|
Items in cart [1] |
Questions? Call 888-624-8373 |
| ||||||||||||
| Copyright © 2009. National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Terms of Use and Privacy Statement |
Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 37
CHAPTER 3. RESULTS OF AGENCY SURVEYS
Introduction
To supplement Me pertinent information contained In We literature and to
determine the extent and nature of maintenance quality programs currently being
practiced by highway agencies, a series of surveys and field reviews were conducted.
This work effort consisted of an initial "feeler" questionnaire survey of many State
highway and local roads agencies, a more ~n-dep~ questionnaire survey of selected
respondents to the first survey, and on-site interviews win some of Me more
experienced and focused agencies.
The first questionnaire survey was a 2-page mailing designed to determine The size
of an agency's maintenance budget, the areas of maintenance included in the budget,
and the existence of QA programs for each of the maintenance areas. ~ all, 50 States
(and Washington D.C. and Puerto Rico), 9 Provinces, 4 ton authorities, 106 counties,
and 107 cities were solicited in this survey. The local roads agencies Included in the
mailing were selected on a semi-random basis, win larger counties and municipalities
receiving greater consideration Man smaller ones, Me logic being Mat Me larger
agencies have a greater likelihood of having QA programs in place.
Responses to Me first survey were received from 35 States (including Puerto Rico), 4
Provinces, 23 counties, and 20 cities, resulting in a total of 82 responses. About one-
quarter of the respondents-mostly States-indicated having an in-place QA program
In at least two areas of roadway maintenance.
A second, more detailed questionnaire was developed and sent out to those
agencies having a formal QA program. This questionnaire contained various questions
on Me existence and use of LOS rating systems, QC practices, QA and Ql programs,
and MMS's. Definitions of the above terms accompanied Me questionnaire so as to
ensure consistent interpretations of Me systems and programs being practiced. The
agencies solicited In this second survey consisted of Me following:
- .L
States /Provinces
Flonda
Towa
Guiana
Maryland
Ohio
Oregon, Region 4
Pennsylvania
1 exas
Virginia
Wisconsin
British Columbia
Counties
Calcasieu Parish, LA
Kern County, CA
Ramsey County, MN
Washoe County, NV
37
Cities
Casper, WY
Sioux Falls, SD
Wichita, KS
T ittle Rock, AR
Virginia Beach, VA
OCR for page 38
Thirteen (13) agencies responded to Me survey, of which the following 7 were
identified for further investigation of Weir QA programs through on-site reviews:
· Florida.
· Maryland.
· Pennsylvania.
.
c, ,
· Washoe County, NV.
· Oregon, Region 4.
· British Columbia.
Virginia Beach VA.
The on-site reviews consisted primarily of personal interviews win key
maintenance personnel at each agency. Dunng these I-day interviews, Me critical
information tendered by these agencies in Me project surveys was confirmed, and more
detailed inquiries were made of Weir LOS criteria and QA/QC processes. To ensure a
consistent analysis of each agency, the same detailed inquiries were made in each
interview.
Initial Survey
Results of Me initial project survey are summarized In this section. The object of
this survey was to determine the magnitude of Me surveyed agencies budget, the types
of maintenance performed by the agency, and Me existence of OA Programs within Me
~. ~. .
_ An, v
agency for the various areas ot maintenance. As previously mentioned' 82 responses
were received for this survey: 35 States (including Puerto Rico), 4 Provinces, 23
counties, and 20 cities. Appendm B contains a sublunary table of all of Me crucial survey
responses.
Size of Agency
The ~rutial survey was Intended to generate responses from a number of agencies of
varying size and responsibility. ~ this way, a better understanding could be reached
concerning Me ability of smaller agencies to foster quality programs.
As seen in table 3, the annual maintenance budget, number of employees, and
number of lan~miles maintained were much larger for State and Provincial
respondents than for city and county respondents. For States and Provinces, the
average total budget for maintenance was $217 minion, win a high of $760 million and
a low of $22 million. For cities and counties, Me average total maintenance budget was
$8.5 million, with a high of $30.7 million and a low of $~.0 million.
38
OCR for page 39
Table 3. Summary of respondent agencies' sizes and maintenance avocations.
.. . Number of States and Number of Cities and
Provincesa Counties
___- ~¢ 1~
- ~D
o
o
.
Stole
lOto25
25 to 50
50 to 100
100 to 250
2SO to 500
>500
Amount of roadway maintained, lane-miles,
<1,000
1,000 to 2,500
2,500 to 5,000
5,000 to 10,000
10,000 to 25,000
25,000 to 50,000
>50 000
,
Number of employees
<25
25 to 50
1
7
6
o
o
20
o
o
o
12
9
Amount of maintenance contracted to pnvate ins 'ustry, $ million
1
50 to 100
-
100 to 500
500 to 1,000
15
12
12
2
o
o
o
o
-
9
8
4
0
0
0
4
3
13
19
1,000 to 2,000
-
2,000 to 3,000
> 3,000
O.ltol
lto5
5to25
25 to 100
100 to 250
1
~ Includes Puerto Rico
3
5
13
7
6
~ 250
.
b 1 mi = 1.61 km
o
-
o
-
6
20
5
-
o
o
4
39
OCR for page 40
The average amount of highway maintained by State and Provincial respondents
was 37,400 lane-miles (60,210 km). The lowest number of lane-m~les maintained was
260 (419 km) (Hawaii), and the highest was 13S,000 (302,680 km) (Texas). The low and
high observations for cities and counties were 107 and 7,100 lane-miles (172 km and
11,431 km), respectively, with an average of 2,077 lane-miles (3,344 km) of roadway
maintained.
There was also a great deal of variation among Me surveyed agencies win respect
to We number of employees, the types of tasks performed, and Me percentage of work
contracted out. Me number of employees in State and Provincial maintenance
organizations ranged from 130 to 8,500, with an average of 2,203. For cities and
counties, Me range was 13 to 505, win an average of 121 employees. Although State
and Provincial agencies were largely involved in pavement and bridge maintenance,
mowing and landscaping, drainage, snow and ice removal, and traffic services, only a
handful of cities and counties performed roadside maintenance, and a much higher
percentage of these agencies indicated pavement resurfacing and pavement sweeping.
The approximate percentage of total funds spent on contract maintenance was 30
percent for States and Provinces, whereas for cities and counties it was 25 percent.
Most of Me agencies surveyed indicated spending a portion of their total budget on
contract maintenance. The results were fairly siTnilar for bow groups. Agencies spend
an average of about 25 percent of their total budget on contract maintenance, win a
range of O to close to 100 percent, depending on the size and structure of the particular
agency.
Maintenance Areas Included In Budget
The orgaruzations surveyed were also asked to indicate what areas of maintenance
are included in Weir overall budget and how much of the total budget Is allocated to
each of these areas. Where and how much money is spent in venous maintenance
areas differs greatly from agency to agency. Contributing factors include size of Me
maintenance organization, structure and authority of Me organization, and geographic
location. For instance, Me Province of Quebec spends $140 minion per year on snow
and ice removal, whereas Me States of Florida and Hawaii spend no money on snow
and ice removal.
Generally, agencies spend Me largest portion of Weir budget on pavement
maintenance and resurfacing. Over areas Included are roadside maintenance activities
(general and agronomy), mowing/landscaping, bridge maintenance and rehabilitation,
drainage, snow and ice removal, rest areas, traffic services, and various others. Again,
no two agencies are exactly alike, so direct comparisons are difficult. See Appendix B
for more detailed budget data for each organization.
40
OCR for page 41
Existence of OA Programs In Maintenance Areas
The main purpose of the initial survey was to determine the existence of QA
programs within the many areas of maintenance in each organization. Results of this
question were used to decide which agencies would receive the second, more detailed
survey.
Of the 38 States and Provinces Mat completed We survey, 19 replied Mat they have
no QA programs. The remaining agencies indicated Blat they currently have QA
programs anyplace in some areas or are working on implementing ~em. Most of Me
agencies that currently have QA programs seemed to have positive opinions of their
perceived successfulness.
Of the 41 cities and counties Mat responded to Me survey, 17 replied Mat Hey have
no QA program. The remaining agencies answered Cat Hey already have some type
of QA program Hat is being used In at least one area of maintenance, or Hey are
currently putting one into place. A majority of He responses were favorable in regards
to He effectiveness of the QA programs Cat are already in place.
Second Survey
The second survey, which consisted of a more detailed questionnaire accompanied
by definitions of key terms, was sent to agencies who indicated In He crucial survey
they had a formal QA program In several areas of maintenance. This survey contained
questions pertaining to MMS's, LOS rating systems, QC programs, QA programs, and
Ql programs.
A total of 20 agencies were solicited, 13 (8 States, ~ Province, 2 cities, and 2 counties)
of which responded (see appendix B for complete listing of responses). Nearly all of
He seven agencies Hat did not respond were subsequently contacted by phone to get
feedback on why Hey didn't respond. Most Indicated ~at, according to He stated
definitions, Hey either had no QA program (e.g., Little Rock, Arkansas, and Ramsey
County, Minnesota) or had a QA program for only one or two areas of maintenance
(e.g., Wisconsin and Wichita, Kansas). Virginia, which was noted in He literature as
having started a quality evaluation process in 1989 (Kardian and Woodward, 1990),
indicated at He time of He survey Hat they are in He early stages of TQM and have
not fully implemented He program yet.
Table 4 summarizes the response results to key questions of He second survey. As
can be seen, the results are broken out by State/Province agencies and city/county
agencies to give a general indication of the relevance of He questions to He type of
agency. In some instances, He survey questions did not apply to He responding
agency, so He total number of respondents was less Can rune for State/Prov~nce
41
OCR for page 42
Table 4. Summary of responses from second project survey.
Consideration
1 Poll ~-~1
States/Provinces
Cities/Counties
Agency has anyplace MMS.
9/9
3/4
Agency has established
performance standards.
-
Agency has established LOS
criteria.
8/9
5/9
3/3
2/4
Agency has LOS rating system in
place.
LOS rating system measures:
(a) Total system condition.
(b) Work accomplishments.
(c) Both
(d) Neither.
6/9
3/4
Agency has anyplace QC process
to ensure accurate LOS ratings
. . .
Roadway elements for which LOS
ratings are performed:
(a) Pavement.
(b) Bridges.
(c) Traffic services.
(d) Roadsides (incI. drainage).
(e) Vegetation.
(A Winter activities.
5/5
Agency has in-place QI program
Maintenance operations
administered from:
(a) Central office.
(b) Field offices.
Maintenance budget based on:
(a) Annual needs assessment.
(b) Histoncal funding
(c) Bow.
5/8
0/9
9/9
2/5
0/5
2/5
1/5
4/6
5/6
3/6
4/6
4/6
4/6
1/6
Agency has in-place QA program
.
Teams are formed to establish QA
polices and conduct reviews
6/9
1/3
1/3
1/3
0/3
3/4
3/3
2/3
1/3
1/3
1/3
2/3
3/4
2/3
4/4
3/4
1/4
4/8
2/8
2/8
1/4
1/4
2/4
=
42
OCR for page 43
agencies and four for city/county agencies. The following sections discuss in further
detail Me results of the second survey.
MMS's
Twelve of 13 agencies surveyed replied Mat Hey have an MMS. Effectiveness of Me
system was rated on a scale of ~ to 10, win ~ being ineffective and 10 being very
effective. The results were quite mixed. The average rating was 6.3, win a high of 9
and a low of 3.
LOS Cr~tena
Eleven of 12 respondents indicated having performance standards for some, most,
or aD of Weir maintenance activities. Seven of Hose 11 agencies responded Hat Here
were LOS criteria for each of Heir performance standards. Nine agencies indicated
having an LOS rating system currently In place In at least one area of maintenance.
Three of He LOS rating systems were reportedly used to measure total system
condition, one was used to measure work accomplishments, and Free were used to
measure both elements. For Hose agencies rating work accomplishments, He
frequency of He ratings was typically daily or monthly, whereas the frequency of
ratings for total system condition measurement ranged from every few months to
annually.
Seven of He nine agencies using LOS rating systems indicated having a QC process
to ensure accurate LOS ratings. Some confusion about this question was apparent, as
several agencies noted that supervisors perform QC checks daily, He interpretation
being that supervisors check He quality of daily work operations. The intent of He
question was to determine if LOS evaluators undergo periodic standardized training to
result in consistent and accurate assessments of LOS from region to region.
LOS ratings were found to be most applied to pavement maintenance activities,
with eight of He nine agencies specifying this element. Five agencies listed bridges
traffic services, roadside, and vegetation, and three agencies specified winter
maintenance activities.
cat
Finally, He nine agencies using l.OS criteria to manage maintenance found them to
be rawer effective. The mean effectiveness rating, using the same scale as before, was
7.3, with a high of 9 and a low of 5. One agency's system was too new to rate at the
time of He survey.
Maintenance QA Program
In-place QA programs were reported by slightly more than two-thirds (9 of 13) of
the respondents. Although the other respondents may have some form of QA program
43
OCR for page 44
in place, We individual completing Me survey did not believe that Me program
necessarily fit Me definition provided in Me survey.
The agencies Mat did have QA programs rated their programs as being quite
effective. The average effectiveness rating given was 7.0, win a range of 5 to 9. One
agency's system was too new to rate at Me time of the survey.
Most of Me organizations formed teams to establish QA policies and to conduct
reviews. In aD but one instance, QA evaluations were reportedly done bow while Me
activity is being performed and after it is completed. One agency reported conducting
the QA evaluation only after Me activity is completed.
Maintenance OI Program
Three-fourths of the respondents indicated that there is currently a Ql program in
use within their maintenance organization. These agencies rated Heir Ql programs as
being very effective in most cases. The mean effectiveness rating was found to be 6.8,
win a high rating of 8 and a low of 5.
Summary of Second Survey Results
A majority of Me agencies completing Me second survey reported having
implemented MMS's, LOS rating systems, and QC, QA, or QI programs. Not all
agencies have implemented all types of programs. The overall feeling about Me
effectiveness of these programs seemed to be positive, although it is mixed in some
cases. Approx~nately two-thirds of Me organizations responded Mat Hey would
recommend Heir current methods of managing maintenance operations to over
agencies.
Field Reviews
As previously discussed, in-depth field reviews and analysis of maintenance quality
programs at seven agencies were conducted following He second project survey. The
agencies were selected on He basis of how comprehensive and well defined Heir
quality programs were reported as being and He extent to which long-term, end-result
performance was emphasized In He assessment of quality. Although States/Provinces
were generally found to be much more quality-oriented than cities/counties, two of He
seven agencies selected were local roads agencies. Hence, He inherent characteristics
of bow large and small agencies will become well understood and will be properly
considered in He development of He prototype QA program.
To obtain as consistent an analysis as possible during He field reviews, a listing of
26 questions (separate from He second survey questionnaire) was forwarded to each
agency prior to He field review. The questions were designed to determine, on a
44
OCR for page 45
quantifiable basis, the extent to which agencies utilize a QA program to manage
highway maintenance operations In their areas of responsibility. The items of greatest
interest In these reviews included We foDow~ng:
Me~ods used to establish TAOS criteria.
· Use of customer input and statistics In establishing Me LOS criteria.
· Effect of funding appropriations on LOS criteria.
· Consideration of roadway classification and traffic level In establishing LOS
criteria.
Nature of items evaluated (e.g., work accomplished, end-product performance).
Sampling me~ods used In evaluation process.
Frequency of evaluations and use of quality control In Me evaluation process to
reduce bias and errors.
Adjustments (weighting) to evaluation data and use of final ratings.
Comparison of quality assessment results wad customer satisfaction.
Size of QC/QA process In terms of number of persons and budget.
Table 5 summarizes the responses of each agency to many of these questions, and the
following sections present Me more detailed findings of these field reviews.
Florida
In 1985, the Florida DOT implemented a maintenance rating program (MRP) for the
purpose of providing a uniform evaluation of maintenance features on the State
highway system. This system consists of a quantifiable process to determine the LOS of
45 activities Mat are grouped Into one of five elements roadway, roadside, traffic
services, drainage, and vegetation/aes~etics Mat may exist on any of five facility
types: rural limited access, rural arterial, urban limited access, urban arterial, and
special facilities.
Three times each year, a random number generator program is used to select 0.~-mi
(0.16 km) sections on each of Me facility types contained within a maintenance unit.
The number of samples required for Me population (centerline miles) involved is
determined using statistical formulas designed to pronde accuracy widen 3 percent at
a confidence level of 95 percent. Each activity Is evaluated by Nonperson teams in each
of eight districts. Assessments are made using pass-fail ratings Mat Indicate
conformance or nonconformance win established agencywide LOS criteria, which In
turn is reflective of long-term, end-result performance. Table 6 illustrates Florida's
maintenance rating standards for roadway characteristics.
The completed survey results are then summarized for distribution to all levels of
management. The results, which are shown on a 0 to 100 scale (with 80 and above
being considered acceptable), are then used to correct deficient areas before the next
raking period. No direct involvement of customer satisfaction Is Incorporated Into this
45
OCR for page 46
a]
·
-
a;
· -
be
'e
'e
o
co
be
·
-
a=
o
ct
up
as
-
ct
EM
.
. 11
·= ~
. - ~
bo ~
· - ~
8=
o
u
·=
:-
` -
bO.=
o ~
Cal
as
.
o
. ~4
US
·~ ~
._ ~
~ _
u
o
=
U)
a,
P"
'
._
.
U)
CO
a)
a)
in
-~3
5
.
Cal
o
.m
_
U)
Ct
.e
·$-
C)
in
O
-
-
u)
z L:L
z z L-
.-
~ ~-
~ cn
"c o~
'e bo
cn
~ ·
o ~
~ · -
.5
.5
= E
c
._
.n
o
bO
.5
~o
._
Ct
·-
.e
cn
O
.5
~
L'
CO
· -
cn
O
D
O
O
._
U)
bO
. ~
U)
o
o
~S=;
_ _=
Z Z
I-IZ Izlzlzlzlz Iz 1
. ,== ~= ~ PL~
1~]
~ 44~
~:
J~ ~ ~U
- - - - - ~ ~
46
x
o
s"
C~
~ ~a
&~
.~O
o
=,
o
U)
~n
_ _
o -
~ ~'
o ~
,s;
· tV
430 C
~ ._
au ~
O
._
-
C; ~
._ ~
~ O
:^ ~
U) U
._ ~ ~
~ .~ =:
·° I=4
:> 11
_ ._
U ~ ~
tC `~0
OCR for page 47
Table 6. Example of Florida's maintenance rating program standards.
ROADWAY
THE FOLLOWING CHARACTERISTICS MEET THE DESIRED MAINTENANCE
CONDITIONS WHEN:
POTHOLE No defect is greater than 0.05 m: ('/2 sq ft) in area and 38.10 mm (1-
~ in) deep. Pervious base must not be exposed in any hole.
JOINT 85% of He length of transverse and longitudinal joint material
appears to function as intended.
ROADWAY VOID 90°/O of the slabs exhibit no evidence of pumping.
EDGE RAVELING 90°/O of the total roadway edge is free of raveling. No continuous
section of edge raveling 101.60 mm (4 in) or wider exceeds 7.62 m
(25 ft) in length.
RUTTING
CRACKING
cat
Rutting areas are not more than 12.70 mm (1~2 in) average depth
web no one measurement exceeding 19.05 mm (3/4 in).
-
ASPHALT 99°/O of the roadway is free of unsealed CLASS m crack~ng.
CONCRETE
DEPRESSION/
BUMP
90°/O of roadway slabs have no unsealed cracks wider Han 3.18 mm
(1~- )
No measurement varies more Man 12 70 mm (~ in) within the
crucial 3.05 m (10 ft) increments or plus 9.53 mm (IS =) for each
additional 3.05 m (10 ft) increments. Measurement of each
depressed/raised area must be made In bow directions.
STRIPPING 95°/O of roadway surface is free of shipping or delamination.
SHOVING The shoved area does not exceed a cumulative 2.32 m2 (25 sq ft).
SHOULDER- Rated for pothole, joint, edge raveling, cracking, and depression/
PAVED bump. See narrative for specific standards.
/
47
OCR for page 48
process except Trough the Highway Commission, which monitors the DeparJanent's
compliance win He end-result performance critena.
An annual quality assessment review is done by He central office to ensure a
process is in place in each district to obtain compliance win all rules, policies,
procedures, specifications, and standards. The results of this review are forwarded to
He Assistant Secretary for Operations for He appropnate action. Each district office
conducts QC of Heir operations in order to maintain a consistent application of desired
performance expectations.
As noted in the second survey, Florida reported having an in-place CQl program
that Hey believe is somewhat effective. The program was described as being used in
the following way:
. .
Continuous [cams are established by the State maintenance office to review the
performance standards, maintenance rating program, maintenance management
system, and activity cost data on an annual basis. This "dynamic change"
process provides continuous updates for these systems. Changes are
communicated through annual training sessions with appropnate personnel.
The continuous teams described above are devoted to annual monitoring and
updating of He various aspects (e.g., performance standards, maintenance rating
processes) associated with each maintenance element. Each team is chaired by a
district maintenance engineer, so as to get Heir important buy-in of He QA process.
Maryland
Between June and October 1993, a peer review program (PRP) was unplemented
and an nutial Statewide field survey was completed by the Maryland DOT. The
program has continued with rating surveys made Tree times a year (spring, summer,
and fall) on randomly selected highway sections in each of Maryland's seven
engineering districts.
~, ~
Approximately 28 peer review teams, consisting of approximately 70 maintenance
personnel from different geographical areas, evaluate randomly selected 0.5-m (0.8-
km) roadway sections in each of 23 counties. The peer review teams rate the long-term,
end-result highway conditions for 39 maintenance elements grouped into the fo Bonging
categories:
· Traveled roadway.
· Shoulders.
· Drainage.
· Traffic control and safety.
· Roadside.
48
OCR for page 49
An LOS program has been developed and implemented by Me Maryland DOT. The
LOS's are based on Me percentage of elements i:hat meet or exceed desired maintenance
conditions. Individual elements are weighted to obtain an overall LOS for each
roadway section evaluated. The sample size was determined by using a goal of a 70
percent confidence level, for each county's data, calculated by using the results of Me
1993 findings and an LOS of 80. The number of sections necessary to achieve a desired
confidence level are recalculated each year.
AD references to an LOS are based on a 0 to 100 scale, win 100 indicating that all
desired maintenance conditions were met and 0 indicating that none were met. At Me
time of the field review, the Maryland DOT had 2 years of data that enabled them to
compare each unit of responsibility (i.e., State, district, county) and measure progress
from year to year. Customer satisfaction is assessed by handing out questionnaires In
shopping malls, driver license offices, and over public locations. The results are
summarized into an annual report card Mat is distributed Internally.
Finally, as documented in appendix B. Maryland rated their CQI process as fairly
effective In bra ng about higher quality maintenance. A description of Weir program
was stated as follows:
~- ~v
Maintenance personnelfrom different areas of the State meet periodically in
"Maintenance Business Team" sessions in order to develop more efficient/effective
processes. They share current ways of perfonning maintenance, then choose the
best methods across the State and mix with new idlers and technologies to come up
with an ideal process for the selected activities.
Pennsylvania
The Pennsylvania DOT has a county accreditation review system (CARS) designed
to identify the strengths and weaknesses of county maintenance organizations. The
concept was introduced In Me fan of 1982, win Me initial goal being to monitor four
major categories equipment, personnel, field operations, and office operations-
Involving approximately 22 selected items.
Five points are assigned to each of Me 22 areas for a magnum score of Il0 points.
A minimum of 54 points is required of a county maintenance organization for it to be
accredited. Currently, all measures are assigned an equal value, win the final score
representing a percentage of the points earned to total points available for all measures.
The DOT uses the Maintenance Operations and Resources Information System
(MORIS), which is based on Heir previous Highway Maintenance Management System
(HMMS), the Automated Inventory Management System (AIMS) and the Equipment
Management Information System (EM1:S), to monitor and control all maintenance
operations and resources. Four persons, identified as QA Engineers, meet annually to
recommend He best methods, materials, equipment, and crew combinations, and to
49
OCR for page 50
Table 7. Pennsylvanians QA evaluation fonn for concrete joint sealing.
Bureau of Maintenance and Operations
Quality Assurance Evaluation
1-7147) - 4/92
Concrete Pavement Joint Sealing
EVALUATOR
DATE
COUNTY #
ASSISTANT
SR SEG SEG FOREMAN
CONCRETE PAVEMENT TYPE (CIRCLE ONE) 1 2 3
#
_#
SCORE
1. CLEANING EQUIPMENT
2. CLEAN VERTICAL FACE
3. DRY VERTICAL FACE
4. SEALING EQUIPMENT
5. MATERIAL
6. PAVEMENT TEMPERATURE
7. MATERIAL TEMPERATURE
8. BACKER ROD/BOND
BREAKER
9. FILLING
10. ADHERENCE
11. MATERIAL MIX RATIO
COMMENTS
-
.
| SCORING SUMMARY | TOTAL | NO. ITEMS R] 3
FINAL SCORE
ACTIVITY RATING
4.75 - 5.00
3.65 - 4.74
2.30 - 3.64
LESS THAN 2.30
.
VERY GOOD
GOOD
MINIMUM ACCEPTABLE
UNSATISFACTORY
THE ACTIVITY IS UNSATISFACTORY IF ANY OF THE SCORES ABOVE ARE LESS
THAN THREE.
PERSONAL SAFETY COMMENTS:
50
OCR for page 51
Table S. Pennsylvanians evaluation indicators used for concrete joint seating.
CONCRETE PAVEMENT JOINT SEALING 711-7147
QUALITY ASSURANCE EVALUATION INDICATORS
TYPE 1 & 2 PAVEMENTS
Al. CLEANING EQUIPMENT
1. Compressor
3. Hook, unre brush, & compressor
5. Saw/sandblast & compressor or
waterblast & compressor
A2. CLEAN VERTICAL FACE
1. Not cleaned
3. Most joints clean
5. AD joints clean
As. DRY VERI ICAL FACE
1. Damp or wet vertical faces
3. Most vertical faces dry
5. All vertical faces dry
A4. SEALING EQUIPMENT
1. Incorrect equipment for material user!
3. l~irect-fired kettle with full-sweep
agitation
5. Correct equipment for matenal used
A5. MATERIAL
1. Any other sealant
3. AC win rubber with Distnct approval
5. ~3405 sealant or better (D-1190 sealant
or better Type II pavements
A6. PAVE MENT 1~MPERAIIJRE
1. <40 degrees
5. 40 degrees or greater
A7. MATERIAL TEMPERAIIJRE
1. Not within mfg~s recommendations
5. Within mfgr's recommendations
As. BACKER ROD/BOND BREAKER
1. Not used
5. Used
A9. FILLING
1. Material overhands joints
5. l/4" - lo" below pavement surface,
no overbanding
A10. ADHliRENCE
1. Non adherence to vertical face, <90°/O
3. 90°/O - 99°/O adherence
5. 100% adherence
All. MATERIAL MDC RATIO
1. Rubber <1-~ lbs per gal
3. Rubber 1-~ to 2 lbs per gal
5. Rubber 2 lbs per gal or greater, or
prepackaged material
TYPE 3 PAVEMENT
A1. CLEANING EQUIPMENT
1. No cleaning equipment
3. Compressor only
5. Compressor plus additional equipment
Nook and/or wire brush)
A2. CLEAN VERTICAL FACE
1. Not clean
3. Most joints clean
5. Clean
As. DRY VERTICAL FACE
1. Damp or wet vertical faces
3. Most vertical faces dry
5. Dry vertical face
A4. SEALING EQUIPMENT
1. Incorrect equipment for material used
5. Correct equipment for material used
AS. MATERIAL
1. Any other sealant
5. AC with rubber or AC with fiber
A6. PAVEMENT TEMPERATURE
(Not applicable)
A7. MAll3RIAL TEMPERATURE
1. Not within mfgr~s recommendations
5. Within mfgr's recommendations
As. BACKER ROD/BOND BREAKER
(Not applicable)
A9. FILLING
1. Spalis >A sq it filled win sealant
5. Spalls >A sq It repaired win cold mix or
layered patching
A10. ADHERENCE
1. Non adherence to vertical face
3. 80% to 100% adherence to vertical face
5. 100% adherence
All. MATERIAL MIX RATIO
1. Fiber <4°/O per gal;
rubber <1-~ lbs per gal
3. Fiber 4 to 5% per gal;
rubber 1-35 to 2 lbs per gal
5. Fiber 5°/O per gal or greater;
rubber 2 lbs per gal or greater
51
OCR for page 52
develop training sessions. The QA ratings, best described as QC In this instance, are
performed Free times a year in each county organization. Tables 7 and 8 illustrate
how one particular maintenance activity~oncrete joint sealing-is rated, both on the
whole and for each of Me various components.
Customer satisfaction Is determined by randomly selecting 400 persons in each
county having driver's licenses and sending Rem a questionnaire Rat asks how well
the agency is providing desired services. This process is used as a self-improvement
too} In each county. Reports of all results are sent to aD levels of management within
We department. An example of Pennsylvania's customer service index (CSV) survey
form is shown in table 9.
By clefinition, no LOS rating system currently exists in this agency, although county,
district, and central office staff meet annually to develop and modify criteria for Me
LOS expected from daily crew operations.
Like Maryland, Pennsylvania reported having a fairly effective CQl program. The
following paragraphs su~runarize the respondents' description of their CQl program.
Me maintenance organization is the biggest user of the "suggestion connection,
whereby suggestions are submitted and,for the most part, are implemented as a
pilot or are suggestedtfor Statewidle implementation by the review committee.
The maintenance organization is also the biggest user of the "productivity
improvementfund," which gives the submitter up to $15,000 per idea to pilot and
implement qualified ideas.
Maintenance has trained a great deal of their personnel in the CQl overview
course, which introduces workers to total quality. Many continue on to
be ins~ucted in creative problem solving, CQl tools and techniques, process
flow analysis, and other quality courses; instructors of the quality courses and
facilitators of quality teams.
Virginia Beach, Virginia
The city of Virginia Beach has an MMS Mat is used to monitor 139 activities
grouped into one of the following categories:
· Sheet maintenance.
· Bridge and drainage facility maintenance.
Mosquito control.
Traffic operations.
Storm water utility.
52
OCR for page 53
Table 9. Pennsylvania's customer service index (CSI)
survey form (Stein-Hudson, 1995).
ORGANIZATION
FUNCl ION
DATE
BASE PERIOD
MEASURES APPEARANCE SERVICES PRODUCI S PROFESSIONALISM QUALITY UTILllY
l I Was; the | Were the ma] ;, | | % of guests | $ generated
Was my first facility brochures, eta who would through
ingression functiorung neatly displayed & Appearance, use our reservations/
positive? as it should? in good quality? Knowledge, Attitude service again? monthly
l
Performance
10
1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Score l l I T 1 1
Weight 1 25% 1 20% 1 20% 1 25% 1 5% ~5%
Although LOS criteria did not exist for activities over Man Hose associated win
pavement management, Virginia Beach has an outstancling system of logging phone
complaints, issuing work orders, and subsequent follow-up. Each call is answered by a
service request person who enters He appropriate complaint information into a
computer file (caller log) while talking to He customer. The caller log provides direct
access to information showing He response taken, who inspected He work, and how
many calls were received for a given situation.
Those activities associated win mosquito control are assigned a weight (or
importance factor) into its scheduling process. Depending on He location, number of
53
OCR for page 54
calls, and type of mosquito problems being asserted, a priority number is assigned to
indicate the importance of Me response.
Each year, the city asks the public how well the maintenance program is doing.
However, Me city does not consider these results as a reliable method of obtaining
feedback. They are considering leaving survey cards win each citizen that makes a
complaint In order to better evaluate their response.
Virginia Beach also rated Weir CQl program as fairly effective and asserted Mat it is
an integral part of Me city's total quality program. Process unprovement teams, made
up of employees from different levels of the organization, are formed to study various
selected issues.
Washoe County, Nevada
At Me time of Me field review, the county of Washoe had an operational
management system to monitor pavement maintenance, was ready to unplement one
for bridges and culverts, and was in Me process of developing systems for drainage
features, sidewalks, and signs. Pavements are condition-rated once every 2 years on a O
to 100 scale, with 100 representing the maximum level given. Snow removal criteria
require Mat every main artery be open before ~ a.m. each day and all side streets be
plowed before Me close of business on the same day.
Determination of customer satisfaction was attempted by Me local news media;
however, no memos of separating city streets from county roads was provided, so Me
results were not conclusive. The county contracted a consulting firm to develop a total
quality management (TQM) program on a local basis, but it is not yet ready for
Implementation. In this agency, LOS criteria exist only for pavements, bridges, and
snow removal.
Washoe County's CQl program was noted as centering around crew feedback on
ways to improve the system.
Oregon, Region 4
In 1990, Me central Oregon region (region 4) instituted a major change to Me
orgaruzational structure of Me ODOT, which resulted in a pilot program Mat
decentralized decision making through Me use of self-directed teams. The pilot project
involved Me consolidation of 22 Section Supervisors and 22 Assistant Section
Supervisors into seven Area Managers and seven Area Coordinators. These positions
were to coordinate the activities of self-directed teams, which consist of approximately
22 crews representing approximately 220 employees of the existing ~ 612 Statewide
maintenance employees.
54
v
OCR for page 55
The role of Me Area Managers and Coordinators is directed towards leadership,
coaching and supporting crew teams to be innovative, creative, and looking for ways to
better serve the public and reduce costs. Also introduced during this pilot period was a
performance measurement system to track effectiveness and efficiency, with
benchmarking and roll-up reports for Me entire organization. This system is called the
maintenance section quality rating (MSQR) and is used to evaluate 12 maintenance
elements grouped Into Me following categories:
· Road surface.
· Drainage maintenance.
· Shoulder or roadside.
· Maintenance for public safely.
Winter maintenance.
Each of Me elements Is rated on its actual condition using a scale of ~ to 10, with 10
representing excellent. Locations to be rated are randomly selected by computer which
identifies a I-~rii (~.6-km) segment of highway in each maintenance section. Each of Me
maintenance sections contains approximately 90 mi (145 km) of highway. Ratings are
performed four times during Me year by Me Regional Manager and Me Area
Managers. The results are summarized and distributed Statewide and locally, and me
onginal rating sheets are given to Me local managers for immediate usage. Customer
satisfaction is measured in two ways:
I. Rating cards are distributed twice a year to persons living in Me area serviced by
Me area crew, with Me results being sent to Me central office.
2. Contracting with a national firm skilled In pod data collection to produce a
Statewide benchmark on "Perceptions of Transportation Svstem and Needs."
This was accomplished and distributed in 1993.
. , .
An LOS process has been developed and implemented for work accomplishments
covering approximately 70 percent of the maintenance activities performed by this
agency.
Lastly, with respect to CQI, Oregon rated Heir program as fairly effective and
reasserted the use of self-managed teams to increase ownership In He final product.
British Columbia
Highway maintenance in He Province of British Columbia was completely
pr~vatized In 1988. Prior to that time, the British Columbia MTH employed
approximately 2,200 maintenance employees. The orgaruzation is now decentralized
into 6 regions and 28 districts, each having approximately 20 employees who are
primarily involved in oversight responsibility for highway maintenance functions.
55
OCR for page 56
British Columbia's QA program includes Free basic types of inspections:
1. In-process inspections undertaken while the particular activity is in progress and
which is concerned win conditions Cat cannot be seen prior to completion of
Me work.
2. End-product Inspections performed unmediately after We activity has been
completed and which serves to verify Cat He end product is sufficient and
acceptable.
3. Present-state inspections of He highway and bridge systems made on a regular
basis to identify compliance or non-compliance win specific end-product
requirements. Sampling is accomplished by monthly random computer
selection of fifteen 1.22-m (2-km) segments Hat each Area Manager must
inspect. A great emphasis is placed on road classification, win higher class
facilities receiving a higher number of inspections than lower class facilities.
The results of all inspections must be documented using He standard inspection
forms produced by MA personnel, even if no deficiencies are found. Ratings are
expressed as a percentage of actual points given out of He possible points available.
All reports are produced and distributed to top management each monk, win copies
available to He regional directors and service areas. Each monk, the District Highway
Manager and He contractor are required to meet and discuss the ratings for He period.
No formal request for customer satisfaction exists on a Province-wide basis; however,
each region occasionally asks its citizens for an evaluation. The MTH has a formal
materials QA program In which certification is required and random evaluation and
audits are performed to ensure compliance win specifications. An LOS process has
been developed and implemented by this agency.
In their second survey response, British Columbia Indicated having no CQl
program in place.
Summary of Field Review Results
In-dep~ reviews of He quality management practices at seven highway agencies
were performed in this project. In general, it was found that He agencies take one of
c'
three approaches toward assuring quality maintenance work. Some strive to ensure
Cat all work operations are done in accordance win He standards established by He
agency. Others are mostly concerned with He long-term, end-result performance of He
roadways Hat are maintained. Still others are concerned win bow aspects and, as
such, have established systems to monitor both. The following paragraphs summarize
He key findings of He field review effort.
Except for pavement and bridge management systems, only four
agencies- British Columbia, Florida, Maryland, and Oregon Region ~ have
LOS programs Hat measure long-term, end-result performance of most field
56
OCR for page 57
activities. These four agencies also use a random computer selection program to
identify Hose sections where an LOS rating must be performed.
Three agencies- Florida, Maryland, and British Columbi~perform a formal
agencywide QC process on the ratings teams to ensure consistent, repeatable
ratings from region to region.
Two agencies Pennsylvania and British Columbia have a weD-documented
QC process to rate work performance during and at Me end of each activity.
Table 10 shows Me frequency wad which LOS inspections are conducted (and
results distributed), Me maintenance elements evaluated, Me estimated staffing
requirements, and the estimated nutial starbup and annual operational costs of
Me J OS rating programs at Florida, Maryland, Oregon Region 4, and British
Columbia. On a $/lane-mile/inspection-round basis, Me annual costs of these
programs range from$~.77 to $9.87. This type of cost, which is computed by
dividing the annual operating cost by Me amount of lan - miles represented in
Me LOS program and by Me number of inspection rounds per year, gives an
agency a general idea of We magnitude of cost Hey can expect to incur In
operating He LOS rating system, which is at He heart of the prototype QA
program.
Table 10. Summary of various agencies' LOS rating programs.
Amount of
Frequency of Staffing Highway
Highway Inspections, Requirements, Start-up Annual Maintained,
Agency number/year man-years Cost, $ Cost, $ lane-miles Maintenance Elements
Flonda DOT 180,000 200,000 37,578 Roadway
Roadside
Traffic services
Drainage
Vegetation/ aesthetics
Maryland 1 2 288,000 110,000 15,954 Traveled roadway
DOT Shoulders
Drainage
Traffic control and safety
Oregon DOT, 4 2 100,000 75,000 1,900 Road surface
Region 4 Drainage
Shoulder/roadside
Maintenance for public safes' .
Winter maintenance
British 12 36 100,000 2,160,000 25,466 Surface
Columbia Drainage
MTH Roadside
Winter
Bridges
57
OCR for page 58
No agency solicits customer input during He development of LOS criteria.
However, one agency Pennsylvanian ask its customers to identify those
activities or functions Hey would like to see accomplished.
· Two agencies Pennsylvania and Oregon have a formal program to determine
customer satisfactions in each county of He State. This is done by mailing
randomly selected questionnaires to citizens. However, only Pennsylvania
incorporates customer feedback into He system. Oregon has hired a national
organization to conduct polls to determine customer satisfachon/perception of
agency programs. A Gird agency, Maryland, distributes questionnaires and
comment cards at selected locations.
One agency British Columbia- has an active QA/QC process for testing
materials and procedures. The process requires certification document; and
random selection and testing win periodic audits to ensure specification
compliance. (Most agencies visited rely on a qualified products list, but have no
formal QA program operated by maintenance personnel to monitor He quality
of materials used.)
· Most agencies have PMS's and BMS's. None of these agencies acknowledged
using data from these systems to produce Heir LOS results; however, some
agencies occasionally compared the LOS ratings win management system
outputs. In general, no linkages between existing PROS systems and data
contained In systems required by the Intermodal Surface Transportation
Efficiency Act INSTEAD were identified.
58
Representative terms from entire chapter:
los criteria
