Asset Management Steering Committee by izj82566

VIEWS: 32 PAGES: 4

									                                    ODOT Asset Management
                               Steering Committee Meeting Minutes
                                        Tuesday ~ September 29, 2009
                                            10:00 a.m. ~ 12:00 p.m.
                                   Region 2 – Mt Jefferson Conference Room


Attendees:       Jerri Bohard, Michael Bufalino, Ed Fischer, Hal Gard, Laura Hansen, Marilyn Holt, Bruce
                 Johnson, Scott King, Steve Leep, Luci Moore, Cathy Nelson, Dave Ringeisen, Dan
                 Wells, Laura Wipper
Absent:          Lynn Cartwright, Jane Lee, Ric Listella & Ron Winterrowd
Guests:          Karen Krill, Steve Lindland & Allegra Willhite

ODOT’s Journey (PowerPoint and discussion):
Asset management is: Providing the right information to the right people at the right time for lifecycle
management of transportation assets.

Review – Where we’ve been
This all began in the 1990’s in response to ISTEA. By 2005 there was a strategic plan for a more
comprehensive program and assets were being prioritized. The end of that year brought a pilot project
which resulted in a draft report by January 2007 that had recommendations for statewide efforts to build
capacity. Throughout that year governing bodies were created, the Asset Management Integration
Section was formed and work plans were developed for several priority assets. Since then data
collection efforts have continued; statewide communication efforts have taken place; and new
opportunities to find solutions to on-going issues were presented - Data Warehouse, FACS/STIP Tool &
TransInfo efforts; network speeds & optimization.

So, what do we have to look forward to . . . governance to reflect movement from planning to
implementation; continued communication efforts; opportunities to optimize network speeds throughout
the state; data warehouse projects; consistent statewide data and a future of a consolidated system
used to enter and maintain data (the “Great Integrator”) TransInfo which is expected to move into
production October 2010.

Tools for data collection are being standardized, definitions, methods and tools are being prepared,
along with coordination and training. AMI will take initial steps to prioritize the laptop deployment and
will then return to the Steering Committee for final decision.

Tools for Reporting Data
There is a recognized need to make asset data easily accessible, the FACS-STIP Tool is just such a
tool. It improves upon the previous STIP Scoping Tool. It is on an aggressive schedule to complete
development, provide training, make additional modifications to the application and then roll it out in
time to meet the needs of the upcoming scoping efforts in the regions this November.

Other opportunities where this will prove to be an efficiency gain are in meeting 1R program
requirements and helping with MS4 Permit requirements. The highest priorities for future
enhancements will include expanding the comment feature; to capture additional asset information and
to tie to other GIS-based efforts, i.e., EDMS.

1847e253-8be2-4953-b2d0-a613585817a9.doc   Page 1 of 4
DISCUSSION: There was the question if this was a “rookie” version of the Field Data Collection
module for TransInfo. Change reports - who and how are these being generated? It is a future
enhancement to the FACS Tool; the application will include a comments feature that generates an
email to the identified asset owner. There was also the discussion of possibly having discipline teams
available for the demo – this would provide a good cross-section for feedback.

Action Item (Hal Gard): This will be discussed off-line.

FACS-STIP Tool
A brief demonstration of the tool was provided; we are currently at version 1.6.

Data-to-Go data comes from corporate sources. There is also the soon-to-be-added capability to add
new assets that are found; update data; comment on the map, etc. The data is exportable by asset
type.

Adding a data class is possible with limited difficulty. It would cost approximately $3000 to have the
consultant add a layer until the application is able to be migrated to ODOT servers once configured.
This would also need a work order, the money and to define and frame up the data. The process for
adding additional data classes is being documented and once the application is moved to ODOT’s GIS
servers we will be able to perform this task using ODOT resources. This is a GIS application so it did
not require TAD approval; only GIS Steering Committee approval. This just creates a mechanism, it
does not mean other processes aren’t possible; this is an opportunity; an effort to include additional
utility was incorporated.

Action Item (All): It needs to be clearly defined who is responsible for the data input; “responsible”
needs to be defined; and clear expectations need to be established as well as a resource plan.
Note: There needs to be caution as to what is agreed to.

Asset Management – Other Key Interfaces
IR & Practical Design:
This tie with our ability to assist both the 1R Program and HB 2001 – Pave Mainly and Practical Design.
Asset inventories are needed for a strategic approach for features normally upgraded by 3R Projects.
There is a $6M 1R Safety Funds available for Traffic Barrier upgrades and with our current inventories
we are able to provide data for: ADA ramps; bicycle facilities; bridges; culverts; sidewalks, traffic
barriers; signs; traffic and safety data; and special problems – clear zone hazards.

Practical Design are design practices that use flexibility in the application of standards to reduce cost
while preserving and enhancing safety and mobility. It was mandated by HB2001, with reporting
required to the legislature by November 2010. The key element is the 1R program; 2R is being
considered where some safety & ADA features may be included in projects and asset inventories will
be used to conduct scoping and allow for informed decisions.

DISCUSSION: 1R Program – Established in February 2009, the emphasis being on paving, this is the
first time at having a statewide strategic approach; inventory is key. They have prioritized features by
replacement, and are developing a strategy to compare data (road departure information) and identified
projects for 2010. As a result of efforts the Highway Design Manual has updated its forms.

TLT approved the requirement and tracking will be completed on 13 projects as a test sampling.
Having the FACS Tool has allowed an efficiency in enabling reports to be generated within 10 minutes.

There is still the expectation that the “element” owner will make updates to their system.


1847e253-8be2-4953-b2d0-a613585817a9.doc   Page 2 of 4
The agreement with FHWA was that we would indicate in the 1R Roadside Inventories if there were any of the
seven priority Traffic Barrier features located on 1R projects.


In the future we hope to link ROW maps.
Asset Management and the work already completed have allowed us to have program options which
we did not have in the past. We need to be sure and identify the value for legislative efficiency. There
is also discussion of a 2R program.

Financial Reporting:
The Financial Services section prepares the agencies financial statements and submits information to
DAS for the CAFR - Comprehensive Annual Financial Report. There are several levels of review and
accountability including: DAS, Secretary of State, FHWA and outside governing bodies to ensure our
compliance, which allows us a good rating for bond issuance and continued receipt of federal funds and
grants.

Challenges:
    Many people involved with the larger assets – highways, land, structures.
    Current processes, systems and organizational structure make tracking difficult and
       compromises data integrity.
    Audit findings result in requirements for better life-cycle tracking: depreciating/retiring assets;
       activities that extend useful life; and valuing (capitalizing) project cost and outcomes.

Moving Forward - things to consider; things to solve….
Patterns for Readiness – building methodologies to improve decisions and awareness based on levels
of informed decisions; asset location methods and tools and experience with the data (“sandbox”).

TransInfo readiness considerations include the asset priority and whether or not it is a potential
candidate. In order to qualify it needs to meet location standards and specific asset standards (i.e.
metadata; governance structure; and data warehouse effort).

Several assets in the potential queue for TransInfo include: signs; storm water; retaining walls; sound
barriers; CHAMPS; interchanges; intersections; ITS Equipment; Right of Way and traffic structures.

DISCUSSION: There are still questions to be answered regarding recommendation of priorities; we will
continue to make recommendations and take those to the TransCOI Steering Committee for a decision.

Asset Management – Issues and Barriers
There are several issues that continue to create challenges including networks/impacts on speeds;
universal knowledge of data availability and sources; data governance; organizational readiness and
forums for broader discussion and input is necessary to continue to move forward.

Other issues and barriers include the data warehouse project for Signs. It requires follow through,
sustained progress on data and migration. Fragmented jurisdiction and responsibilities made consistent
and sustained data updates a challenge.

Network speeds have been found to be a real issue in some locations. This impedes the pace in which
many offices can maintain their business. Major factors include the network topology; applications;
equipment compatibilities and business processes. A team has been working on pinpointing issues,
assessing options and developing strategies. Challenging this success has been cost; the State Data
Centre (SDC); regional or city capacities for higher speeds; lack of options; and necessary applications
(MMS ATC, GIS, MSProject). Corrective action to mitigate these challenges has included collaboration
with SDC, network band-width upgrade project and identifying & prioritizing other possible
improvements.

1847e253-8be2-4953-b2d0-a613585817a9.doc   Page 3 of 4
Other issues to solve include active engagement of staff with asset data and priorities; updating and
reporting the data; establishing data governance and having cross-functional/asset conversations.
Ensuring there is a forum for routine communications and decisions and having a process for
understanding readiness in relation to needs for systems work.

Efforts to fill the void for signs include recruiting a SAM-IT team with a diverse membership.

DISCUSSION: SAM-IT representation recommendations were made for Technical Services and
IS/GIS. Additional comments included linking this to the operational side and that we cannot always
resolve issues when they go back to their Districts so we need the “missing link”.

Recommendations were made to create a sub-group to discuss further; to include and utilize SAM, not
SAM-IT; and to phase out SAM and include a few of the knowledgeable line staff and include in the
new SAM-IT.

This is an initiative issue and needs to go to MLT for them to buy-in and bless the membership. MLT
should also have a “project sitter” as the chair.

Action Item (Laura Wipper): Take proposal to MLT; request MLT representative as the chair.
Agenda Item (All): Discuss SAM vs. SAM-IT: roles and responsibilities
Decision Item: Ed Fischer nominated Dave Greenberg (who can delegate if he so chooses); and Dan
Wells offered for the IS/GIS position upon approval from Ron/Lynn.
Action Item (Ed/Dan): Confirm representation at next meeting.

Next Stage
Asset Management needs to update its governing body – the foundation is set and we need to grow
with the program and need more or an implementation leadership team to guide the effort. This should
involve regions and other divisions and develop processes to ensure broader input to other teams and
committees where possible.

DISCUSSION: Conceptually there was agreement; however the question was how it fits in with the
existing Asset Management Steering Committee. This team would make recommendations and
identify roles and responsibilities as we move forward. The committee was open to a more detailed
approach and to probe and discuss at the next meeting. Evolution to prior efforts needs to take place.
How do we bring the right folks in to “play” in the sand box? Efficient teams need to make the
decisions.

Concerns included us creating another layer; the potential to decrease our ability and efficiency in
decision-making and how would we move forward – a work plan would need to be developed. There
needs to be a few items to focus on; draw the line; stay focused on “bite-sized” chunks. Clear
responsibilities on who does what would be necessary. The option to change the composition of the
existing team was recommended.

Agenda Item (All): Discuss Asset Management governance; composition; roles/responsibilities, etc.

December Agenda Items
Steering Committee Membership - discussion/decision
Roles & Responsibilities - discussion/decision

Next meeting will be held December 14th, 10:00-12:00 – location TBD.
1847e253-8be2-4953-b2d0-a613585817a9.doc   Page 4 of 4

								
To top