Continuation of the Development and Financial Constraint of Virginia S STIP

FINAL CONTRACT REPORT

Using the IDEF Model to Improve Business Processes of the Transportation Agencies

Methodology for Transferring the Six-Year Improvement Program (SYIP) into the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) on the State Level: A continuation of the Development and Financial Constraint of Virginia’s STIP

R. K. Jennings

Graduate Student

A. Aliberti, J. Benebanaste, S. H. Choi, I. Estripeaut, J. Perry, D. Streufert

Undergraduate Students

J. H. Lambert

Research Associate Professor of Systems and Information Engineering, and

Associate Director

Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems

University of Virginia

Project Managers

WayneS. Ferguson, Virginia Transportation Research Council

Steven M. Mondul, VirginiaDepartment of Transportation

Contract Research Sponsored by

Virginia Transportation Research Council

(A Cooperative Organization Sponsored Jointly by the

VirginiaDepartment of Transportation and the

University of Virginia)

Charlottesville, Virginia

June 2004

VTRC-

NOTICE

The project that is the subject of this report was done under contract for the Virginia Department of Transportation, Virginia Transportation Research Council. The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors, who are responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official views or policies of the Virginia Department of Transportation, the Commonwealth Transportation Board, or the Federal Highway Administration. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation.

Each contract report is peer reviewed and accepted for publication by Research Council staff with expertise in related technical areas. Final editing and proofreading of the report are performed by the contractor.

ABSTRACT

The University of Virginia’s Systems and Information Engineering Department is trying to expand the work done by Jennifer DeBruhl concerning the STIP Process Development. The original document was created to show the transformation of the SYIP into the STIP on the Federal level. We are trying to integrate into this Virginia’s process of development of the STIP.

We are using a program created by Computer Associates called AllFusion, so that the STIP Development Process is transformed from a data flow diagram into an IDEF0 (Integrated Definition for Function Modeling) diagram. The IDEF0 diagram allows us to enter for each activity inputs, controls, mechanisms, and outputs. In order to gather information for each activity, several interviews were conducted with VDOT employees about their involvement with the STIP. Information from these interviews was transformed into a worksheet that we were able to use to input information into the AllFusion model.

The purpose of this project is to gather a better understanding of the STIP and its organization. Currently, VDOT employees have a difficult time explaining what other divisions do for the STIP. We want VDOT and the public to understand how their transportation projects are governed by the STIP and if their project is not in the STIP, it will take months for it to be entered. The longest delay for the STIP is Air Quality Control. The problem with this activity is that when a transportation project is modified in a slight manner there is no current mechanism that lets the Environmental Division know that the project they are working on to control emission levels is no longer valid. There needs to be put into place a check system that once the project is modified, the Environmental Division is immediately notified. In order for a project to start, the Air Quality Report must be approved by the Federal government. If the project is not approved, then the project cannot continue or start.

Another problem in the VDOT’s STIP development process is the lack of teamwork in departments. There is a problem when departments are unwilling to share their work with other departments. There needs to be put into place a check system that forces departments to share their work.

FINAL CONTRACT REPORT

Using the IDEF Model to Improve Business Processes of the Transportation Agencies

R. K. Jennings

Graduate Student

A. Aliberti, J. Benebanaste, S. H. Choi, I. Estripeaut, J. Perry, D. Streufert

Undergraduate Students

J. H. Lambert

Research Associate Professor of Systems and Information Engineering, and

Associate Director

Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems

University of Virginia

INTRODUCTION

The University of Virginia’s Department of Systems and Information Engineering has done research to support VDOT and VDRPT, and FHWA and FTA, in the process to improve the Virginia Transportation Six-Year Program for Construction and Development (SYIP) and the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). This is a continuation on the work performed by Jennifer DeBruhl, who wrote the Development and Financial Constraint of Virginia’s STIP. Her work showed the federal level of transforming the SYIP into the STIP. The University of Virginia is trying to add into this document the state levels development of the STIP. Also, they are trying to transfer the diagrams from being data flow diagrams into IDEF0 models. This will allow more information, including inputs, controls, mechanisms, and outputs, into the model.

PROBLEM STATEMENT

In past years the STIP, a three-year programming document required by federal regulations, was prepared by VDOT and VDRPT as an abridgment of the SYIP, which is required by Virginia law. VDOT and VDRPT would in turn receive a joint letter from FHWA and FTA giving federal approval of the Virginia STIP. Virginia's approach to the STIP of past years has been inadequate to satisfy federal regulations, which require that VDOT/VDRPT declare to FHWA and the FTA the federal dollars to be obligated in each federal fiscal year by project. To be eligible for a federal obligation of funding, a project needed to appear in each of the applicable (i) long-range plan, (ii) regional transportation improvement program (TIP), and (iii) the Virginia STIP. In recent years, significant projects appearing in the SYIP, and consequently in the STIP, could not be undertaken because the financial constraint used in SYIP/STIP development was not meaningful. In programming, objective and technical evidence were increasingly dominated by short-term fiscal and other expediencies.

The FHWA, FTA, VDOT, and VDRPT reviewed the development process of the Virginia STIP, with particular attention to the financial constraint specified by federal regulation (23 CFR 450) (FHWA 2002). First, the review documented the processes utilized to develop the Virginia SYIP and the Virginia STIP. Second, the review provided a series of recommendations with accompanying implementation strategies in the categories of timing, technology, format, financial, education, and process. The twenty-one recommendations of the review are presented in Table 1.

While the 2002 report of FHWA et al. is definitive in characterizing the past and future of the SYIP and STIP development processes, some additional background on the research performed on this project is useful as follows.

The SYIP articulates an overall funding strategy for the Commonwealth. The SYIP does not obligate federal funding. The SYIP reflects six-year funding and financing strategies that are internal to the Commonwealth and which are typically not needed in the federal oversight of the annual obligations of federal funds. In contrast, the STIP articulates the intentions of VDOT and VDRPT to obligate federal funds to highways and transit by federal fiscal year. The STIP document compiles project listings of the eleven MPO TIPs, the SYIP, the federally funded Secondary System programs, federally funded forest programs, and other participating programs. STIPs are required by federal regulations to be submitted every two years, but the Virginia STIP has been submitted annually.

Currently, the TIPs are not generated in a common format, although some MPOs use the relevant sections of the SYIP as their TIP. A particular challenge to harmonizing the MPO TIPs is that the MPO that encompasses Northern Virginia (the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments) also encompasses parts of Maryland and the District of Columbia.

Beginning with FY 03, the Virginia SYIP and the Virginia STIP are distinct documents. A SYIP developed in an electronic environment will contain the data needed for generation of the STIP. The Virginia STIP will no longer present the future allocation of federal funds. For example, past STIP submissions represented an accrual of funds in fiscal years, such as when $10 million is reserved in each of three years and associated to an obligation of $30M in the 3rd year of the STIP. The STIP, a three-year program, is amended multiple times between its biennial submissions/approvals. Amendments to the STIP are straightforward when the amendment does not affect air quality. Thus, amendments are typically neutral with respect to air quality, e.g., projects of alignments and turning lanes. For FY 03, federal allocations that might have been available in 2002 were not ready until April 2003. Projects that had been removed in December 2002 due to financial constraint were hurriedly resubmitted in 2003 to address the revised allocations. The STIP of FY 03 (applicable through FY 04 and FY 05) was approved by FHWA and FTA in recent months.

Current efforts of VDOT and VDRPT are addressing issues such as:

What is the best format for the compilation of the STIP, and its submission to the FHWA and FTA, from the former SYIP, the Secondary System programs, and the eleven MPO TIPs?
How can the STIP submission, which had been a stack of separate documents in a variety of formats, be integrated and made available to the public?
What can be learned from other states?
How can the various planning and programming efforts be harmonized?
How can the need for SYIP/STIP revision be balanced with the need for a stable platform in the near term?
How will innovative financing techniques be accommodated by the SYIP and STIP processes?
How can the process of amending the STIP be streamlined?

Mr. Charles Rasnick of the Programming Division (VDOT) and Mr. Kenneth Lantz of the Transportation and Mobility Planning Division (VDOT) are co-chairs of a committee of VDOT, VDRPT, FHWA, and FTA that is implementing the twenty-one recommendations. There are three subcommittees: (i) Procedures, chaired by Ms. Deborah Grant, (ii) Finance, chaired by Mr. Robert Hofrichter, and (iii) Public-Involvement/Education, chaired by Mr. Ben Mannell. An oversight group includes Mr. Jeffrey Southard (Chief of Planning and the Environment, VDOT) and Ms. Barbara Reese (Chief Financial Officer, VDOT). In December 2002, VDOT and VDRPT submitted the first actual STIP to the FHWA and FTA for approval. In 2003, Mr. Rasnick undertook to compile the STIP electronically and completed an initial version of an electronic SYIP. With respect to STIP development, a memorandum of agreement between Virginia agencies and federal agencies will be in place in the next weeks. Pre-allocation hearings in the Fall 2003 serve as test beds of the evolving SYIP/STIP public involvement process.

Table 1. Twenty-one recommendations of the FHWA/FTA/VDOT/VDRPT Review (FHWA 2002)

Timing:
1. The schedule for the SYIP should be modified to better facilitate development of the STIP.
2. Develop a standard STIP/TIP/SYIP development cycle and consider implementing a two-year STIP/TIP cycle.
Technology:
3. Provide the SYIP to the MPOs in an easy to use electronic format.
4. Prepare the SYIP in an electronic environment that would facilitate development of the STIP and the demonstration of financial constraint.
Format:
5. Develop a standard STIP/TIP format in conjunction with Virginia MPOs.
6. Develop and incorporate into the STIP a financial summary table including a narrative discussion of the process and detailed annual allocations by program category and obligation. These annual allocations should align with project allocations and would support timely FHWA/FTA review and approval.
7. After development of an electronic format, consider the implementation of an e-STIP.
Financial:
8. VDRPT and transit operators need to provide three years of programming for STIP/TIPs as required in 23 CFR 450.
9. Demonstrate financial constraint of individual TIPs as well as the STIP.
10. Incorporate results of the VDOT Cost Estimate Task Force into the FY04 STIP.
11. Account for innovative financial techniques in the STIP/TIPs (i.e., AC, FRANS, bonds, flex funding, etc.) and their impact on current and future funding.
Education/Outreach:
12. Educate the Commonwealth Transportation Board on the STIP process.
13. Develop an educational component of this review for FHWA, FTA, VDOT, VDRPT, and other partners.
Process:
14. Establish a VDOT/VDRPT STIP Working Group to maintain communication between divisions in the STIP process.
15. Revise public involvement policy regarding the STIP to align with revised STIP development procedures.
16. Strengthen the MPO and Statewide planning processes to serve as the foundation for the programming process by establishing priorities for implementation.
17. Develop and maintain documented statewide planning and programming procedures.
18. Maximize programming of state/district-wide "line item" or "grouped" projects, as eligible.
19. Develop standard STIP modification procedures to reduce FHWA/FTA involvement in minor STIP modifications and amendments.
20. Provide Virginia's MPOs with the information necessary to prepare an Annual Listing of Projects as required by 23 CFR 450.
21. Develop a three-year rather than a six-year STIP.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON THE IDEF0 MODEL

The IDEF0 (Integrated Definition for Function Modeling) is the technique that breaks down the activities or functions of the organization or system into its component parts. It is a graphical language that assists in identifying the functions that are performed, the various elements needed to perform those function, and what is efficient and inefficient about the system under study. Describing the SYIP and STIP processes in the BPWin has several benefits. The high-level outputs of BPWin models are charts of activities and organizations similar in appearance to those of the 11/02 Process Review. Underlying such charts (in BPWin) are the characteristics of activities (objectives, titles of responsible individuals, inputs, rules/controls including relevant legislation, mechanisms for data acquisition, outputs, receiving individuals, key decisions, impacted activities, and days to complete). BPWin is thus supporting a business analyst to describe STIP/SYIP and other processes (e.g., cost estimation) consistently. Once the processes are described in BPWin, evolutions of the processes are more easily communicated to the ITAD. The BPWin software is from the same vendor as the model manager, data shopper, and related applications used by the ITAD, and increasingly by the 'data stewards' across VDOT divisions. A business process is generally of broader scope than its portion that is to be automated. Process description helps to set priorities and make analysis of feasibility of what can be done toward automation. Use of the IDEF standards (implemented by BPWin) may evolve to be a common practice across the agency. For now, ITAD expects that IDEF standards will assist understanding with the end users. The benefits of this project prepare VDOT personnel to apply process descriptions (IDEF0 and IDEF3) to other critical processes of planning and finance.

Figure 1: IDEF0 Description - Description of IDEF0 Format of Mapping

DEVELOPMENT OF METHODODLOGY

The effort consisted of the following tasks, the development of an IDEF Worksheet, and the use of the AllFusion Program created by Computer Associates (CA).

Task 1: Recommendations for Public Involvement

Evaluated the public involvement activities associated with the development of SYIP and STIP. The subtasks are the following:

Reviewed the 2003 pre-allocation hearings, CTB meetings, etc.
Reviewed the recent VTRC public involvement report and other literature
Reviewed progress of other states
Identified and characterized the relevant public involvement activities in the SYIP/STIP process model (see Task 2)
Performed critical evaluation of the new public involvement process
Developed recommendations for evolution of the public involvement process for the SYIP
Developed recommendations on how the STIP can receive public comment as a separate document from the SYIP
Supported the STIP/SYIP committee currently working on a public involvement plan

Reviewed outcome of the recent process review on public involvement (FHWA)
Made recommendations for the evolving public involvement policy of VDOT (1995)

Task 2: BPWin Process Model of SYIP and STIP Development

Documented the business processes of the SYIP and STIP using the IDEF standards, using BPWin software. The effort was built on outcomes of the STIP Process Review (November 2002) and did not interfere/impede the work of the STIP implementation team or duplicate work previously accomplished by the review team. Furthermore, the effort was not duplicating ITAD effort. UVa (1) Imported existing SYIP and STIP business processes into the BPWin software, requesting additional detail of process activities as needed to meet the requirements of the process description format (IDEF0 and IDEF3). (2) Described in narrative that was consistent with step (1) the SYIP/STIP business process, providing documentation that is useful to educate the CTB and others. [ITAD performed database development and implementation of STIP functionality with iSYP. ITAD development of the STIP document reflected the standard TIP format being developed by VDOT and subject to MPO concurrence.] The subtasks are the following:

Documented SYIP and STIP relationships to other databases and activities to include FMS II, PPMS, cost estimation system, etc.
Described a calendar-based process model for SYIP and STIP development using BPWin software
Reviewed the current iSYP functions and help menus
Reviewed and benefit from ITAD application of BPWin to cost estimation
Described the STIP/SYIP business processes using BPWin (IDEF0 and IDEF3)
Built on the process descriptions of (i) the 11/02 FHWA/VDOT/VDRPT report on 'Development and Financial Constraint of Virginia's STIP' and (ii) the latest version of the STIP calendar
Sought additional detail of activities, which was required for the BPWin process model
Supported ITAD by adding a STIP module to the ISYP system by December/January (the precise functionality of the iSYP extension is to be defined)
Demonstrated that the BPWin process model supports IT development of the electronic STIP environment (e-STIP)

VDOT requested a narrative description of the SYIP and STIP processes for the FHWA, CTB, et al. This component of Task 2 was a companion to the BPWin modeling--both narrative and BPWin modeling involve characterization of the processes from inception to completion, documenting the SYIP/STIP development processes, and providing support for changes or streamlining of the processes. Preliminary progress to date on Task 2 has been to meet on several occasions with ITAD staff for orientation to the BPWin tool, to obtain and install the tool at UVa, to find that IDEF3 is the appropriate level to describe a process that is a sequence of activities (calendar-based, as is the SYIP/STIP development), to enter a sample of the SYIP/STIP activities into the tool relying on the 11/02 FHWA report and a SYIP/STIP timeline from 10/21/03 for the definitions of the activities, and to identify which of the activities are associated to 'public involvement'.