TSM&O. Performance Measures Plan. Steering Committee Meeting #2 August 2016

Transcription

1 TSM&O Performance Measures Plan Steering Committee Meeting #2 August 2016

2 Agenda Introductions & Desired Meeting Outcomes Project Schedule Review of Stakeholder Meeting & Outcomes Performance Measures Plan by Program Area TSMO Plan Structure Next Steps and Action Items 2

3 Introductions Name, Title Desired Meeting Outcomes Understanding of stakeholder process Establish support for measures and prioritization Input on ownership/leads for core measures Input on implementation/communication of meas. Source: 3

4 Input Needed from Steering Committee Do we have the right metrics identified & prioritized? Thoughts on most effective way to implement program area metrics? Thoughts on most effective way to communicate metrics as actionable information? Insights or recommendations for TSM&O Performance Measures Plan Documentation? 4

5 Schedule - TSMO Performance Measures Plan 5

6 TSM&O Performance Measures Plan Purpose Identify actionable & implementable TSM&O centric performance measures to: Document costs and benefits Prioritize resource allocation & investment Discern optimum investment in operations Improve quality of work (QA/QC) Learn lessons for continual refinement 6

7 Stakeholder Meetings and Outcomes Audience Focus Actionable & Useful Plan Traffic Incident Management System Management Program Management

8 TSM&O Stakeholder Meetings & Lively Discussion TIM Group Darin Weaver, TIM Coor. Amy Mastraccio, ITS Lt. Jeff Lewis, OSP Nathaniel Price, FHWA Brent Atkinson, TMOC Jerimiah Griffin, D8 ADM Jim Scholtes, D10 ADM Ty Burns, D12 ADM Tom Davis, R5 Ops Craig Olson, R2 Ops TOC Operations Matt Badzinski, ITS/TAD Misti Timshell, ITS/TAD Arleigh Mooney, CTOC Mngr. Brent Atkinson, TMOC Mngr, Jeremiah Griffin, STOC Julie Scruggs, STOC Nicole Schmunk, NWTOC Chris Wright, Traveler Info/PM Coor. Bill Link, TSSU Mike Kimlinger, Traffic Mngr./Asset Mnt. System Operations Rich Arnold, TPAU Doug Norval, TPAU Joel McCarroll, R4 Traffic Mngr. Dennis Mitchell, R1 Traffic/ITS Angela Kargel, R2 Traffic Mngr. Shyam Sharma, R3 Traffic Mngr. Jeff Wise, R5 Traffic/Roadway Bill Link, TSSU Mngr Mike Kimlinger, Traffic Standards/Asst mngt. Doug Spencer, ITS HQ 8

9 Big Spreadsheet Decision Matrix 9

10 Big Spreadsheet Decision Matrix Metric Category TSM&O Priority (for TSM&O Performance implementation) Measure Issue(s) addressed Definition Freeway vs. Arterial Metric Purpose Agency lead Current TSM&O Metric? Metric notes Data Source Reqrmts Implementation Plan Ease of Data (& Sources) Recommendation (near, TSM&O Core Metric? medium, long-term) Directly Related to Communication Plan ODOT KPM? Recommendation 10

11 Methodology to Identify Core Measures Stakeholder value assessment Ability to influence ODOT actions Current metric or not? Ease of implementation Data Availability Automation 11

12 TSM&O Core Performance Measures Plan By Program Area 12

13 Audience = TIM team and ODOT district staff, TOC mgmt. team, ITS unit 13

14 * ODOT Key Performance Measure 14

15 15

16 Key Stakeholder Outcomes Highest Priority are On-Scene Time Metrics 6 Core Performance Measures Identified Refine 90 Minute Clearance Goals Urban v. Rural (OSP / City Limits) Severity (Minor, Injury, Truck, Fatal) Geographic (District, Crew) Secondary Crashes Defined but Effort to Implement

17 Audience = TOC mgmt. team, TIM team, ITS unit 17

18

19 Key Stakeholder Outcomes Highest Priority are On-Scene Time Metrics 5 Core Performance Measures Identified 4 are currently collected More frequent automated timers TIM timeline accuracy Help facilitate data collection from OSP, tow agencies, other TIM responders TIM timeline accuracy.

20 Audience = Traffic, Planning & Policy, Transportation Data Section, ITS unit 20

21 21

22 Key Stakeholder Outcomes FAST Act / MAP-21 Rulemaking Measures to be Handled by Others. Plan will acknowledge. 6 Core Performance Measures Identified 4 are not currently collected & reported actively Need statewide consistent definition of congested speed, free flow speed pilot test? Emerging tools to evaluate, PeMS, UDOT SPM, etc.

23 Audience = ITS unit, FHWA 23

24 24

25 Key Stakeholder Outcomes Highest Priority are Major Event Timeliness Metrics 5 Core Performance Measures Identified

26 Audience = ITS unit, maintenance & operations, traffic, electrical 26

27 27

28 Key Stakeholder Outcomes Most ad hoc program area 7 Core Performance Measures Identified All are inconsistent or yet to be developed Need TSM&O Pilot, Identify software requirements, do electronic inventory, & condition assessment 28

29 Audience = ITS unit, maintenance & operations 29

30 30

31 TSMO Perf. Meas. Plan Overview Plan Purpose Audience Program Area & Overview TSM&O Perf. Meas. Goal(s) Core Measures Existing v. Future Secondary Measures Implementation Plan Core Measures Communication Plan Core Measures Appendix One-Pager Reference 31

32 Example One-Pager Metric Overview (DDOT) 32

33 Implementation Plan Recommendations Validate data sources with ground truth, QA.QC Pilot test sources, configurations; establish baseline Identify gaps, needs, set requirements for automated metric tool. Set realistic targets, goals Develop regular metric report Refine & enhance regular metric report 33

34 Communication Plan Recommendations Identify desired messaging & story of visual / report Audience tailored Dashboard overview vs. staff action oriented Explore suite of existing reporting tools. Accurate? Resource light or intensive? Identify gaps & requirements for future enhancements. 34

35 DRAFT EXAMPLE

36 DRAFT EXAMPLE

37 DRAFT EXAMPLE

38 Input Needed from Steering Committee Do we have the right metrics identified & prioritized? Thoughts on most effective way to implement program area metrics? Thoughts on most effective way to communicate metrics as actionable information? Insights or recommendations for TSM&O Performance Measures Plan Documentation? 38

39 TSMO Performance Measures Plan Wrap Up Recap Discussion Consensus Items Items to Add to Plan Next Meeting in October Budget time prior to meeting for draft plan review 39

40 Thank you. 40