1 / 64

Implementing Asset Management In Michigan

Implementing Asset Management In Michigan. Ron Vibbert, Mgr. Asset Mgt. Section Bureau of Transportation Planning Michigan DOT. ASSET MANAGEMENT COUNCIL. ASSET MANAGEMENT COUNCIL. Created by Act 499 of Public Acts of 2002 10 Member Council Met first time on October 8 th

chick
Download Presentation

Implementing Asset Management In Michigan

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Implementing Asset Management In Michigan Ron Vibbert, Mgr. Asset Mgt. Section Bureau of Transportation Planning Michigan DOT

  2. ASSET MANAGEMENT COUNCIL

  3. ASSET MANAGEMENT COUNCIL • Created by Act 499 of Public Acts of 2002 • 10 Member Council • Met first time on October 8th • Meet First Wednesday of the Month • Report to State Transportation Commission

  4. Paradigm Shift • Transportation Networks are utilities • Investments in assets rather than traditional public idea of simply expending funds • Managing • Cooperation

  5. Six Key Concepts • Implement recommendations of Act 51 Committee • Move away from Needs Study concept • Customer Focus perspective • Strengthen MPO and Regional Planning • Focus on the Federal Aid system • Work cooperatively across jurisdictional (and funding) boundaries

  6. MAJOR ACTIVITIES • System Profile and Survey • Work Program • Annual Report • Budget FY 03 & FY 04 • Web Page • Chose PASER & RoadSoft for data collection for 2003 • Selected a Data Agency for data storage

  7. SYSTEM STATISTICS • 617 Act 51 Agencies • July 1, 2002 certification = 120,060 miles • 83 County Road Commissions • 533 agencies are cities/villages • Represents 86% of total • 225 own less than 10 miles of roads • 153 own less than 25 miles • 39 own over 100 miles

  8. SYSTEM STATISTICS • MDOT has largest system = 9,717 route miles • Oakland County Road Commission is second = 2,649 • Detroit is third = 2,572 • Kent County Road Commission is fourth = 1,956 • Grand Rapids second largest city = 865 • 77 counties have larger systems than Grand Rapids

  9. SYSTEM STATISTICS • 65 Agencies: (MDOT, Detroit and 63 counties) • Represent 10.5% of all road agencies • Own 75% of the miles • 123 Agencies: • Includes all cities with more than 100 miles • Represents 20% of all road agencies • Own 92% of the miles

  10. USE OF PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM • 99 agencies (46% of respondents) use a PMS • 19 cities/villages under 50 miles • 4 cities over 50 miles • 21 cities over 100 miles • 54 counties • MDOT

  11. SYSTEMS IN USE • RoadSoft is used by 66 agencies • Micro-Paver: 10 agencies • Stantec: 5 agencies • CarteGraph: 3 agencies • Others: 15 agencies

  12. ANNUAL REPORT • Approved in April and submitted to STC and Legislature • Partial Report: Pilot Project • Covered 5,834 miles or 15%

  13. DATA COLLECTION • Beginning in August and run through end of November • Windshield Survey: PASER • Participation is voluntary • Coordinated through MPO or Regional Planning Agency • Receive a print-out of the condition of all federal-aid eligible roads in your city or county

  14. MULTI-YEAR PROGRAM • Beginning October 1, 2003 • 3-years worth of projects • Funded in whole or part, with state or federal funds • Federal-aid eligible roads • Submitted to the Council by second week of August • Coordinated by MPOs and Regional Planning Agencies

  15. SUMMARY • Annual Investment Report • Condition of the system • Dollars spent in previous calendar year on that system • Projects anticipated for construction over next 3 years

  16. Rick LillyAsset Management CoordinatorMichigan DOT

  17. Implementing Asset Management at the Michigan Dept. of Transportation Ron Vibbert, Mgr. Asset Mgt. Section Bureau of Transportation Planning Michigan DOT

  18. Basic Approach • Set Goals and Objectives • Collect Inventory and Condition Data • Rates of Deterioration • Performance Standards & Measures • Investment Strategies • Programs, Projects, and Practices • Monitoring Feedback and Adjustments

  19. OLD PROCESS Tactical Reactive Compartmental & Piecemeal Stove Pipes Basic Tools “Slice in Time” Deficiencies Retiring Backlog Look Backwards NEW PROCESS Strategic Proactive Integrated and Systematic Interdisciplinary Advanced Systems Continuous assessment Function of Road Systems Approach Forward Looking What’s Different?

  20. Implementing Asset Management • Institutional Challenges • Technical Challenges • Self-Assessment • AASHTO Guide • Providence, RI -- July

  21. MDOT’S Asset Management Construct • Policy goals and objectives • Information and data collection • Planning and programming • Program delivery • Monitoring and reporting

  22. Policy Goals & Objectives • Michigan Transportation Policy Plan • State Long Range Plan • MDOT’s Business Plan • Program Specific Strategies • Strategy for Repairing & Rebuilding Roads • Freeway Modernization Strategy • Corridor Management Strategy • Access Management Strategy • Border Crossing & Trade Corridor Strategy

  23. Information & Data • Maintain high-quality information that supports asset management and business process • Collect and update data cost-effectively • Data viewed as “corporate asset” • Information automated and accessible to all parties • GIS Framework Project • Global Positioning Satellite (GPS) data collection • From survey accuracy up to “good enough” quality

  24. Planning & Programming • Consider a range of alternatives in addressing problems and deficiencies • Mix of Fixes – not ‘worse first’ • Procedures and criteria and performance measures • are consistent • and reinforce policy goals and objectives • Organized department around performance • Decentralized to put staff nearer to customers • Aligned performance measures with program success

  25. Alternative Analyses • Strategic rather than tactical • Longer term. Not ‘worst first’. • Decisions made with regard to the long-range condition of the entire system • More preservation focused, system focused • Assess improvements based on desired outcomes • Tools • Road Quality Forecasting System • Bridge Condition Forecasting System

  26. Basis For Decisions • Cash Flow Model • Road Quality Forecasting System & Bridge Condition Forecasting System • Call for Projects • Corridor Approach • Capital Preventive Maintenance Strategy • Five-Year Road & Bridge Program

  27. Call For Projects • Heart of our asset management process! • Solicit projects based on: • Funding • System Condition, and Future Conditions • Preservation strategies • System Goals and Performance Measures • Yields project lists developed based on identified investment strategies • Fiscally-constrained

  28. 5-year Road & Bridge Program • Outcome of a series of Call for Projects processes • Identifies approved investment strategies • Specific list of road and bridge projects, that fulfill the strategies • Rolling 5-year period

  29. Technically, Where Were We in 1985-91? • Mainframe based production env. • Each “system” had it’s own data files • No sharing • Lots of “silos” • Systems “evolved” since the 60’s • Tactical, addressed work area needs • No Development methodology • “creative” programming • Few enforced standards

  30. PMS PMS DB PTMS PTMS DB BMS BMSDB IMS IMS DB SMS SMS DB CMS CMS DB Tactical Systems

  31. What was the Impact? • Every system had to have links to every other system • Main focus was writing data translation and reformatting programs, instead of new apps • Many, many chances for error • Interrelationships too complex to succeed • Many answers to a question • Press/Legislature “shopping” the department for answers to questions

  32. What was Happening 1985-91? • PCs becoming more available to users • PC software much more capable than mainframe • Users developing software on their desks • duplicating mainframe software on desktops • Gunslingers -- get the job done • Users becoming more sophisticated -- pushing IT community. • Extensive and long-standing road referencing problems

  33. Mainframe ISTEA (Program Mgt) ISTEA (Mgt Systems) Embraced Client-Server Migrated data Develop Software PINS Development FOS Development MAP Phase I DB design Changed LRS Designed Data Developed Mgt Systems What did MDOT Do? • Decentralized IT in MDOT

  34. What about Today? • 5-6 Major Applications/Systems (Strategic) • MPINS, MFOS • Essential for system/program planning/monitoring • Management Systems (from ISTEA) • TRNS*Port & Field Manager • P/PMS • Many ‘tactical’ systems • support work area needs to support the project development process • Finance, Human Resources, other support

  35. What has Enabled These? • Technology (of course) • Federal and other mandates • Standards • technical - standard hw and sw • business - definition of processes and data • Management / Executive Commitment

  36. Has this Worked for Asset Mgt purposes? • Have performed many prerequisites • Integrated data • Identified processes • Application Support provided • Goal/sObjectivies identified • Now the work begins • Can we meet the objectives? • Do we have adequate $ resources? • Can we forecast asset performance over time? • Are we meeting/approaching the goals?

  37. “Setting the Stage”2003 – 2007 Five Year Program System Condition – Pavement • Our forecasting tool (RQFS) appears to be optimistic • Actual data indicates we are not achieving the rate of progress forecasted • 78% Good forecasted for 2002 in the last Five Year Program • 75% Good actual in 2002 reported in this Five Year Program

  38. What are We Doing? • Notified our Commission we would not meet our 2007 pavement condition goals • Efforts are underway to improve RQFS model and data collection • Are we collecting the right data? • Revise fix lives of treatments, or their costs? • Other factors influencing deterioration? • More cost-effective data collection? • Is RQFS working? How should we change it? • Is RSL a valid concept from a practical standpoint? • What to we have to measure that we aren’t measuring now?

  39. ASSET MANAGEMENTTHE IT FOUNDATION By Doug Couto FOR 5th National Conference On Asset Management: Moving From Theory to Practice September 30, 2003

  40. The Need for Better Information • In order to do their jobs, managers and staff need better more integrated information • In order to do their jobs, managers and staff need information faster • In order to do their jobs, managers and staff will need to be able to communicate information at a faster and faster rate.

  41. Executive Frustrations • System Failures • Organizational Barriers • Slow to Deliver • Lack Strategic Partners

  42. Where Does IT Fit • Key Member of Executive Staff • Central Leadership and Direction • Decentralized Execution and Support

  43. Statewide IT Strategic Directions • Central IT budget with CIO • Desk Top Standards • Hardware Refresh Rates • Software Investments • Project Management Focus • Involve All Levels of Mgt Team • Invest in People • Development Standards • Business and Technical Architectures

  44. Multi Agency Projects • E-government • Crash Data • Truck Permitting (CVISN) • Field Manager

  45. Changing Core Technologies • Mainframes —> Servers • Departmental Applications —> eGov • Building Software —> Buying software • Wired Connection —> Wireless Connections

  46. Information Technology Architecture • A framework for thinking about Business + IT Integration • A way to communicate the complexity of today’s IT environment • A way to discuss how everything fits together

  47. What Business are we in? • What Business is MDOT in? • What Business is MDOT IT in? • The Goals of MDOT IT Strategy

  48. What Business is MDOT IT in? Supporting MDOT's Businesses by providing IT ... • Infrastructure • Data • Applications • Support • Expertise

More Related