TR N

EWS

270

SEPT

EMBE

R–O

CTO

BER

2010

16

The author is Director ofOrganizational Results,Missouri Department ofTransportation, JeffersonCity. She serves as TRBState Representative.

Ask a Missouri Department of Trans-portation (DOT) employee about assetmanagement, and the first response maybe a blank stare. Ask about performance

management, and the answer invariably will includeMissouri DOT’s battle cry of “Better, faster, andcheaper!”

Missouri DOT doesn’t use the term asset man-agement as often as most state DOTs do, but underthe umbrella of the performance management sys-tem, the agency continually addresses the expecta-tion to improve in all areas defined by the principlesof asset management. Missouri DOT’s common-sense, results-driven approach aligns closely withthe asset management standards of maximizingshort- and long-term performance, minimizing cost,and improving customer satisfaction.

Asset management is integral to Missouri DOT’sperformance management system. The key isaccountability—another term that Missouri DOTemployees have come to understand and embrace inrecent years. Accountability has become the norm formanagers and front-line workers.

Results TrackerMissouri DOT has achieved significant improve-ments in pavement and other assets by implement-ing a performance management approach through -out the organization. A profound culture changehas occurred, with performance management incorporating asset management practices as part ofthe department’s data-driven and results-focused approach.

Tracker, a quarterly publication of departmentalperformance measures, is a primary indicator of Mis-souri DOT’s progress.1 The public document isprominently displayed on the agency’s website buthas extensive internal use to ensure accountability.Tracker spells out the department’s mission, values,

Driving Asset ManagementThrough Performance Culture Change and Proven Results at theMissouri Department of TransportationM A R A K . C A M P B E L L

1 www.modot.mo.gov/about/general_info/Tracker.htm.

Tracker provides asnapshot of MissouriDOT’s performanceprogress—both fordepartment staff and forthe public.

PHO

TO:

MIS

SOU

RID

OT

The performance management system of theMissouri Department of Transportation (DOT)emphasizes accountability and results.

ASSETMANAGEMENT

AT WORK

TR NEW

S 270 SEPTEMBER–O

CTOBER 2010

17

and priorities and is built on 18 tangible results thatMissourians expect. More than 100 performancemeasures directly linked to tangible results aretracked to gauge performance in such areas as traf-fic flow, pavement and bridge conditions, safety,roadway visibility, customer service and response,innovations, project delivery, environmental impact,access to modal choices, wise use of funding, andeconomic development.

The performance results documented in Trackerare the focus of mandatory quarterly review meet-ings. All managers and departments explain theirperformance to executive leaders and their peers,compare and benchmark their performance with thatof other DOTs and organizations, and present theactions taken to continue improvements.

Each division and district also has its own Trackerwith metrics specifically related to its functional area;these in turn affect the results and measurements inthe department Tracker. The work-level Trackershave played an important role in the culture changethat has accepted the performance managementmodel at all levels.

Through Tracker, Missouri DOT has establisheda set of clearly defined, expected results and perfor-mance for the condition of the highway system.Tracker closely links asset management and perfor-mance management. Missouri DOT’s asset manage-ment system is effective because it is part of anorganizationwide performance management system.Behind it is the mantra of “better, faster, and cheaper”that guides efforts to improve performance.

Change of FocusThe focus on performance and results is recent. His-torically, Missouri DOT has had to do more withless, operating with one of the lowest state gas taxesin the nation; moreover, the federal revenue receivedper mile of the state highway system annually fallsamong the lowest 15 percent among the states. Thelow ranking in revenue per mile is partly the resultof the large number of farm-to-market roads incor-porated into the state system during the 1950s.

Missouri’s state highway system is the seventhlargest in the United States, with approximately33,000 miles. Missouri DOT’s 10,249 bridges andculverts also rank seventh in the nation; with 53major river bridges, Missouri has more major rivercrossings than any other state.

During the mid-1980s, the department focusedon customer satisfaction and new construction. Thesystem underwent significant expansion, but thebudgets for asset management and pavement main-tenance did not grow comparably. The new con-struction was not always linked to costs or

performance. Attempts to establish a performancemanagement system mostly relied on after-the-factreporting and were not widely used in planning ordecision making.

The performance management system did notwork for maintenance and condition of pavementand other asset conditions. Eventually, Missouri DOT scrapped its 15-year plan because of the diffi-culty in projecting costs and funding. The replace-ment 5-year plan focused on high-priority projects.The abandonment of the 15-year plan and its unful-filled promises, however, eroded Missourians’ trust inthe department and brought intense scrutiny byelected officials and the media.

Missouri DOT needed a clear, overarching visionand strategies to balance expansion with asset man-agement—a new way of doing business. Executiveleadership would have to champion the change,shaping this new way of doing business and the formit should take.

Road RalliesThe changes started slowly in early 2000, with aseries of road rallies to determine what was impor-

The Jefferson City Bridgeover the Missouri River isone of the state’s 53major river crossings.

PHO

TO:

MIS

SOU

RID

OT

Customers surveyed inMissouri DOT’s roadrallies placed highestimportance on trafficflow, signs and markings,and roadway condition.

PHO

TO:

MIS

SOU

RID

OT

TR N

EWS

270

SEPT

EMBE

R–O

CTO

BER

2010

18

tant to customers and what their expectations werefor road and bridge conditions. Participants includedrandomly selected citizens; local civic officials; rep-resentatives from regional and metropolitan plan-ning organizations, chambers of commerce, andeconomic development agencies; and Missouri DOTemployees.

Rally riders were driven around the state on dif-ferent roads and bridges and were asked to graderoad conditions according to pavement smoothness,lane and shoulder width, striping, signage, and othercriteria. Missouri DOT staff previously had rated theroads according to engineering standards. Thedepartment could assess the system using the cus-tomer scores and could compare what customersfound acceptable with the results from the engineer-ing standards. These scores provided a baseline forMissouri DOT to measure success.

The results from the road rallies were used todevelop performance measures. What Missouri DOTassumed was important to its customers differedfrom what the road rally feedback indicated werecustomer priorities—the physical condition of theroadway, the marking of intersections, traffic flow

and congestion, the ease of getting on and off road-ways, and bridge width and smoothness. In contrast,Missouri DOT staff had expected that the mowingand trimming of roadsides and the clearing of litterand debris would outrank these.

Distributing FundsThe novel idea of listening to customers led to othersignificant changes in how Missouri DOT operatedand how it allocated resources. For example, the dis-tribution of funds had been the subject of debate formore than a decade. Methods for allocating limitedtransportation dollars had changed with long-termproject plans and with the politics of dividing fundsbetween the urban and rural areas of the state.

In January 2003, the Missouri Highways andTransportation Commission adopted an objectivemethod of distributing transportation funds to reflectthe size and use of the system, as well as where peo-ple live and work. The new method went beyond thediscussions of geography and allowed for allocationsbased on objective, transportation-related needs.

The fund distribution method also sought a bal-ance between maintaining the already-built systemand adding new capacity. The direction set by thecapacity expansions of the 1980s had taken a toll onthe statewide system—the condition of roads andbridges reflected the past emphasis on expansion.Taking better care of the system—also known asasset management—was overdue.

The 2003 funding distribution formula set asidea fixed amount of funds to take care of the system.Previous methods had similar set-asides, but theamounts were not enough to stop the decline in roadconditions. The change allowed the department tostabilize the condition of the system and to beginmaking improvements.

Timely ChampionEarlier attempts to implement performance man-agement principles at Missouri DOT did not suc-ceed because commitment and support at theexecutive level were lacking. In September 2004,Missouri DOT found its champion—Pete Rahn wasappointed director. Cabinet Secretary for the NewMexico State Highway and Transportation Depart-ment from 1995 to 2002, Rahn brought a charis-matic ability to manage a large organization, toarticulate a vision for success, to motivate people,and to stay focused. Rahn was an advocate of per-formance management—Missouri DOT had foundthe right leader at the right time.

An adage asserts, “What gets measured getsdone.” Rahn’s purposely simple yet effective take onperformance management guided Missouri DOT’s

Contrary to expectations,roadside mowing andlitter pickup were notranked as major prioritiesby road rally participants.

Missouri DOT’s funddistribution planallocated resources basedon an area’s size and onits use of thetransportation system—whether a rural or urbanarea.

PH

OTO

: MISSO

UR

IDO

TP

HO

TO: M

ISSOU

RID

OT

TR NEW

S 270 SEPTEMBER–O

CTOBER 2010

19

successful progress during his 5 years as director.Early on, Rahn asserted that a good performance

management process would allow Missouri DOT tomaximize its resources and earn trust and account-ability from the public, legislators, and the media. “Itwill allow us to show a logical, systematic approachto managing taxpayers’ money, and most importantly,it will show them the tangible results provided bytheir investment in us,” he noted.

When managers responded that the data to sup-port performance measures—whether from cus-tomer feedback or asset management—were notreliable, Rahn reassured them that the data wouldimprove with use. “We have to start somewhere; thefastest way to improve your data and measures is tostart using them,” he observed. He exhorted themanagers to avoid frustration over imperfect mea-sures, because the measures would evolve, with theineffective and inappropriate ones discarded in favorof better ones.

Implementation TacticsRahn demanded results and accountability fromemployees and contractors. A cheerleader for inno-vation, he encouraged and endorsed new approachessuch as practical design and design–build contracts,but tempered with a responsibility for outcomes. Hisintuitive methods for challenging his team to per-form beyond expectations created an environment ofsuccess and a nationally recognized performancemanagement model.

In implementing Missouri DOT’s performancemanagement system, Rahn applied four tactics:

u Empowering—Instead of top-down, imposedmeasures, he allowed middle managers who producethe results to develop their own measures.

u Driving innovation—Rahn and his team jointlydeveloped a new set of value statements. One of themadvises, “Encourage risk and accept failure, becausewe believe in getting better.”

u Demanding results—Tangible results are Mis-souri DOT’s bottom line—or in business terms, itsprofit. There is no alternative—results must beachieved.

u Holding staff accountable—Staff who consis-tently failed to produce results and who performedpoorly were seen as tarnishing the trust that otherswere building with customers.

Sample ResultsMissouri DOT is delivering results-driven programsand projects on time and on budget—often ahead ofdeadline and below budget. A few examples are high-lighted below.

Smooth Roads InitiativeIn 2006, Missouri DOT completed the Smooth RoadsInitiative (SRI) 1 year ahead of the schedule set byGovernor Matt Blunt. The SRI delivered smootherpavement, brighter striping, rumble strips, and othersafety improvements to 2,200 miles of the state’sbusiest highways. A survey of Missouri motoristsafter the completion of the SRI indicated that 79 per-cent believed the improvements were a good invest-ment of taxpayer dollars, and 80 percent thoughtthat Missouri DOT should continue with similarimprovements.

Better Roads, Brighter FutureTo continue the progress under the SRI to keep theroadway system in good condition, the Better Roads,Brighter Future (BRBF) initiative began in 2006. Thegoal of the BRBF was to have 85 percent of Missouri’smajor roads in good condition by the end of 2011.Each of the department’s districts developed a planto improve major routes by the 2011 deadline. ByDecember 2009, the percentage of major roads in

Former MissouriTransportation DirectorPete Rahn celebrates thecompletion of theSmooth Roads Initiativein 2007.

Missouri DOT’s BetterRoads, Brighter Futureinitiative led to anincrease in thepercentage of majorroads in goodcondition—from 47percent in 2004 to 86percent in 2009.

PHO

TO:

MIS

SOU

RID

OT

PHO

TO:

MIS

SOU

RID

OT

TR N

EWS

270

SEPT

EMBE

R–O

CTO

BER

2010

20

good condition rose to 86 percent, a considerableincrease from 2004, when only 47 percent of majorroads were in good condition.

The original goal was surpassed 2 years ahead ofschedule. The percentage of vehicle miles traveled inMissouri on major highways in good condition hasjumped from 58 percent in 2004 to 86 percent in2009. These two asset management initiatives, bol-stered by a robust performance management process,have produced results that have helped to rebuild thepublic’s trust in Missouri DOT.

Practical DesignIn 2004, the department began implementing prac-tical design, which challenges project engineers touse nontraditional design methods to develop effi-cient solutions for project needs. Practical designplaces a premium on systemwide improvements; itspremise is that building a series of good projects willresult in a great system. The approach maximizesthe value of a project by ensuring that it is the cor-rect solution—or the “right sizing”—for its sur-roundings.

Practical design works to achieve the purpose andneed of a project so that funds are saved instead ofbeing spent on overdesigned items. The savings inturn allow other projects to be built and more of thesystem to be improved. In layman’s terms, “Whydrive the Cadillac when the Chevy will get you whereyou’re going?”

Some had criticized practical design for cuttingcorners, but the approach adheres to two funda-mental ground rules:

u Do not compromise safety, andu Collaborate on the solution.

Practical design produced savings of $400 millionfor the projects in Missouri DOT’s 2005–2009Statewide Transportation Improvement Program.The savings were invested in additional transporta-tion projects. Since then, Missouri DOT has incor-porated practical design into all projects from theconceptual stages; it has become part of the agency’sway of doing business.

Alternate Bid Paving ProjectsWorking with the asphalt and concrete industries,Missouri DOT introduced alternate bidding—con-tractors can propose asphalt or concrete in biddingon construction projects. Traditionally, MissouriDOT had specified the materials. By allowing biddersto determine which type of pavement they coulddeliver for the best price while meeting the perfor-mance requirements, Missouri DOT has gained a 25percent increase in bidders and a cost savings ofbetween 9 and 10 percent. Since late 2003, alternatebidding of pavements has saved the state approxi-mately $20 million.

2009 Report Card In 2009, ETC Institute completed an annual, com-prehensive, statewide customer satisfaction survey toevaluate Missouri DOT’s performance and to identifythe transportation services and improvements mostimportant to Missourians. Results were as follows:

u Customer satisfaction with Missouri DOTreached an all-time high of 85 percent, a 7 percentincrease from 2008 and a dramatic increase of 17 per-cent from 2003.

u The percentage of customers who are “very sat-isfied” is 24 percent, compared with 5 percent in2003.

u The percentage of customers who view Mis-souri DOT as the state’s transportation expert is 91percent, up 6 percent from 2008.

u Eighty-nine percent trust Missouri DOT tokeep its commitments.

A Way of Doing BusinessOrganizational change elicits many responses—skepticism, rebellion, predictions of failure—in addi-tion to the perceived impact on employees. In the 5years since Missouri DOT began its performancemanagement journey, the doubters have becomebelievers. At all levels, performance management isno longer considered extra work, but the way ofdoing business. Performance management ties

The use of practicaldesign in Missouri DOT’sI-64–I-70 interchangeproject produced a costsavings of more than $37 million. The methodhas saved Missouri DOT$400 million from 2005to 2009.

PH

OTO

: MISSO

UR

IDO

T

TR NEW

S 270 SEPTEMBER–O

CTOBER 2010

21

together programs and projects across the agencyand has created a momentum for producing resultsbetter, faster, and cheaper.

Performance management and asset managementwork together at Missouri DOT; asset managersreceive the support they need to make improve-ments. At Missouri DOT, asset management is theperformance management system for highways.

As the steward of the state’s transportation assets,Missouri DOT is responsible for providing the bestvalue to Missourians for every dollar spent. A mind-set of continuous improvement to achieve expectedresults permeates the department as managers iden-tify new ways to gain cost and time savings. Front-line employees have contributed to the developmentof process improvements in administration and busi-ness services, reduced levels of fleet and equipment,and in some instances, have reduced humanresources.

Savings and InvestmentsThe goal is to save money to invest in roads, for exam-ple:

u For projects completed in the 5-year periodfrom 2005 to 2009, final costs of $6.321 billion werewithin 1.02 percent of programmed costs, or $64.8million less than the programmed cost of $6.385 bil-lion.

u Vehicle fleet size decreased by almost 100 unitsin 2009 and has decreased by more than 250 units inthe past 2 years.

u From 2008 to 2009, fuel consumption decreasedby 6.8 percent, conserving approximately 600,000 gal-lons of fuel.

u The percentage of vendor invoices paid on timein 2009 was 96 percent compared with 82 percent in2006, gaining on-time discounts and better bids fromvendors.

u Process improvements, a streamlined biddingprocess, and innovative contracts have lowered proj-ect costs with more bids per job and with contractorsoffering innovative ideas and construction techniques.

u Best practices have been identified and imple-mented for mowing, to save time and reduce the needfor expensive equipment.

Effective ToolAsset management incorporated into an organiza-tional performance management system is an effec-tive management tool at Missouri DOT. The successof the business model is well documented throughsignificantly improved performance.

The continued success of the agency depends ona sound performance management system that

encompasses all aspects of operating, maintaining,and expanding the transportation assets, with theflexibility to adapt to customer needs and an uncer-tain funding environment. Those at Missouri DOTwho vehemently opposed performance management5 years ago would now be the first to defend it—andto fight to save it.

A Missouri DOT vehicletravels along a ruralroad. The departmenthas decreased its fleetsize significantly in thepast 2 years.

Developing Asset Management Programs for AirportsM A R C I A . G R E E N B E R G E R

L ike other transportation organizations, airports have limitedresources. Airport managers therefore are looking for efficient and

effective ways to manage airport assets and infrastructure. Some airports already gather and analyze data on available assets, using tech-nologies developed for specific purposes, such as pavement manage-ment or computer maintenance management systems. These systemsusually are not available organizationwide and are not managed andmaintained for such uses. Centralizing the data for all assets, however,can enhance the ability of airport management to make effective finan-cial and strategic decisions. Further research is needed to provide air-ports with an approach to asset and infrastructure management thatincludes physical, financial, and human resources information.

TRB’s Airport Cooperative Research Program (ACRP) is addressing thisresearch need through Project 01-16, Asset and Infrastructure Manage-ment for Airports. The objective is to develop

u A primer for executive-level decision makers at airports of all sizes,to provide an overview of an asset and infrastructure management pro-gram, presenting the components as well as the benefits and costs, basedon experience; and

u A guidebook on developing and implementing an asset and infra-structure management program that (a) captures best management prac-tices and (b) assists in incorporating the programs into airports of all sizes.

The research project is under way through GHD Consulting, Inc., withcompletion scheduled for winter 2012. For more information, visit theACRP website, www.trb.org/acrp.

The author is Senior Program Officer, Airport Cooperative ResearchProgram, TRB.

PHO

TO:

MIS

SOU

RID

OT