMATION
ADOT maintenance has awarded a limited number of contracts t o private
firms to perform c e r t a i n maintenance functions. In 1982 t h r e e c o n t r a c t s
were l e t for p i l o t maintenance projects. Table 6 below provides a summary
of maintenance contracts awarded i n f i s c a l years 1981- 82 and 1982- 83.
TABLE 6
CONTRACT MAINTENANCE
CONTRACTS AWARDED I N FISCAL YEARS 1981- 82 AND 1982- 83
Contract Description
Duration Contract
Locat ion of Contract Price
L i t t e r Pickup; Rest Area Maintenance D i s t r i c t s 5& 7 7/ 1/ 81 - 6/ 30/ 82 $ 48,645
Crack Sealing of Bituminous Pavement Statewide 5/ 82 - 5/ 83 330,000
Urban Curb Sweeping Phoenix 10182 - 10183 31,520
Landscape Maintenance State Route 360 10/ 82 - 10183 53,421
Total
NOTE: The f i s c a l year 1981- 82 budget for the ADOT Highway Maintenance Program
was $ 38,304,400.
L
I)
' @ . F, -- ARIZONA 1EPARTMEW 01' iR\ NSP( ii1l: ATI( 1\.
? * 206 South Seventeenth Avenue Phoen~ x, Arlzona 85007
D BRUCE BABBITT
Governor -- - 1.
Feu;;$,,, Wk L? M A OR D WAY , r' i +- ' A a -< O; y or
,.< P* 3
December 2, 1982 ,. tf .>,./ . ' 2". a , -
1 I* -.>: 3 . -, c ; i
J Y d .. ?\- 7, 1 , - ( _ 1
!
' L
- l ' L. ., " 9
I . h *".' z
? 9 Mr. Douglas Norton 1 \ Audi tor General ', ,.-...> , 5
Audi tor General ' s Office ' G +?? a ., : f ", $ 1 r> L* s , / y 111 West Monroe, Suite 600 L.. :; pJ
Phoenix, Arizona 85003
Dear Doug:
Thank you for the opportunity to review the revised preliminary report
draft of the performance audit of the Arizona Department of Transportation
Highway Maintenance Management System. Our review i s attached.
Again, thanks f o r t h i s opportunity to comment and for the cooperation
extended by the Audit s t a f f .
Cordially, -
W. A. ORDWAY
Director
WA0: HMO: lj
Attachment
HIGHWAYS . AERONAUTLCS ' MOTOR VEHICLE . PUBLIC TRANSIT ' ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES ' TRANSPORTATION PLANNING
ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
HIGHWAY MAINTENANCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
PERFORMANCE AUDIT
Finding
CHANGES ARE NEEDED TO CONTROL AND IMPROVE THE PRODUCTIVITY
OF HIGHWAY MAINTENANCE CREWS.
ADOT Position - Concur
We agree with the recommendation that many of the " uncon-trolled"
activities should be converted to " controlled" activities
by defining measureable work- units. Preliminary analysis indicates
that we can reasonably establish measurable work- units to
approximately one- half of the " uncontrolled" activities. It is true
that our present system cannot measure the overall productivity of
a maintenance section. By implementing the earned- hour concept,
all activities can be collectively added to obtain an overall
productivity index. This will provide us with useful information
to implement our present productivity reports.
We disagree with the implication that ADOT has no plans
to increase productivity. Our Highway Maintenance Management System
was developed and implemented with a goal of increasing productivity
on an annual basis. Implementation of Recommendations 1 and
2 should improve this capability.
APPENDIX
REPORT FROM DR. MARVIN E. MUNDEL TO THE AUDITOR GENERAL
ON THE ADOT HIGHWAY MAINTENANCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
( P ~ C O S ) AND RESUME' OF DR. MUNDEL
i
Rev. 5/ 18/ 82
DATE :
TO:
FROM:
RE :
March 30, 1982 ( Rev. 5/ 18/ 82)
Auditor General, S t a t e of Arizona
M. E. Mundel
Analysis o f s e l e c t e d portions of t h e operation of t h e Arizona
Department o f T r a n s p o r t a t i o n ' s ( ADOT) Performance Controlled
System ( PeCoS) f o r highway maintenance and r e l a t e d aspects of
the performance of ADOT.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction
PAGE
Specific questions posed by t h e Auditor General
The Appropriateness of t h e Overall System
General
The Appropriateness of t h e Work- units; Annual Planning
Coverage of t h e a c t i v i t i e s ( excluding c e n t r a l sign shop
a c t i v i t i e s )
Conclusions r e PeCoS and state- wide annual planning
IV.
A.
Recommendat ions f o r Annual Planning
Introduce r a t i o s ( of d i r e c t labor) i n t o planning of overhead,
support, t r a i n i n g and leave
Introduce p r o d u c t i v i t y improvement planning
F e a s i b i l i t y of savings
S p e c i f i c long range t a r g e t s
Examples
The Appropriateness of t h e Work- units ; Daily Planning
Coverage of the a c t i v i t i e s ; d a i l y planning and p r o d u c t i v i t y
measurement
Conclusions, d a i l y control
Recommendat ions
M. E. Mundel and Associates
D.
V I .
A.
B.
C.
V I I .
A.
B.
C.
Using t h e recommendations
Evaluation of Crew Sizes
Data base
Results
Conclusions
Range of Work Performed
Met hod of evaluation
Data base
Conclusions re t h e out- of- limits cards
D. Recommendat ions
V I I I . Summary of Recommendations
PAGE
15
16
16
16
17
18
18
M. E. Mundel and Associates
iii
Rev. 5/ 18/ 82
GLOSSARY
The following s p e c i a l terms a r e used i n t h i s r e p o r t . Where they were
taken from PeCoS they a r e preceded by an a s t e r i s k . The o t h e r s have
been introduced t o c l a r i f y t h e statements i n t h i s report.
* 1. Work- unit: The means o f q u a n t i f y i n g how much of an
a c t i v i t y category should be accomplished per crew
day. ( See p. 3 of report f o r examples. )
2. Controlled a c t i v i t i e s : A c t i v i t y c a t e g o r i e s where t h e work- units
a r e expressed i n q u a n t i f i e d highway f e a t u r e s , e . g . , yds. of
premix, swath m i l e s , e t c .
3. Uncontrolled a c t i v i t 2 e s : A c t i v i t y c a t e g o r i e s where t h e work- units
a r e manhours expended; a value equal t o t h e resource input with
no measure of highway accomplishments.
4 . Earned hours: The a c t i v i t y converted t o t h e hour value of t h e
accomplishment ( t h e work- unit). For i n s t a n c e , i f 50 u n i t s ( of
any highway accomplishment) is expected from a 3- crew ( 24 manhour)
day, then:
Accomplishment Earned
i n work- uni ts hours -
40; 40150 x 24 = 19.2
50; 50150 x 24 = 24.0
60; 60150 x 24 = 28.8
Note: A l l earned hours i n a BLC may be added, f o r any period
of time, and compared t o a c t u a l hours expended t o find how
productive t h e BLC w a s . Outputs, i n highway e f f e c t s achieved
per crew hour, cannot be added t o produce a meaningful number f o r
the BLC. However, computed as a S t a t e t o t a l of such sums, such as t o t a l -
average hours per cubic yard of premix, it can be used a s an o v e r a l l
M. E. Mundel and Associates
i v •
Rev. 5/ 18/ 82
budget control f o r t h e s i n g l e a c t i v i t y .
5. Direct labor r a t i o s : The r a t i o of one type of labor to another;
e. g., BLC supervisors as X% of work crews.
6. Productivity: The r a t i o of earned hours t o actual hours
expended. ( See 4, above; also pps. 8 and 9.)
& I. E. Mundel and Associates
1
Rev. 5/ 18/ 82
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Specific questions posed by the Auditor General
1. " The appropriateness of the work- units ( i n PeCoS) . " In t h i s con-t
e x t t h e word " work- unit" r e f e r s t o " the measurable u n i t used t o
quantify accomplishment" of each of t h e 96 numbered " a c t i v i t y
categories. "
2. " The reasonableness of t h e t y p i c a l crew s i z e s ( f o r each d i f f e r -
ent a c t i v i t y ) . " It was understood t h a t two d i f f e r e n t crew s i z e s
f o r an a c t i v i t y might be encountered: t h e standards a s s p e c i f i e d
i n PeCoS and t h e a c t u a l s i z e s i n common use, again per each
a c t i v i t y .
3. " The reasonableness of t h e d a i l y production ranges [ f o r outputs]
( standard work- unit per crew). " This question was considered from
both t h e viewpoint of annual planning and d a i l y crew assignment.
4. " Identify possible improvements i n production, more e f f i c i e n t use
of crews, equipment and m a t e r i a l and q u a n t i f i c a t i o n of p o t e n t i a l
d o l l a r savings.
M. E. Mundel and Associates
11. THE APPROPRIATENESS OF THE OVERALL SYSTEM
A. General
1. In any s i t u a t i o n t h e f i r s t requirement f o r e s t a b l i s h i n g f u l l c o n t r o l
of an organization is a d e f i n i t i v e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of t h e outputs
i n terms r e l a t e d to t h e o b j e c t i v e o f t h e organization. The i d e n t i -
f i c a t i o n must be a l l i n c l u s i v e ( a l l outputs i d e n t i f i e d ) and mutually
exclusive ( no double counting). Further t h e method of i d e n t i f i c a t i o n
must f a c i l i t a t e :
a. Long range planning ( annual budgeting) .
b. Ongoing planning ( d a i l y crew assignments).
c. Constraining performance against budget d o l l a r s .
d. Performance evaluation ( evaluation of accomplishment of work
i n output t e r m s r e l a t e d t o t h e o b j e c t i v e of t h e organization;
f o r ADOT, i n terms of highways and r e l a t e d f e a t u r e s ) .
e. Evaluation of t h e impact of change i n methods, equipment and
management decisions on productivity.
Further, output i d e n t i f i c a t i o n f o r budgeting may be ( and usually i s )
i n u n i t s d i f f e r e n t from those used i n ongoing, d a i l y , workface
c o n t r o l .
2. The a c t i v i t y s t r u c t u r e of PeCoS ( ADOT, Highway Maintenance) is a
s o l i d , w e l l s t r u c t u r e d plan of i d e n t i f y i n g outputs, w i t h a p p r o p r i a t e
d i f f e r e n c e s i n q u a n t i f i c a t i o n f o r budgeting and ongoing, workface
c o n t r o l . The outputs a r e described with two basic terms:
a. Activity category - t h e type of work being done, e. g., 101;
Hand Patch with Premix: 102; Level with Premix: 103; F i l l
Cracks with Liquid.
M. E. Mundel and Associates
b. Work- unit - t h e means of quantifying how much of t h e a c t i v i t y
should be accomplished per crew day, e . g . :
( 1) 101: 1 t o 4 cubic yards.
( 2) 102: 30 t o 60 cubic yards.
( 3) 103: 100 t o 180 gallons.
I do not recommend any major changes i n t h e s t r u c t u r e of t h e system.
The changes which a r e suggested l a t e r i n t h i s r e p o r t a f f e c t only
d e t a i l s within t h e e x i s t i n g system.
M. E. Mundel and Associates
4 a
Rev. 5/ 18/ 82
111. THE APPROPRIATENESS OF THE WORK- UNITS; ANNUAL PLANNING
A. Coverage of t h e a c t i v i t i e s ( excluding c e n t r a l s i g n shop a c t i v i t i e s )
1. The PeCoS manual contains a d e t a i l e d form ( 42- 6102 61 75)
describing each of t h e 96 numbered a c t i v i t i e s . These were divided
i n t o e i g h t subsets as follows:
a. The work- unit count f o r t h e numbered a c t i v i t y has a c l e a r ,
causal r e l a t i o n s h i p t o d a i l y and annual s t a f f resource input
required. For instance:
( 1) A c t i v i t y category 156: Cattle Guard Maintenance.
( 2) Work- unit f o r 156: 5 t o 9 g r i l l e s serviced.
One can r e a d i l y perceive t h a t t h e amount accomplished is
r e l a t e d t o :
( 1) S t a f f engaged.
( 2) Diligence of s t a f f .
( 3) Condition of c a t t l e guards.
( 4) Degree of maintenance provided.
The work- unit count has a l e s s c l e a r causal r e l a t i o n s h i p t o
d a i l y and annual s t a f f resource input but is probably v a l i d ,
state- wide, f o r annual planning. For instance:
( 1) Activity category 305: F e r t i l i z e lawns.
( 2) Work- unit: 3,000 t o 4,000 pounds.
( 3) Activity category 422 : Central Maint. Guideline Painting. 4
( 4) Work- unit : 350- 650 gallons of paint.
One can perceive t h a t i n e i t h e r of t h e above a c t i v i t i e s the
o s t e n s i b l e quantity of output i n any s i n g l e crew assignment
M. E. Mundel and Associates
w i l l be heavily a f f e c t e d by f a c t o r s such a s , f o r 305:
( 1) Machine s e t t i n g .
( 2) Accessability of lawn ( t e r r a i n and o b s t a c l e s ) .
For 422:
( 1) Nozzle s e t t i n g s .
( 2) Paint v i s c o s i t y .
( 3) Character and s i z e of highway.
c. The work- unit is i m p l i c i t i n t h e a c t i v i t y , e. g., a r e s t
a r e a r e s i d e n t ( or 7 s h i f t s per week assigned) e. g., A c t i v i t y
201; a f i a t ; an appropriate approach t o t h i s t y p e o f a c t i v i t y .
Note: Such work- units a r e even more causally r e l a t e d t o t h e
s t a f f r e s o u r c e i n p u t t h a n t h o s e c l a s s i f i e d under - a, preceding.
d. No work- unit other than manhours expended; i n p u t e q u a l s o u t p u t :
No r e a l output q u a n t i f i c a t i o n .
e. The a c t i v i t y c a t e g o r i e s and work- units r e l a t e d t o overhead ( BLC
l o c a t i o n maintenance, materials handling and stand- by), e. g.,
899, Other material overhead. Work- unit is same as category - d,
above. Output ( work- unit) is manhours expended.
f. Support; supervision and c l e r i c a l .
g. Training.
h. Leave.
2. A t a b l e showing t h e subset number assigned, by a c t i v i t y category,
appears i n Attch. I, f o r a l l a c t i v i t y c a t e g o r i e s .
3. For FY 80- 81 the1,590,358 hours reported on crew cards, state- wide,
M. E. Mundel and Associates
6
REV. 6/ 11/ 82
were d i s t r i b u t e d t o t h e subsets as follows :
a. Clear, causal work- units ( Type a) 28.4 percent
b. Q u a n t i t a t i v e work- units acceptable f o r
state- wide annual planning ( Type b) 5.6
Sum of ( a) and ( b) 34.0
c. F i a t s t a f f i n g ( Type c) 3.0
Sum of ( a ) , ( b) and ( c) 37.0
d. No q u a n t i t a t i v e work- units o t h e r than
manhours equals manhours ( Type d) 24.2
e. Overhead, etc. ( manhours) ( Type e) 9.4
f . Support ( manhours) ( Type f ) 13.0
g. Training ( Type € 9 1.4
h. Leave ( Type h) 15.1
[ ( d) + ( e) + ( f ) + ( g ) ] / [ ( a) + ( b) + ( c) I ( x100) = 131.6 percent
4. A s e t o f t a b l e s , giving t h e work time d i s t r i b u t i o n by ( 1) s t a t e
t o t a l , appears i n Attachment 11; by ( 2) D i s t r i c t s , i n Attachment
I1 A. ( BLC d i s t r i b u t i o n s were l e f t i n computer print- out form.)
5. The data of Attch I1 and I I A suggest t h a t more work is uncontrolled
with respect t o t h e q u a n t i t i e s of outputs ( work- units per crew day),
48.0 percent of S t a t e expended hours i n FY 1980- 81, t h a n c o n t r o l l e d
37.0 ( q u a n t i t i e s of expected o u t p u t s p e r crew day) s t a t e d i n work-u
n i t t e r m s . Note, leave has been excluded:
48.0 + 37.0 + 15.1 ( leave) = 100.1*
* Rounding e r r o r .
In other words 37.0 percent of t h e crew hours expended i n a year have
counted outputs d i r e c t l y r e l a t e d to highways ( or f e a t u r e s ) c a t e g o r i e s -
M. E. Mundel and Associates
7
REV. 6/ 11/ 82
- a and - c, o r outputs i n d i r e c t l y r e l a t e d ( b ) , ( s e e I11 A1 b). of the
remaining 63.0 p e r c e n t , 1 5 . 1 is leave; 48.0 p e r c e n t ( i n c l u d i n g .1
from rounding) have outputs counted only as manhours.
6. It is t r u e t h a t t h e 63.0 percent r e f e r r e d t o is " controlled"
( expenditures watched) with respect to:
a. Budgeted amount.
b. Constraint of expenditures t o budget d o l l a r s .
These l i m i t e d controls should be retained and but a d d i t i o n a l d e t a i l
added, as w i l l be recommended l a t e r , t o obtain control over workface
assignments ( where supervision can impact), BLC's, highway r e l a t e d
outputs, and productivity.
B. Conclusions re PeCoS and state- wide annual planning
1. The work- units a r e appropriate f o r only 37.0 percent of the work.
2. Adding leave ( 15.1 percent) t o t h e work of 1 supra, only 52.1
percent of t h e s t a f f resource budget is s u b s t a n t i v e l y supported.
3. There is 48.0 percent of the s t a f f resource budget which appears
t o r e s t on a simple p r o j e c t i o n of past experience, unrelated t o
any s p e c i f i c q u a n t i t a t i v e evaluation of need o r outputs.
4. However, t h e annual planning work- units ( h i s t o r i c a l , state- wide
q u a n t i t a t i v e values much more s p e c i f i c a l l y s t a t e d than t h e ranges
on t h e standard a c t i v i t y sheets) seem appropriate f o r t h e q u a n t i f i e d
work- units f o r basic annual planning. For i n s t a n c e , f o r A c t i v i t y
Category 101, Hand Patch with Premix, annual values appear v a l i d f o r :
a. Tons of ~ r e m i x / y e a r
b. Avg. crew h o u r ~ / t o n / ~ e a r . As w i l l be seen l a t e r , t h i s v a l i d i t y
does not carry t o crew- day assignments.
M. E. Mundel and Associates
8
REV. 6/ 11/ 82
I V . RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ANNUAL PLANNING
A. Introduce r a t i o s ( of d i r e c t labor) i n t o planning of overhead, support,
t r a i n i n g and leave
1. In planning the resources f o r c a t e g o r i e s ( d) thru ( h) ( see I11 A),
r a t i o s should be used. For i n s t a n c e , c o n t r o l l e d work ( categories
a, b and c ) c o n s t i t u t e d 37.0 p e r c e n t o f t h e t o t a l i n FY 80- 81.
a. Category d:
Was 24.5 percent; 24.5137.0 = 66.2 percent of c o n t r o l l e d l a b o r . ( I
Note: I consider t h i s a temporary expedient; output r e l a t e d
work- units should be introduced f o r category d a c t i v i t y
c a t e g o r i e s and suggestions t o Chat end appear later i n t h i s
rep0 rt .
b. Overhead = 9.4; 9.4137.0 = 25.4 percent of c o n t r o l l e d a c t i v i t i e s
c. Support = 13.0; 13.0/ 37.0 = 35.1 4
d. Training = 1.4; 1.4/ 37.0 = 3.7
e. Leave = 15.1; 1.51/ 37.0 = 40.8
2. The above procedures w i l l provide assurance t h a t t h e s e c a t e g o r i e s
of expenditure a r e changing only as d i r e c t labor a l t e r s .
B. Introduce p r o d u c t i v i t y improvement planning
1. Basically p r o d u c t i v i t y is t h e quantity of outputs produced per
labor resource input, compared t o the same r a t i o f o r some base
period.
More s p e c i f i c a l l y , let :
LPI = Labor p r o d u c t i v i t y index
AOBY = Aggregated outputs f o r base year o r period
AOMY = Aggregated outputs f o r measured year o r period
M. E. Mundel and Associates
9
Rev. 5/ 18/ 82
SRBY = S t a f f resources used, base year o r period, i n hours o r
years.
SRMY = Staff resources used i n measured year o r period, i n same
u n i t s a s SRBY
Then :
AOMY
x 100 ( i n percent)
LP1= AOBY
S RBY
2. I f no plan is made, during annual planning, t o a l t e r t h e h i s t o r i c a l
r a t i o between outputs and manpower no change w i l l take place with
respect t o productivity. Only i f ADOT under f o r e c a s t s t h e work and
t h e crews do a l l t h e work w i l l p r o d u c t i v i t y f o r t u i t o u s l y r i s e ; over
f o r e c a s t s w i l l produce a reverse r e s u l t .
3. S t i l l another impediment t o measuring p r o d u c t i v i t y e x i s t s i n annual
planning; t h e outputs, as counted per crew day cannot be meaningfully
aggregated. For instance:
a. Activity 101, Hand Patch with Premix may show 2.6 cu. yards
per crew day.
b. Continuing, Activity 422, Central Maint . Guideline Painting
may show 350 g a l l o n s p e r crew day.
c. Cubic yards and gallons do not add t o make a meaningful t o t a l .
4. A new concept, Earned hours must be added. For instance:
a. Activity 101, Hand Patch with Premix; Expected work- unit
f o r 3- man crew = 2.7 cu. yds.*
..............................................................................
A = Obtained by dividing " Annual Work Quantity" by " NO. of Crew Days" as they
appear i n t h e F/ Y 81- 82 " Performance Budget - S t a t e Summary" r e p o r t .
..............................................................................
M. E. Mundel and Associates
10 a
Rev. 5/ 18/ 82
Then 24 hours of earned hours equals 2.7 cu. yds. of Premix and:
3.0 cu yds = ( 3.0/ 2.7) x 24 = 26.7 earned hours.
2.0 cu yds = ( 2.012.7) x 24 = 17.8 earned hours.
b. Activity 422, Central Maint. Guideline P a i n t i n g p a i n t l i n e s ;
Expected work- unit f o r 5- man crew is 500 gals. * Hence, 500 gals. a
equates with 40 earned hours, and:
550 gals = ( 5501500) x 40 = 44.0 earned hours.
300 gals = ( 300/ 450) x 40 = 24.0 earned hours.
c. The earned hours from a and b above can be computed and
added t o form t h e AOMY of t h e basic p r o d u c t i v i t y equation.
5. P r o d u c t i v i t y planning
a. Let us assume t h a t t h e workload f o r FY 82- 83 i s t h e same as
FY 80- 81. The planned, c o n t r o l l e d work i n FY 80- 81 was
( a+ b+ c) 586,507 hours. **
** = Obtained by adding " Grand Total" of Categories a , b and c from
Attachment 11.
b. Let us assume t h a t a 3% increase i n p r o d u c t i v i t y is desired.
c. The d i r e c t planned work is computed as:
586' 507 = 569,424 ( Budget)
1.03
d. Other c a t e g o r i e s w i l l be computed from t h i s " budget" value
using t h e r a t i o s described i n I V A 1.
C. F e a s i b i l i t y of savings
1. For many years countries o t h e r than t h e United S t a t e s have maintained
annual improvements i n National P r o d u c t i v i t y , such as ( i n round
numbers) :
1
iV. E. Mundel and Associates
1. U. S. News & World Report, March 9, 1981.
Canada 3.8 percent
W. Germany 7.7
France 7.1
I t a l y 7.5
Japan 14.7
2. Hence, a t h r e e percent annual improvement ( as suggested i n I V B)
would seem reasonable. These changes can be a t t r i b u t e d t o s m a l l ,
i n t e r m i t t e n t improvements i n designs, equipment, t o o l s , materials
and s t a f f resource a l l o c a t i o n s . Certainly t h e s e same f a c t o r s
impact on ADOT's highway work.
3. Further, as noted e a r l i e r , i f t h e ADOT's h i s t o r i c a l r a t i o between
s t a f f resources and work- units is not changed, no p r o d u c t i v i t y
change can be expected.
D. Specific long range t a r g e t s
It is usually taken as axiomatic t h a t when a n o r g a n i z a t i o n does not
work t o s p e c i f i c output goals, and t h i s c h a r a c t e r i z e s most of ADOT's
highway maintenance, it is most common t o a c h i e v e o n l y 65 t o 70 percent
of t h e 100 percent feas'ible without undue e x e r t i o n .
E. Examples
1. In 1967 a study was made of t h e O f f i c e o f t h e S o l i c i t o r , U. S. Dept.
of t h e I n t e r i o r . Within six- years, by p r o d u c t i v i t y improvement
planning, p r o d u c t i v i t y r o s e from 100 t o 125 percent.
2. A study o f s h i p b u i l d i n g , i n Japan, was followed within a year by a
r i s e i n productivity from 100 t o 181 percent.
3. A study of U. S. Health Service Indian Hospitals ( U. S .) l e d t o a
22 percent increase i n p r o d u c t i v i t y i n one year.
M. E. Mundel and Associates
12
Rev. 5/ 18/ 82
Note: Numerous other cases could be c i t e d .
F. P o t e n t i a l d o l l a r savings and c o s t s
1. Savings:
a. The annual budget of ADOT, highways, was given as:
a. Labor budget $ 12,996,000
b. Employee r e l a t e d expense 3,411,600
c. Total employee c o s t $ 16,407,600
b. P o t e n t i a l savings o r a d d i t i o n a l work at f i r s t year 103
percent p r o d u c t i v i t y ; $ 492,228; $ 164,076 per percent.
2. Costs:
a. Develop d e t a i l e d work- units with s u f f i x e s . I would
think t h i s could be done in- house without incremental
cost.
b. Add data items t o crew cards; n e g l i g i b l e c o s t .
c. Add runs of crew cards t h r u computer; nominal c o s t s .
d. Increase " scouting" of assignment areas and increase
supervisory a t t e n t i o n t o d a i l y performance.
3. Conclusions
Costs seem nominal r e l a t i v e t o p o t e n t i a l incremental savings t h e
f i r s t year; even smaller downstream when s e v e r a l y e a r s o f pro-d
u c t i v i t y improvement have accumulated.
M. E. Mundel and Associates
13
Rev. 5/ 18/ 82
V. THE APPROPRIATENESS OF THE WORK- UNITS; DAILY PLANNING
A. Coverage of t h e a c t i v i t i e s ; d a i l y planning and p r o d u c t i v i t y measurement
1. Considering t h e e i g h t subsets described i n I11 A 1:
a. Reasonable work- units* 28.4 percent
* Comments concerning " the d a i l y production range" w i l l appear i n
... S. e.. c. t. i. o. n. . V.. I. I. . i. t. e. m.. . B.,. .. C.,. . f. o.. ll. o.. w. i. n.. g... .....................................
b. Not s u i t a b l e f o r d a i l y use 5.6
c. Fiat manning 3.0
d. - h. Other manhour work- units 48.0
B. Conclusions, d a i l y control
The c o n d i t i o n s d e s c r i b e d under A 1, above, a r e n o t t h o s e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c
of r e a l c o n t r o l l e a d i n g t o p r o d u c t i v i t y improvement, a s described i n
Section IV; too many crew assignments have no assigned quantity of work.
C. Recommendations
1. Re subset a. Add l e t t e r s u f f i x e s t o each a c t i v i t y code t o i n d i c a t e
a t l e a s t i n t e g e r assignments such a s f o r 101, Hand Patch with Premix,
A, B, C o r D; 1, 2, 3 o r 4 cubic yards per standard crew day, de-pending
on highway type.
a. It would appear t h a t t h e i n d i v i d u a l BLC supervisor may
c u r r e n t l y make such a decision when assigning a crew t o a
s p e c i f i c s e c t i o n of a highway, s p e c i f i c f e a t u r e s o r t a s k s .
However, t h e v a r i a t i o n i n performance, reported i n Sect ion
V I I c a s t s some doubt on whether t h i s is done.
M. E. Mundel and Associates
14
Rev. 5/ 18/ 82
0
b. PeCoS w i l l accept s u f f i x e s t o codes and ignore them i n
developing summary p r i n t o u t s f o r higher management analysis.
c. Such s u f f i x e s a r e necessary i f we are t o monitor p r o d u c t i v i t y
-- a process i n which we add weighted manhours earned, as
described i n Section I V B. An earned manhour is a manhour
v a l u e o f a PeCoS work- unit; as described i n Section I V .
Such earned hours could be meaningfully aggregated from diverse
a c t i v i t i e s . Production, i n output terms per crew hour, i n current a
use, cannot be meaningfully aggregated o t h e r than within one a c t i v i t y .
W e cannot add product ion u n i t datalmanhour; cu. yds . of premixlmanhour
cannot be added t o g a l l o n s o f paintlmanhour.
2. Re subset* ( b) and some o f ( a ) such as Activity 119, Other Paved
.............................................................................
* Refer t o Section I11 A. I. f o r a d e s c r i p t i o n of the type of subsets." Subset
- b " is " less causal r e l a t i o n s h i p " t o work count, and Subset - a is " Direct
... c. a.. u. s. a. l. .. r. e. l. a. t. i. o. n. s.. h. i. p."... ..................................................
Surf ace Maintenance :
a. U s e s u f f i x l e t t e r codes t o i n d i c a t e t h e type of highway when
r e l a t e d t o t h e s t a f f resources needed per work u n i t . This
should reduce t h e range and make assignments increasingly
s p e c i f i c . See notes a t end of Attch. I11 f o r suggested
c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s .
b. Change work- unit used on crew sheet from t h a t on current
performance standard t o one more i n d i c a t i v e of s t a f f resource
need, e. g. Activity 109, Spot, Flush Coating from
asphalt t o lane f e e t o r lane miles; Activity 422, Central
Maintenance Guide Line Painting from g a l l o n s of paint t o
M. E. Mundel and Associates
14a
Rev. 5/ 18/ 82
lane m i l e s , e t c .
c. It should be noted t h a t f o r annual planning, with a r e l a t i v e l y
fixed inventory of roads, containing a r e l a t i v e l y fixed mix-t
u r e of t y p e s o f roads, t h e annual s t a f f resource f o r Activity
109 and A c t i v i t y 422 may c o r r e l a t e w i t h g a l l o n s b u t t h i s
r e l a t i o n s h i p w i l l not ( continued on page 15)
M. E. Mundel and Associates
hold at t h e crew card l e v e l .
3. A complete list of suggested changes i s contained i n Attch. 111,
including t h e r a t i o type work- units r e f e r r e d t o i n I V , A, preceding.
4. Other subsets
Follow suggestions f o r work- units, a s given i n Attch. 111.
5. Change of data on crew cards
a. Enter a c t i v i t y category w i t h a p p r o p r i a t e s u f f i x . The
BLC supervisor w i l l t h u s d e s i g n a t e highway type.
b. Enter allowed t r a v e l time t o and from work area.
c. Assign a s p e c i f i c amount of output based on the non- travel
time and t h e q u a n t i t a t i v e work- unit f o r t h e a c t i v i t y . The
planned " productivity improvement" must be included i n t h i s
computation.
d. Actual hours w i l l appear, as now, on a l l crew cards.
D. Using t h e recommendations
1. The data suggested under 5 a, b and c supra may be used t o compare
a t BLC l e v e l , D i s t r i c t and S t a t e :
a. Earned hours/ actual; a measure of p r o d u c t i v i t y . Travel hours
w i l l appear i n a c t u a l but must be added t o earned hours t o
obtain t o t a l earned hours on card.
b. Financial data, using the codes ( without t h e s u f f i x e s ) can
s t i l l be aggregated, as is c u r r e n t l y done, t o maintain budget
d o l l a r and gross s t a f f resource c o n t r o l .
Earned hours, supervision and support, e t c . , can be computed from
( 1) above, using t h e r a t i o s suggested i n I V A and i d e n t i f i e d i n
d e t a i l i n Attch. 111, and compared with a c t u a l .
M. E. iMundel and Associates
16
Rev. 5/ 18/ 82
V I . EVALUATION OF CREW SIZES
A. Data base a
The approximately 170,000 crew cards used during t h e 2 y e a r p e r i o d 1- 1- 80
t h r u 12- 31- 81 were sorted by:
1. Activity category.
2. Crew s i z e used within a c t i v i t y .
These data were used ' t o compute, f o r each a c t i v i t y category:
1. Modal crew s i z e used; ( most commonly occurring crew s i z e ) .
2. Range of crew s i z e encompassing 89 o r more percent of assignments
made t o t h a t a c t i v i t y category.
The data appear i n Attch. I V .
B. Results
Of t h e 96 a c t i v i t i e s s c r u t i n i z e d :
1. Mode s i z e was equal t o standard with 86 c a t e g o r i e s ; 89.6 percent.
2. With respect t o t h e assignments of non- standard crew s i z e t h e
most common deviations were + 1 o r -+ 2 , a discrepancy one would expect
t o find when assigning crews, from a r e l a t i v e l y s m a l l population,
t o a mix of work, taking attendance, e t c . , i n t o account.
3. Larger discrepancies occured with a c t i v i t y c a t e g o r i e s :
106 Seal Coating ( Major).
107 Seal Coating ( Minor).
108 Flush Coating
145 Tumbleweed removal.
169 Other Drainage Maint. and Repair.
Such assignments can obviously vary i n work content; the range of
crew s i z e s seems reasonable.
M. E. filundel and Associates
17
Rev. 5/ 18/ 82
C. Conclusions
It would appear t h a t BLC supervisors use t h e standard crew s i z e s
which suggests t h e s u i t a b i l i t y of crew s i z e s , deviating f o r unusually
l a r g e or s m a l l amounts of work assigned. I s e e no b a s i s f o r challenging
t h e crew s i z e s on any wide s c a l e .
M. E. Mundel and Associates
18 d
Rev. 5/ 18/ 82
V I I . RANGE OF WORK PERFORMED
A. Method of evaluation
1. For each a c t i v i t y category with a numerical, output o r i e n t e d work-a
u n i t , l i m i t s were computed, using t h e upper and lower l i m i t s of t h e
work- unit .
2. For instance f o r a c t i v i t y category 101, t h e f i r s t s e t of l i m i t s
a
were based on t h e range within t h e s t a t e d work- unit, e. g.,
101, Hand Patch with Premix 1 - 4 cu. yds.
Std. crew = 3; 24 s t a f f hourslday
Hence: Lower performance l i m i t = 1/ 24 = .04 cu. y d s / s t a f f h o u r
Upper performance l i m i t = 4/ 24 = . 1 7 cu. y d s / s t a f f h o u r
3. The 85,186 crew cards of FY 80- 81 were entered i n t o t h e computer
and t h e following two c a t e g o r i e s w e r e r e j e c t e d from t h e p r i n t o u t :
a. Do not m e e t c r i t e r i o n of 1, above; ( not an output o r i e n t e d
work- unit 1.
b. Were within t h e l i m i t e s computed under 2 above.
B. Data base
1. Total number of crew cards
2. Number with output oriented work- units
= 85,186 cards
a
= 30,360 cards
M. E. Mundel and Associates
19
Rev. 5/ 18/ 82
3. Number above o r below f i r s t
s e t of l i m i t s ( based on range of
work- units)
a. Over
b. Under
c. ( 1) Total a + b
( 2) P e r c e n t o f 2 , above, represented
by a + b -- 51.3%
= 7,938 cards
= 7,647 cards
= 15,585 cards
C. Conclusions r e t h e out- of- limits cards
1. In 51.3% of t h e crew c a r d s w i t h highway- oriented outputs ( work- units)
t h e BLC supervisor does not know i f t h e work crews are going t o
be above o r below t h e l i m i t s of t h e values of t h e work- units. The
hours expended on such cards is t h e r e f o r e 51.3% of 28.4 percent
of ADOT t o t a l ( Sec. I11 A 3 a) o r 14.56 percent of t o t a l hours.
I f we add t h i s t o c a t e g o r i e s ( Sec. I11 A 3) d, e , f and g we
have 62.6 percent of t o t a l ADOT manhours where t h e r e is e i t h e r
only a rough f i x on how much work w i l l be done, or none at all.
The statements re " lack of workface control" ( IV B 5) a r e reinforced.
2. It may be t h a t t h e s i t u a t i o n is aggrevated by s p e c i f i c assignments
being made t o s p e c i f i c a c t i v i t y c a t e g o r i e s and l o c a t i o n s which a r e
repeated from year t o year without any adjustment t o t h e
assignment ( see V C 5) t o r e f l e c t t h e d i f f e r e n t amount of work t o
be done each year.
M. E. Mundel and Associates
2 0
Rev. 5/ 18/ 82
D. Recommendat ions
1. Separate t r a v e l t i m e on crew cards from work t i m e t o remove random
e f f e c t of distance t o work s i t e s ( See V C 5).
2. Add s u f f i x e s t o a c t i v i t y c a t e g o r i e s t o s e p a r a t e by d i f f e r e n t types
of highways ( See V C and Attch. 111).
3. Compute monthly p r o d u c t i v i t y f o r BLC's and h o l d s u p e r v i s o r s
accountable.
4. Request explanation when crews run under a s p e c i f i e d percentage
of lower l i m i t of work- unit.
M. E. Mundel and Associates
2 1
Rev. 5/ 18/ 82
V I I I . SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
1. See I V A 1. Introduce r a t i o s ( of d i r e c t labor) i n t o planning
of overheads, support, t r a i n i n g and leave.
Sec. I V B. Introduce productivity improvement planning.
Sec. I V B 3 and 4. Convert performance f i g u r e s t o " earned hours"
instead of cu. yds/ manhours, e t c .
Sec. I V B 5. Set p r o d u c t i v i t y improvement goals.
Sec. I V D. Long range p r o d u c t i v i t y goals.
Sec. V A. Add s u f f i x e s t o a c t i v i t y c a t e g o r i e s t o increase s p e c i f i c i t y
of crew assignments.
Sec. V C 2 b. Change work- unit designators.
Sec. V C 5. Change data entered on crew cards.
Sec. V I I D. Reinforcement of 6, 7 and 8 preceding.
Misc.: Activity category 145, Tumbleweed removal ; 5,979 hours i n
FY 1980- 81; do not see shredder on equipment list; would think
t h i s would g r e a t l y reduce trucking and improve p r o d u c t i v i t y .
M. E. Mundel and Associates
ATTACHMENT I
MAINTENANCE ACTIVITY NUMBERSI FUNCTION CODESI DEFINITIONS AND
SUBSET IDENTIFICATION
Activity Function Description of Work Subset
Number Code Activities Identification
PAVED SURFACE MAINTENANCE
Hand Patch With Premix
Level With Premix
Fill Cracks
Spot Seal patching
Surface/ Base Replacement
Seal Coating ( Major )
Seal Coating ( Minor)
Flush Coating
Spot Flush Coating
TemDOrarV Hand Patchinu
Other Paved Surface Maintenance
A. Follow- up sweeping
Planing bituminous surfaces
C. Sanding bleeding pavements
D. Epoxy patchinq
E. Blow- up repairs
G. Slurry
H. Preparation of equipment or material
Activity Function
Number Code
Description of Work
Activities
Subset
Identification
PAVED SURFACE MAINTENANCE ( Continued)
I. Surface replacement
J. Routing
K. Tight blading
Blade gravel or dirt roads
Spot recondition gravel roads
Other Gravel & Dirt Surface
Maintenance
A. ~ pplying dust palliatives
B. Hand patching
C. Blading frontage roads
D. Blading miscellaneous
E. Spot recondition of frontage roads
F. Removal of oversize rock from windrow
UNPAVED SHOULDER MAINTENANCE
Blade Gravel or Dirt Shoulders
Shoulder and Slope Repair
Other Shoulder Maintenance
A. Patching
B. Maintenance of turn outs
and crossovers
C. Flush
D. Sod cutting
Swath Machine Mowing
Chemical Control of Veaetation
Tumbleweed Disposal
Activity Function
Number Code
Description of Work
Activities
Subset
Identification
PAVPYD SURFACE MAINTENANCE ( Continued)
Tree and Brush Removal
Other Vegetation Control
C. Hand cutting of weeds
E. Area mowing for weed control
F. Burning weeds
G. Mechanical weed control
H. Vegetation control inspection
ROADSIDE
Accident Maintenance and Repair
A. Roadway surface repair
B. Fence repair
C. Removal and disposal of
dead animals
D. Flagging
E. Chain link fence repair
F. Barrier repair ( includes glare screen)
G. Sign repair
H. Crash barrel repair
I. Landscape accident repair
J: All structure repair
K. After accident clean- ug
L. Livestock round- up
M. Repair to barrier glare
N. Hazardous materials spills
~ ull- Width Litter P ~ C ~ U D
Spot Litter & Debris Pickup
Accident Guardrail Maintenance
Annual Fence Inspection '
Routine Fence Maintenance
Activity Function
Number Code
Description of Work
Activities
Subset
Identification
ROADSIDE ( Continued)
Cattle Guard Maintenance
Urban Curb Swee~ ina
Other Roadside Maintenance
A. Removal of marking on rocks and
walls
Sidewalk maintenance
Seeding, sodding and mulching
Roadside retaining wall
maintenance
Viewpoint maintenance
Tunnel maintenance
Firebreak maintenance
Firefighting - roadside
Guardrail and reflector tab
maintenance .
Crash barrel maintenance
Rural sweeping
Sweeper dump disposal
Routine glare screen maintenance
Roadside emergency water,
( filling water barrels, etc.)
Special gate inspection and closing
DRAINAGE
Routine Drainage Maintenance
Emergency Drainage Maintenance
Clean Cuts
Minor Slide Removal
Routine Major Structure Maintenance
Storm and Rock Patrol
Roadway Pump Maintenance
Description of Work
Activities
Subset
Identification
Activity Function
Number Code
DRAINAGE ( Continued)
Other Drainage Maintenance
and Repair
Minor sand drift removal
Minor channel and dike repair
Occasional blading crown or
Cleaning or reshaping grader
ditches
Minor riprap and bank protection
repair
Retaining wall, cribbing repair
Work on qunite slopes
Curb maintenance
Flume maintenance
Repair or replacement of minor
structures
~ nspection of pipes and structures
Repair of sand fence
Pipe cleaning and drop inlet cleaning
with Vactor
SNOW AND ICE CONTROL
Plowinq, Sanding & Salting
Snow and Ice Patrol
Other Snow & Ice Control
A. Equipment preparation
B. Equipment cleanup
C. Mounting and preparation of snow
and ice signs
D. Setting up and manning road blocks
E. Filling sand barrels
F. Removing snow from urban streets
G. Removing snow from bridges
AC tivi ty Function ~ escription of Work Subset
Number Code Activities Identification
SNOW AND ICE CONTROL ( Continued)
H. Emergency operation of radio
I. Cleanup after storm
J. Mixing salt and cinder
K. Opening or closing ice signs
L. Loader operator for heavy storms
M. Erecting, dismantling snow fence
N. Emergency supervision
P. Repair and maintenance of snow fence
R. Repair snowmarkers
EXTRAORDINARY
Major Damage and Disaster Maintenance
* Use a different third digit for each
occurrence within a BLC.
REST AREA
Interstate Resident Rest Areas
Maintenance
Interstate on-~ esident Area
Maintenance
Other Interstate Rest Area
Maintenance
A. Water filtration plant repairs
B. Well work
C. Sewaqe facility repairs
D. ~ aintinq facilities
E. Equipment replacement
F. Building and residence repair
G. Vegetation control other than
routine
H. Water line repairs or replacement
I. Hauling water
Activity Function
Number Code
Description of Work
Activities
Subset
Identification
REST AREA ( Continued)
J. Sweeping/ cleanup of parking areas
K. pumping septic tanks
L. Microphor toilet repair
M. Snow and ice control
N. Vandalism repair
P. water samples
Non- Interstate Rest Area Maintenance
LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE
Landscape Mowing
Edging & Trimming Lawns
Trimming Shrubs and Trees
Fertilize Lawns
Manual Weed Control
Chemical Weed Control
Manual Irrigation
Irrigation System Maintenance
Policing Landscaped Areas
Fertilizing Trees and Shrubs
Other Landscape Maintenance
A. Insect treatment/ rodent control
s~ ecial ~ lant treatment
B. Repair of berms and basins
C. Sweep grass clippings
D. Removal and replacement of
trees and shrubs
E. Mowing weed areas
Activity Function
Number Code
Description of Work
Activities
Subset
Identification
LANDSCAPE MAINTEANCE ( Continued)
F. Hand mowing
G. Following- day pickup and disposal
TRAFFIC SIGNING AND STRIPING
Maintaining Delineators & Mileposts
Paint Guidelines ( District)
Special Pavement Marking
Sign Inspection Maintenance and
Installation
Other Traffic Maintenance
Raised pavement marking
maintenance
Tunnel lighting maintenance
Spotting centerline and edgeline
prior to striping
Sweeping for striping
Nigh inspection of paint
reflectivity
For time lost in handling inferior
paint, etc.
paint barrel handling and recycling
Dust warning maintenance
Night sign inspection
Removal of highway paint
Washing signs and delineators
Cleaning base of break- away signs
Clear coating
Central Maintenance Guideline painting
Central Maintenance Guideline paintine b
Central Maintenance Guideline ~ aintinq b
~ c t i v i t y Function Description of Work Subset
Number Code A c t i v i t i e s I d e n t i f i c a t i o n
TRAFFIC SIGNING AND STRIPING ( Continued)
Hot Line S t r i p i n g
Accident I n t e r s t a t e Sign Repair d
I n t e r s t a t e Sign Inspection
I n t e r s t a t e Sign Repair a
I n t e r s t a t e Sign Washing ( Major)
1nters6ate Sign Clear Coating ( Major)
I n t e r s t a t e Sign S t r u c t u r e Painting
I n t e r s t a t e Sign Washing ( Minor)
I n t e r s t a t e Sign Clear Coating ( Minor) b
Other I n t e r s t a t e Sign Maintenance
A. In yard s i g n p r e p a r a t i o n
B. S t r u c t u r e modification and
r e p a i r ,
C. Sign message r e v i s i o n s
D. In yard sign dismantling
GENERAL
Supervision
Record Keeping
Building & Yard Maintenance
~ quipment s e r v i c i n g
Leave
S tandbv
Activity Function
Number Code
Description of Work
Activities
Subset
Identification
GENERAL ( Continued)
Work for Other Divisions or Departments d
A. Department of Public Safety
B. Checking station areas
Work for cities or counties
Work for federal agencies
Materials Division
Motor Vehicle Division
Work for construction
Work for aeronautics
Work for administration
Water samples
General pick up and delivery
Work for Building Maintenance Crew
Work for Traffic Operations
Work for R/ W Division
Transporting Equipment
Material Handling
Work for Equipment Services
NON- ROUTINE MAINTENANCE
Non- Routine Maintenance
Plant Screening
Making Premix Material
Stockpiling Material
Truck Screening
Straightening Guardrail & Sign Posts
Activity Function
Number Code
Description of Work
Activities
Subset
Identification
GENERAL ( Continued)
Other Material Overhead
Preparing cement, weed killer
and bags of salt for storage
Cleaning oil storage tanks
Salvaging re- usable materials
Drying wet material
Loading or unloading mixing table
Blading and maintaining pit and
material storage sites
Moving crushing/ screening plant
Set up and tear down time
Changing Screens
Pit ~ re~ aration
Pit clean up
Adding asphalt to existing materials
Pushing up stockpile
Drilling
Blasting
Clerical
Other Support Activity
11- 1
Rev. 5/ 18/ 82
11- 2
Rev. 5/ 18/ 82
11- 3
Rev. 5/ 18/ 82
4. N. O. Q. ~. U. h. m. O. m. N. b. m. . m .* . d . d . m . N . d .* . O . O . O . O . d
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 d 0 d r l 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 v v v v v v
11- 4
Rev. 5/ 18/ 82
I I A - 1
ATTACHMENT I11
( 1) ( 2) 1 ( 3)
Activity Category Need Work- uni t
Activity Function Category road c l a s s i f i e r
No. Code Name type should be :
s u f f i x ( Miles can be decimal)
101 2 100 Hand Patch With Premix Yes No change
102 2100 Level with Premix Yes Lane miles
103 2100 F i l l Cracks Yes No change
104 2 100 Spot Seal Patching Yes Lane miles or f e e t
105 21 00 ~ u r f a c e l ~ a sReep lacement Yes Lane patch u n i t s
106 2100 Seal Coating ( Major) Yes No change
10 7 2100 Seal Coating ( Minor) Yes No change
10 8 2100 Flush Coating Yes No change
109 2100 Spot Flush Coating Yes Lane miles
111 2 100 Temporary Hand Patching Yes No change
119 2100 Other Paved Surface Maintenance ( D e t a i l s a r e below)
119A 2100 Follow- up sweeping Yes Lane miles
119B 2100 Planing bituminous surfaces Yes Lane miles
119C 2100 Sanding bleeding pavements Yes Lane miles
119D 2100 Epoxy patching Yes Volume of material
119E 2100 Blow- up r e p a i r s Yes Lane patches
119G 2100 Slurry Yes Volume of material
119H 2100 Preparation of equipment o r material
1191 2 100 Surf ace replacement
119 J 2 100 Routing
Yes
Yes
Yes
Include i n a c t u a l output
category i?
Lane miles $
Pass miles
( 1) ( a 1 ( 3)
Activity Category Need Work- unit
Activity Function Category road c l a s s i f i e r
No. Code Name type should be :
s u f f i x ( Miles can be decimal)
119K 2100 Tight blading Yes Shoulder miles
12 1 2100 Blade Gravel or D i r t Roads No No change
122 2 100 Spot Recondition Gravel Roads No Lane miles worked
129 2 100 Other Gravel & D i r t Surface Maintenance
12 9A 2 100 Applying dust p a l l i a t i v e s No Lane miles
12 9B 2100 Hand patching gravel roads No Volume of material
12 9C 2100 Blading frontage roads No Lane miles
129D 2 100 Blading - miscellaneous No Lane m i l e s
129E 2 100 Spot recondition of frontage roads No Lane m i l e s
12 9 F 2 100 Removal of oversize rock from windrow No Add time t o C & D
131 2100 Blade Gravel o r D i r t Shoulders No No change
Shoulder and Slope Repair
Other Shoulder Maintenance
Patching i s o l a t e d s o f t spots
Maintenance of t u r n o u t s and crossovers
Flush bituminous t r e a t e d shoulders
Sod c u t t i n g
Swatch Machine Mowing
Chemical Control of Vegetation
Tumbleweed Disposal
Tree and Brush Removal
Yes ,
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
Shoulder m i l e s
Shoulder miles or
One each
One each
Shoulder miles
Sq. yards
No change
Miles of shoulder
No change
No change
111- 3
Rev. 5/ 18/ 82
. .
Activity Category
Activity Function Category
No. Code Name
~ e e d l
road
type
s u f f i x
Work- unit
c l a s s i f i e r
should be :
( Miles can be decimal)
152 2100 Spot L i t t e r & Debris Pickup Yes Miles of R/ W
15 3 2 100 Accident Guardrail Maintenance No No change
154 2100 Annual Fence Inspect ion No No change
155 2 100 Routine Fence Maintenance No No change
156 2100 C a t t l e Guard Maintenance No No change
15 7 2 100 Urban Curb Sweeping No No change
159 2100 Other Roadside Maintenance
159A 2 100 Removal of marking on rocks and walls No One event
159B 2 100 Sidewalk maintenance No One event
159C 2100 Seeding, sodding and mulching
159D 2 100 Roadside r e t a i n i n g w a l l maintenance
159E 2100 Viewpoint maintenance
159F 2 100 Tunnel maintenance
159G 2100 Firebreak maintenance
159H 2 100 Firef i g h t i n g - roadside
1591 2100 Guardrail and r e f l e c t o r tab maintenance
159 J 2100 Crash b a r r e l maintenance
159K 2 100 Rural sweeping of curb areas
One event
One event
No One event
No S p e c i f i c , each tunnel
No One event
No One evenb
No One event
No One event
No One event
159L 2 100 Sweeper dump disposal No One event
159N 2100 Routine g l a r e screen maintenance No One event
159P 2100 Roadside emergency water ( f i l l i n g b a r r e l s , e t c . ) No Barrels
159s 2100 S p e c i a l g a t e i n s p e c t i o n and c l o s i n g
161 2 100 Routine Drainage Maintenance
162 2 100 Emergency Drainage Maintenance
16 3 2 100 Clean cut
Yes One event
No No change
No No change
No No change
( 1) ( 2) ( 3
Activity Category Need Work- unit
Activity Function Category road c l a s s i f i e r -
No. Code Name type should be:
s u f f i x ( Miles can be decimal)
Minor Slide Removal
Routine Major S t r u c t u r e Maintenance
Storm and Rock P a t r o l
Roadway Pump Maintenance
Other Drainage Maintenance and Repair
Minor sand d r i f t removal
11inor channel and dike r e p a i r
Blading crown o r diversion d i t c h e s
Cleaning o r reshaping grader ditches
Minor r i p r a p and bank p r o t e c t i o n r e p a i r
Retaining w a l l , c r i b b i n g r e p a i r
Work on gunite slopes
Curb maintenance
Flume maintenance
Repair or replacement of minor s t r u c t u r e s
Inspection of pipes and s t r u c t u r e s
Repair of sand fence
Pipe cleaning and drop i n l e t cleaning with Vactor
Plowing, Sanding & S a l t i n g
Snow and I c e P a t r o l
Other Snow & Ice Control
Equipment preparation
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No change
No change except maybe
c l a s s i f y s t r u c t u r e s i z e
Miles and spots
Pumps
One event
One event
One event
One event
One event
One event
One event
One event
One event
One event
One event
One event
Pass miles
Road miles
Ratio; is overhead
( 1) ( U1 ( 3
Activity Category Need Work- unit
A c t i v i t y Function Category road c l a s s i f i e r
No. Code Name type should be:
s u f f i x ( Miles can be decimal)
179B 2 100 Equipment cleanup No Ratio; is overhead
179C 2100 Mounting and preparation of snow and i c e signs No Signs
179D 2 100 S e t t i n g up and manning road blocks No Crew hours, f i a t
179E 2100 F i l l i n g sand b a r r e l s No Barrels
179F 2 100 Removing snow from urban s t r e e t s Yes Area ( width x miles)
179G 2 100 Removing snow from bridges No Bridges
179H 2100 Emergency operation o f r a d i o No Ratio; is overhead
1791 2 100 Cleanup a f t e r storm Yes Lane miles
1795 2100 Mixing s a l t and cinder No Ratio; is overhead
179K 2 100 Opening or closing i c e signs No Signs
179L 2 100 Loader operator f o r heavy storms No Operator hours ; f i a t
Erecting, dismanteling snow fence
Emergency supervision
Repair and maintenance of snow fence
Repair snow markers
Major Damage and Disaster Maintenance
I n t e r s t a t e Resident Rest Area Maintenance
I n t e r s t a t e Non- Resident Area Maintenance
Other I n t e r s t a t e Rest Area Maintenance
Water f i l t r a t i o n plant r e p a i r s
Well work
209C 2200 Sewage f a c i l i t y r e p a i r s
209D 2200 Painting f a c i l i t i e s
Fence miles
Ratio; is overhead
Fence miles
Markers K
Specific assigned s t d . , 5
each occurence Cn
\
Areas ( F i a t ) ( or p a i r s ) +-' s
\ H
Areas, by types 0w3 mI
Event by type
Event by type
Event by type
Event by type
( 1 ) ( 211 ( 3)
Activity Category Need Wo rk- uni t
Activity Function Category road c l a s s i f i e r
No. Code Name type should be:
s u f f i x ( Miles can be decimal)
209E 2200 Equipment replacement No Event by type
209F 2200 Building and residence r e p a i r No Event by type
209G 2200 Vegetation c o n t r o l o t h e r than r o u t i n e No Event by type
209H 2 2 00 Water l i n e r e p a i r s or replacement
209 I 2200 Hauling water
Event by type
Miles hauled + f i l l i n g
2095 2200 ~ weeping/ cleanup of parking areas No Area
209K 2200 Pumping s e p t i c tanks
209L 2200 Microphor t o i l e t r e p a i r
Tanks + hauled miles
Lo cat ions
209M 2200 Snow and i c e c o n t r o l Yes Pass miles
209N 2200 Vandalism r e p a i r
209P 2200 Water samples
Specific f o r event
Samples + miles
258 2200 Non- Interstate Rest Area Maintenance No By areas by type
301 2 300 Landscape Mowing
30 3 2 300 Edging & Trim Lawns
30 4 2 300 Trim Shrubs and Trees
30 5 2 300 F e r t i l i z e Lawns
306 2 300 Manual Weed Control
30 7 2 300 Chemical Weed Control
308 2 300 Manual I r r i g a t i o n
30 9 2300 I r r i g a t i o n System Maintenance
311 2300 Policing Landscaped Areas
315 2 300 F e r t i l i z i n g Trees & Shrubs
No change
Edge length
No change
Area
No change
A: Area Cn
\ B: Other: Area Sprayed r
co H ( see maps) 1 H co H
13 1 No change u
Each event
Acres
Tree u n i t s ( see 304)
( 1) ( 211 ( 3)
Activity Category Need Work- unit
Activity Function Category road c l a s s i f i e r
No. Code Name type should be:
s u f f i x ( Miles can be decimal)
2 300 Other Landscape Maintenance
2300 Insect treatmentlrodent control s p e c i a l
plant treatment
2 300 Repair of berm and basins
2 300 Sweep grass clippings
Yes
Yes
Yes
2 300 Removal and replacement of t r e e s and shrubs Y e s
Mowing weed areas
Hand mowing
Following- day pickup and disposal
Maintaining - Delineators & Mileposts
Paint Guidelines ( D i s t r i c t )
Special Pavement Marking
Sign Inspection, Maintenance and I n s t a l l a t i o n
Other T r a f f i c Plaint enance
Raised pavement marking maintenance
Tunnel l i g h t i n g maintenance
Spotting c e n t e r l i n e and edgeline
Sweeping f o r s t r i p i n g
Night inspection
For time l o s t i n handling i n f e r i o r paint
Paint b a r r e l handling and recycling
Yes
Y e s
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Y e s
Yes
Y e s
Y e s
Yes
Yes
Yes
Area
Miles
Swath miles
Lane m i l e s
Swath miles
Area
Area
No change
No change
Locat ions
Specific s t d s . based on
s i g n d e n s i t y p e r mile
Locat ions, s p e c i f i c
Locations, s p e c i f i c
Pass miles g 4
Pass miles
Pass m i l e s -. Indicate on crew painting W H
N H t i c k e t H
I
Co Overhead i f i n depot;
p a r t of job i f on road
( 1) ( 2) ( 3 )
Activity Category Need Work- unit
Activity Function Category road c l a s s i f i e r
No. Code Name type should be:
s u f f i x ( Miles can be decimal)
409H 2400 Dust warning maintenance Yes Signs + pass miles
4091 2 400 Night sign inspection Yes Pass miles
4095 2400 Removal of highway p a i n t Yes Pass miles
409K 2400 Washing signs and d e l i n e a t o r s
409L 2 400 Cleaning base of break- away signs
409M 2400 Clear coating
422 2400 Central Maintenance Guideline Painting
42 3 2400 Central Maintenance Guideline Painting
Yes Pass miles
Yes Pass miles + signs
Yes
Yes
Yes
( Include in 409L)
Pass miles
Pass miles
424 2 400 Central Maintenance Guideline : Painting Yes Pass miles
425 2 400 Hotline S t r i p i n g
4 50 2400 Accident I n t e r s t a t e Sign Repair
I n t e r s t a t e Sign Inspection
I n t e r s t a t e Sign Repair
I n t e r s t a t e Sign Washing ( Major)
I n t e r s t a t e Sign Clear Coating ( Major)
I n t e r s t a t e Sign S t r u c t u r e P a i n t i n g
I n t e r s t a t e Sign Washing ( Minor)
I n t e r s t a t e Sign Clear Coating ( Minor)
Other I n t e r s t a t e Sign Maintenance
In yard sign preparation
Structure modification and r e p a i r
Sign message r e v i s i o n s
459D 2400 In yard sign dismantels
5 01 Cut, Shape, and Sand Sign Materials
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Pass miles
Per event
Pass miles
No change
No change
No change
No change
No change
No change
Shop s t d . times
2
Shop s t d . times
Shop s t d . times
Shop s t d . times
No change
( 1) ( 2 ( 3)
Activity Category Need Work- unit
A c t i v i t y Function Category
No. Code Name
Spray Painting
S i l k Screen Painting
Design and Fabricate S i l k Screens
Sign Layout
Apply Reflective Sheeting
Shipping and Receiving
Other Sign Fabrication
Supervision
Record Keeping
Building and Yard Maintenance
Training
Leave
Standby
Work f o r Other Divisions or Departments
Non- Routine Maintenance
Supervision
Record Keeping
Building & Yard Maintenance
Equipment Servicing
Training
Leave
Standby
Work f o r Other Divisions o r Departments
Department of Public Safety
road
type
s u f f i x
c l a s s i f i e r
should be :
( Miles can be decimal)
No change
No change
No change
No change
No change
Ratio; overhead
Ratio; overhead
Ratio ; overhead
Ratio; c l e r i c a l
Ratio; overhead
Ratio; t r a i n i n g
Ratio; leave
R a t i o ; l e a v e
Use sign shop s t d s .
Ratio of mnece. labor
Ratio; supervision
Ratio; c l e r i c a l
Ratio ; overhead
LE; overhead
3
Ratio; t r a i n i n g
Ratio; leave
Ratio; overhead
Actual time
Events
( 1) ( 2 1 ( 3
Activity Category Need Wo rk- unit
Activity Function Category road c l a s s i f i e r
No. Code Name type should be:
s u f f i x ( Miles can be decimal)
Checking s t a t i o n areas
Work f o r c i t i e s o r counties
Work f o r Federal Agencies
Materials Division
Motor Vehicle Division
Work f o r Construction
Work f o r Aeronautics
Work f o r Administration
Water samples
General pick up and delivery
Work f o r Building Maintenance Crew
Work f o r T r a f f i c Operations
Work f o r R/ W Division
Transporting Equipment
Material Handling
Work f o r Equipment Services
Non- Routine Maintenance
Plant Screening
Making Premix Material
S t o c k p i l i n g M a t e r i a l
Truck Screening
Straightening Guardrail & Sign Post
Other Material Overhead
Preparing cement, weed k i l l e r , e t c . , f o r storage
N/ A
N/ A
N/ A
N/ A
N/ A
N/ A
N/ A
N/ A
N/ A
N/ A
N/ A
N/ A
N/ A
N/ A
N/ A
N/ A
S p e c i f i c
Events
Events; a c t u a l time
Events; a c t u a l t i m e
Events; a c t u a l time
Events; a c t u a l time
Events; a c t u a l time
Events; a c t u a l time
Events; a c t u a l t i m e
Samples + miles
Ratio; overhead
Events; a c t u a l time
Events: a c t u a l time
Events; a c t u a l t i m e
Include i n spec. job
Ratio; overhead
Ratio; overhead
Specific Std. 4
( Annual p r o j e c t i o n )
Ratio; overhead
Ratio; overhead
Ratio; overhead
Ratio ; overhead
Ratio; overhead
Ratio ; overhead
Ratio ; overhead
( 1) ( 211 ( 3 )
Activity Category Need Work- unit
Activity Function Category road c l a s s i f i e r
No. Code Name type should be:
s u f f i x ( Miles can be decimal)
- - --
899B 2 800 Cleaning o i l storage tanks
Salvaging re- usable materials
Drying wet m a t e r i a l
Loading o r unloading mixing t a b l e
Blading and maintaining p i t a n d ' m a t e r i a l s t o r a g e
s i t e s
Moving crushing/ screening p l a n t , t r a v e l time
Set up and t e a r down time
Changing screens, e t c .
P i t preparation
P i t clean up
Adding asphalt t o e x i s t i n g material
Pushing up s t o c k p i l e
D r i l l i n g
Blasting
C l e r i c a l
Other Support Activity
N/ A Ratio ; overhead
Ratio ; overhead
Ratio ; overhead
Ratio; overhead
Ratio; overhead
Ratio ; overhead
Ratio ; overhead
Ratio ; overhead
Ratio ; overhead
Ratio; overhead
Ratio ; overhead
Ratio; overhead
Hole f e e t
Blasts
Ratio; c l e r i c a l
Ratio; support
111- 13
FOOTNOTES TO ATTCH. I11
1. Highways may be d i v i d e d i n t o c a t e g o r i e s which d i f f e r e n t i a t e them
r e l a t i v e t o t h e amount of s t a f f resources needed t o do a one of ( an each)
of a concomitant work- unit. Suggested c a t e g o r i e s a r e :
A. Urban i n t e r s t a t e
B. Rural i n t e r s t a t e
C. Divided s t a t e
D. Two- way s t a t e ( n o t divided)
E. Secondary paved
F. Frontage paved
G. Unpaved
2. It is presumed t h a t shop standard t i m e s may be developed f o r t h e 500
s e r i e s so as t o assign a standard t i m e t o each work a l l o c a t i o n t o an indi-vidual
o r a crew.
3. LE is a time allowance, per annum o r control period, based on weighted
f l e e t count. See a c t i v i t y category 604. More work does not improve highway
maintenance. A f l a t allowance per type of vehicle o r piece of equipment
should be given per year.
4. A s p e c i f i c standard is one devised, using knowledge and experience,
f o r a s p e c i f i c job.
5. A r a t i o is where t h e t i m e assigned a group is a percent of another
measured group, e. g., 508, a p e r c e n t o f sign shop d i r e c t labor equal t o
t h e percent i n t h e base year o r period.
ATTACHMENT I V
CREW S I Z E ANALYSIS -- DATA RASE 1- 1- 80 thru 12- 31- 81
( To be used on and with RU077A, J785A)
( Cut off = 89.0%)
( 1) ( 2) ( 3) ( 4) ( 5) ( 6) # ( 7) ( 8) # ( 9) ( 10)
ACTIV NO. STD. EFFECT-ITY
STATE CREW MODE RANGE IVE VAR % OF NO. OF NOTE
NO. TOTAL S I Z E ASSGND ASSGND RANGE IANCE ASSIGNS FLAGMEN NO.
2 Mode less than
std.
2 Mode l e s s than std.
1 Eff. range = s t d
crew or less
X
0 power sprayer
* Mode is less than standard.
( 1) ( 2) ( 3) ( 4) ( 5) ( 6) # ( 7 ( 8) # ( 9) ( 10)
ACTIV NO. STD. EFFECT-ITY
STATE CREW MODE RANGE IVE VAR % OF NO. OF NOTE
NO. TOTAL SIZE ASSGND ASSGND RANGE IANCE ASSIGNS FLAGMEN NO.
152 3776 1 1 1- 4 1- 2 + 1 98.2 0 0
Mode is less than
- 1 s t d .
163 1699 5 5 1- 9 3 - 7 + 2 95.4 1 - 2
164 192 5 4 * 1- 8 1- 6 + 2 91.7 2 Minor S l i d e s
- 3 Mode l e s s than std.
165 611 4 4 1- 8 2 - 5 + 1 93.0 2 - 2
1- 7 1- 2 + 1
- 0
1- 9 1- 3 + 2 - 0
1 - 1 4 1- 6 + 5
- 0
1- 7 1- 1 + O - 0
1- 3 1- 1 + O - 0
1- 11 1- 3 + 2
- 0
1 - 1 8 1- 7 + 5
- 1
1- 6 1- 2 + 1
- 0
1- 4 1- 1 + O
- 0
1- 9 1- 3 + 2
- 0
1- 7 1- 1 + o
- 0
2 - 4 1- 1 + O - 0
1- 3 1- 1 + o - 0
1- 5 1- 3 + 1
- 1
2 - 3 2 - 2 + o - 0
standard.
Road p a t r o l
Other misc.
drainage
Data e r r o r
119 no crew
Why 2 on res.
area .
? 4 hard t o
explain
Temp. r e s t
Check def. s t d s .
Could use
shredder
10 2 2
Mode is less than
( 1) ( 2) ( 3) ( 4) ( 5) ( 6) # ( 7 ( 8) # ( 9) ( 10)
ACTIV NO. STD. EFFECT-ITY
STATE CREW MODE RANGE IVE VAR % OF NO. OF NOTE
NO. TOTAL SIZE ASSGND ASSGND RANGE IANCE ASSIGNS FLAGbIEN NO.
1 2 2 2- 2 2 - 2 + O 100.0 - 0
234 X 2 1 - 6 1 - 3 + 1 89.0
- 1
500 Activities omitted ( sign workshop)
0 Mode less than
std.
0
0 29 assigned crew
of 2 and 3 respec-tively
0
601 4938 1 1 1- 18 1 - 2 + 1 98.9 X - 0
602 1999 X 1 1 - 6 1- 1 + O 94.4 X - 0
603 5480 X 1 1 - 1 1 1 - 3 + 2 94.7 X
- 1
* Mode is less than standard.
( 1) ( 2) ( 3) ( 4) ( 5) ( 6) # ( 7) ( 8) 8 ( 9 ( 10)
ACTIV NO. STD. EFFECT-ITY
STATE CREW MODE RANGE IVE VAR % OF NO. OF NOTE
NO. TOTAL S I Z E ASSGND ASSGND RANGE IANCE ASSIGNS FLAGMEN NO.
604 5368 1 1 1 - 1 0 1- 2 + 1 91.3 0 - 0
605 2885 X 1 1 - 1 7 1- 8 + 7 89.8 X - 0
606 ( Leave) omitted
Manual contains
no a c t i v i t y std.
Mode l e s s s than
std.
Mode less than
std.
* Mode is l e s s than standard.
MARVIN E. MUNDEL, P r i n c i p a l , M. E. Mundel & Associates, 821 Loxford Terrace
S i l v e r Spring, Maryland 20901
B. S. i n M. E., N. Y. U., 1936; M. S. i n I. E., Ph. D. in I . E . , 1929, The S t a t e
University of Iowa, Registered Professional Engineer.
I n d u s t r i a l Engineer f o r the Tung- Sol Lamp Co.; subsequently taught a t
Bradley University and Purdue University where he was Professor and
Chairman o f I n d u s t r i a l Engineering. He has also conducted seminars a t
the Marquette University Management Center and served as v i s i t i n g Pro-fessor
at t h e University of Birmingham, England, and at Keio ( KAY- OH)
University, Tokyo, Japan.
Left Purdue University i n 1952 t o organize and serve a s t h e f i r s t Direc-t
o r of t h e Army Managemen t Engineering Training Agency, headquartered a t
Rock Island, I l l i n o i s . From 1953 t o 1963 operated h i s own I n d u s t r i a l En-gineering
Consultant firm with i n d u s t r i a l and government assignments i n
Europe, Scandanavia, America and the Far East. Served as P r i n c i p a l S t a f f
Officer f o r I n d u s t r i a l Engineering and Work Measurement i n t h e Executive
Office of the President, Bureau of the Budget, Washington, D. C., from
1963 to 1965, leaving t o r e a c t i v a t e h i s own consultant firm.
He has been President of t h e Milwaukee Chapter of t h e American I n s t i t u t e
of I n d u s t r i a l Engineers and Regional Vice- Presdient , Region V I , and has
served a three- year term as D i r e c t o r o f t h e Government Division of t h a t
I n s t i t u t e . He was Vice- President, Region 11, f o r 1970- 72 ; Vice- President,
Industry and Management Divisions, 1974- 76; Executive Vice- President f o r
Divisions, Publications and Education, 1976- 78 and was President f o r
1979- 80.
He is a Fellow Soc. Adv. of Mngt. and A. I. I. E. Received t h e Gilbreth
Medal, SAM, 1953. Designated Engineer of t h e year, Washington, D. C.
Council of Engineers, 1978. Awarded gold medal by t h e Asian P r o d u c t i v i t y
Organization, 1980, f o r c o n t r i b u t i o n s t o Asian Productivity; a l s o , i n 1982
t h e Frank and L i l l i a n ~ i l b r e t hA ward by t h e Amer. Inst. of Indusl. Engr.
He is t h e a u t h o r o f numerous books and a r t i c l e s ( published i n s i x languages).
H i s major w r i t i n g s a r e " Motion and Time Study - Improving P r o d u c t i v i t y , "
Prentice- Hall, 5th ed. , 1978; " Measuring and Enhancing t h e P r o d u c t i v i t y
of Government and * Service Organizations, I ' The Asian Productivity Organiza-t
ion, 1975 ; " A Conceptual Framework for t h e Management Sciences, " McGraw-
H i l l Book Co., 1967; and " Toward the Improvement of Government." The
Australian Post Office - Telephone Dept., 9 Spring S t r e e t , Melbourne,
Victoria 3000, A u s t r a l i a , 1970, a l s o r e p r i n t e d by t h e Army Management
Engineering Training Agency, The B r i t i s h E l e c t r i c a l Council, and t h e U. S.
C i v i l Service Commission.
" Improving Productivity and Effectiveness," Prentice- Hall and t h e Asian
Productivity Organization: August 1982.
RECENT PUBLICATIONS : MARVIN E . MUNDEL
MOTION AND TIME STUDY - IMPROVING PRODUCTIVITY, 5th e d . , Prentice- Hall,
Englewood C l i f f s , N . J . , 1978, 749 pps. [ Also, i n s t r u c t o r ' s manual.]
" Work- unit Analysis," Proceedings, AIIE 1977 Spring Annual Conference,
pps. 431- 434.
" Measures of Productivity," I n d u s t r i a l Engineering, Vol. 8, No. 5, May
1976, pps. 24- 26.
MEASURING AND ENHANCING THE PRODUCTIVITY OF SERVICE AND GOVERNMENT
ORGANIZATIONS, The Asian Productivity Organization, Tokyo, 1975 [ U. S.
d i s t r i b u t o r : UNIPUB, INC., P. O. Box 433, Murray H i l l S t a t i o n , N. Y., N. Y.,
100161, 296 pps.
" Measuring P r o d u c t i v i t y of Grants Administration A c t i v i t i e s , " Special
Studies of Measurement Problems, Vol. 1, Measuring Research and
Administration Programs, C i v i l Service Commission, General Accounting
Office and the Office of Management and Budget, Oct. 1973, Part 11,
pps. 1- 80.
" Quantifying Outputs f o r Work Measurement," Asian Productivity Organ-i
z a t i o n News, Vol. 111, No. 12, December 1973.
TOWARD THE IMPROVEMENT OF GOVERNMENT, 1st p r i n t i n g , The Australian
Government; 2nd p r i n t i n g , The U. S. Army Management Engineering Train-ing
Agency; 3rd ? riaring, The Z i e c t r i c i t y Council, U. K.; 4th p r i n t i n g ,
U. S. C i v i l Service Commission, Bureau of Training, 1972, 172 pps.
" How a Federal Bureau Improved Productivity," I. E., Vol. 12, No. 8,
August 19 80.
" The Role of Management i n the 1980fs," Development S t r a t a i e s f o r the
- 19- 801 s, Report of the Asian productivity Congress, Hong Kong, Oct 27- 70,
1980, The Asian Productivity Organization, Tokyo, Japan, 1981,
pps . 111- 116.
CURRENTLY ( j u s t . out)
Improving Productivity and Effectiveness, Prentice- Hall; due for r e l e a s e
i n August, 1982,. 458 pps.