Stakeholder Partnering

Transcription

1 Stakeholder Partnering Ann Wills, P.E. Transportation Engineering Conference

2 In the Beginning

3 How It Got Started Stakeholder Partnership was an EDC 2 Initiative Definition It is a committee or working group that meets periodically and works to identify program-level issues and then on solutions to save time and resources that can be used to deliver more projects for the same money

4 Goal To use it as a platform for communication, coordination, and cooperation in streamlining and improving project delivery and compliance Collaboration Meetings are open, inclusive, and promote the exchange of ideas, concerns, risks and opportunities Communication - Members learn from each other and share ideas Coordination - Concerns, questions and clarification are discussed and clarification provided Cooperation - Members work together toward continuous program improvement

5 The Process

6 2 Step Process Phase 1 - A survey was sent to LADOTD Project Manager & Districts, Consultants and LPAs to get input and baseline indicators on how to improve the partnerships Phase 2 To host LPA Partnership meetings (Both in south and north Louisiana) Partnership meetings to include LADOTD Project Manager & Districts, Consultants and LPAs

7 Louisiana State Transportation Innovation Council (LA STIC) Brings stakeholders together to work together to lead innovation in their state transportation program and to facilitate the rapid implementation of technology, tactics and techniques Members: FHWA, DOTD, Local Public Agencies, MPOs, Contractors, Consultant, Louisiana Transportation Research Center (LTRC)

8 Louisiana STIC Incentives Application Requested $36,120 STIC Incentive Funds for a consultant to assist with the facilitation and logistics of the stakeholder meetings

9 Consultant Tasks Plan & Host 2 focus group sessions (1 in south LA /1 in north LA) Arrange for travel for attendees who need travel assistance Facilitate /document information and feedback from the focus groups on issues and possible solutions for streamlining the project delivery process Plan & Host 2 LPA Partnership meetings Develop a charter and draft business plan for the LPA Partnership effort Complete a Final Report with recommendations for streamlining the project delivery process on LPA projects

10 Focus Group Meetings

11 Focus Group Meetings Purpose: To identify issues and potential solutions Participants: LPA representatives Consultants that have performed extensive work with the LPA program

12 Type of Agency Represented 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% City Parish Academic Consultant Other

13 Focus Groups Meetings (1 day) North Louisiana (District Office in Bossier City) - June 27, 2017 South Louisiana (TTEC in Baton Rouge) Thursday, June 29, 2017 Focus Group Meetings

14 Focus Group Discussion Discussion formats/methods Group discussion Breakout sessions Brainstorming Flipcharts/post-its/dots Real-time anonymous surveys

15 Project Delivery Discussion Strengths & benefits of DOTD Sponsored LPA Projects Define start /end points of LPA project delivery process Identify issues of DOTD sponsored LPA projects Discuss /consolidate identified issues Prioritize identified issues Brainstorm potential solutions to prioritized issues

16 SAME SAME Prioritized Issues of Focus Groups Top 3 for each group Inconsistent plan review Quality of plan reviews Timeliness of plan reviews Review process time Review inconsistencies Communication issues between LPAs, DOTD and consultant

17 Focus Group for LPA Project Managers Separate meeting for LPA PMs to identify challenges/issues Top 2 Challenges /Issues Identified Quality of plans Inconsistent reviews

18 Prioritized Issues of Focus Groups North Group Inconsistent plan review Quality of plan reviews Timeliness of plan reviews Planning budget different from construction budget Local vs. State design standards Length of project development increase cost Utility Relocation Issues Off-System Bridge Program targeted towards parishes not cities

19 Prioritized Issues of Focus Groups South Group Review process time Review inconsistencies Communication issues between LPAs, DOTD and consultant LPA use of SiteManager Local vs. State design standards Changes to design criteria during the project development (no grandfathering) Project development process too long simplify Lack of DOTD District involvement in design

20 Optimism Regarding Success How would you rate your optimism regarding the success of this effort? 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% least...most North Focus Group South Focus Group

21 Partnership Meetings

22 Partnership Meetings Purpose: To discuss identified issues, ratify potential solutions, and develop implementation steps Participants: LPA participants from Focus Group meetings DOTD LPA Program Managers DOTD district representatives

23 Type of Agency Represented 50% 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% City Parish DOTD Federal Academic Consultant Other

24 Partnership Meetings LPA Partnership Meetings (1-1/2 days) North Louisiana (Louisiana Tech University, Shreveport Center) - September 25 at 12:30 4:30 and September 26 from 8:00 4:00 South Louisiana (Louisiana Municipal Association, Baton Rouge) - September 27 at 12:30 4:30 and September 28 from 8:00 4:00

25 First Action - Partnership Prioritization Participants requested to prioritize challenges and issues from focus group list North Partnership Meeting Quality of Plans Project Development Too Long/Simplify Project Development Inconsistent/Quality of Plans Reviews South Partnership Meeting Quality of Plans Communication/Issues with DOTD, LPA and consultants Review Inconsistencies

26 Challenge Teams Participants divided into challenge teams as per their interest Brainstormed recommended improvements Completed matrix of each recommendation Current state Who has the issue Who benefits from improvement Who is at risk The risk of not implementing (assigned risk)

27 Challenge Teams Developed implementation plans on 3 selected improvements Presented to Partnership Meeting participants Explained if it was not one of highest 3 risks

28 North Partnership Potential Solutions Quality of plans Develop a Road Design Manual Chapter 8 training course District rating consultants during design Checklist for Entities hiring a consultant Project development too long/simplify project development Electronic communication for LPA projects from application to construction Formally add districts into preliminary design review of all LPA projects (Designate district LPA coordinator) Streamline design plan review & revisions by LPA Inconsistent/Quality of plans reviews Create LPA plan review section at HQ Reduce workload of project managers Standardized reviews

29 South Partnership Potential Solutions Quality of plans Develop design deliverable guidelines for each type of project Develop training to improve consultant knowledge Define the responsibilities and consequences at the beginning of project Communication/issues with DOTD, LPA and consultants Develop typical scope and schedule for programs and projects Implement Electronic Tracking with Notifications Develop a communication protocol for project development Review inconsistencies Require written/signed design and review criteria based on scale and risk at Pre-Design Meeting Create electronic/transparent/real time tracking system done by working group (including method to PM to resolve conflicts) District and HQ design dedicated staff specifically to LPA projects

30 In Progress Quality of plans Develop a Road Design Manual Chapter 8 training course Working with LTRC District rating consultants during design Working with CCS Checklist for Entities hiring a consultant In draft form Project development too long/simplify project development Electronic communication for LPA projects from application to construction Reviewing with I.T. Formally add districts into preliminary design review of all LPA projects (Designate district LPA coordinator) Scheduling annual meeting with each district Streamline design plan review & revisions by LPA

31 In Progress Inconsistent/Quality of plans reviews Create LPA plan review section at HQ Reduce workload of project managers Standardized reviews Quality of plans Develop design deliverable guidelines for each type of project In progress for repetitive project types Develop training to improve consultant knowledge Road Design Manual Chapter 8 in progress Define the responsibilities and consequences at the beginning of project

32 Commitment Statement Level of commitment requested from participants Willing to participate in general partnership meetings to streamline project delivery Willing to participate on a committee to implement improvements resulting from this effort Unable to commit, but remain supportive and will do what I can to contribute to its success Most were willing to meet and participate

33 Optimism 80% How would you rate the effectiveness of this meeting? 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Least...Most North Partnership Meeting South Partnership Meeting