Reauthorization of the national surface transportation legislation in the United States in 2012 included a requirement for agencies to develop transportation asset management (TAM) plans for the first time. Research on policy implementation and organizational theory has shown that agencies can respond to this kind of legislative mandate with ineffective efforts to achieve legitimacy, reducing the likelihood for program sustainment in the long term. Without sustainment, the benefits of TAM, which are mostly long term, may not be fully realized. The objective of this work is to identify factors that can improve the extent to which TAM programs are maintained within the business operations of departments of transportation (DOTs) by examining TAM implementation historically and through the lenses of policy and program implementation research and organizational change management theories. Ten factors were identified that can promote sustainment and longevity of TAM programs in the business processes of DOTs; the factors include characteristics of TAM programs or the availability and quality of human and other resources. Agencies can consider addressing the factors identified to enhance their implementation approaches with the goal of attaining long-term viability of their TAM programs. These factors provide a basis for formally addressing the social and organizational capital elements alongside the physical and technical capital elements of TAM implementation.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
EdelmanL. B.Legal Ambiguity and Symbolic Structures: Organizational Mediation of Civil Rights Law. American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 97, No. 6, 1992, pp. 1531–1576.
2.
WestphalJ. D., GulatiR., and ShortellS. M.. Customization or Conformity? An Institutional and Network Perspective on the Content and Consequences of TQM Adoption. Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 42, No. 2, 1997, pp. 366–394.
3.
America’s Highways: 1776–1976: A History of the Federal-Aid Program. FHWA, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1977.
4.
LeRoseC.The Collapse of the Silver Bridge. West Virginia Historical Society Quarterly, Vol. 15, No. 4, 2001.
5.
FHWAU.S.Department of Transportation. Questions and Answers on the National Bridge Inspection Standards 23 CFR 650 Subpart C. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/nbis/index.cfm#2. Accessed July 1, 2013.
6.
FinnF.Pavement Management Systems—Past, Present, and Future. Public Roads, Vol. 62, No. 1, 1998, p. 7.
7.
SchweppeE.Legacy of a Landmark: ISTEA After 10 Years. Public Roads, Vol. 65, No. 3, 2001, p. 5.
8.
ShoupL., and LangM.. Transportation 101: An Introduction to Federal Transportation Policy. Transportation for America, Washington, D.C., 2011.
9.
LindquistE.Assessing Effectiveness Measures in the ISTEA Management Systems. Texas Transportation Institute, Texas A&M University, College Station, 1999.
10.
RyanT. W., HartleR. A., MannJ. E., and DanovichL. J.. Bridge Inspector’s Reference Manual. National Highway Institute, FHWA, U.S. Department of Transportation, 2006.
11.
MarkowM. J., and HymanW. A.. NCHRP Synthesis of Highway Practice 397: Bridge Management Systems for Transportation Agency Decision Making. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2009.
12.
KassoffH.TEA-21: How Sweet It Is!Roads & Bridges, Vol. 36, No. 10, 1998, p. 4.
13.
Cambridge Systematics, Inc.NCHRP Web Document 41: Phase I Report: Task 1 of 3: Synthesis of Asset Management Practice. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2002.
14.
NemmersC.Transportation Asset Management. Public Roads, Vol. 61, No. 1, 1997.
15.
BloomM.FHWA Creates an Office of Asset Management. Public Roads, Vol. 63, No. 3, 1999, p. 2.
16.
MeyerM. D.U.S. Domestic Scan Program: Best Practices in Transportation Asset Management. NCHRP Project 20-68. Cambridge Systematics, Inc., Cambridge, Mass.; AASHTO, Washington, D.C.; FHWA, U.S. Department of Transportation; Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2007.
17.
GeigerD., WellsP., Bugas-SchrammP., LoveL., McNeilS., MeridaD., MeyerM., RitterR., SteudleK., TuggleD., and VelasquezL.. Transportation Asset Management in Australia, Canada, England, and New Zealand. FHWA, U.S. Department of Transportation, 2005.
18.
FixsenD. L., NaoomS. F., BlaseK. A., FriedmanR. M., and WallaceF.. Implementation Research: A Synthesis of the Literature. National Implementation Research Network, Louis de la Parte Florida Mental Health Institute, University of South Florida, Tampa, 2005.
19.
PetersD. H., AdamT., AlongeO., AgyepongI. A., and TranN.. Republished Research: Implementation Research: What It Is and How to Do It. British Medical Journal, Vol. 48, No. 8, April2014, pp. 731–736.
20.
HolcombP. A., and NightingaleD. S.. Conceptual Underpinnings of Implementation Analysis. In Policy into Action: Implementation Research and Welfare Reform (LennonM. C. and CorbettT., eds.), The Urban Institute Press, Washington, D.C., pp. 39–55.
21.
RabinB. A., BrownsonR. C., Haire-JoshuD., KreuterM. W., and WeaverN. L.. A Glossary for Dissemination and Implementation Research in Health. Journal of Public Health Management and Practice, Vol. 14, No. 2, 2008, pp. 117–123.
22.
KaplanT., and CorbettT.. Three Generations of Implementation Research: Looking for the Keys to Implementation “Success.” In Policy into Action: Implementation Research and Welfare Reform (LennonM. C. and CorbettT., eds.), The Urban Institute Press, Washington, D.C., pp. 57–71.
23.
PaudelN. R.A Critical Account of Policy Implementation Theories: Status and Reconsideration. Nepalese Journal of Public Policy and Governance, Vol. 25, No. 2, 2009, pp. 36–54.
24.
ProctorE., SilmereH., RaghavanR., HovmandP., AaronsG., BungerA., GriffeyR., and HensleyM.. Outcomes for Implementation Research: Conceptual Distinctions, Measurement Challenges, and Research Agenda. Administration and Policy in Mental Health, Vol. 38, No. 2, March2011, pp. 65–76.
25.
Wiltsey StirmanS., KimberlyJ., CookN., CallowayA., CastroF., and CharnsM.. The Sustainability of New Programs and Innovations: A Review of the Empirical Literature and Recommendations for Future Research. Implementation Science, Vol. 7, January2012, p. 17.
26.
AaronsG. A., GreenA. E., WillgingC. E., EhrhartM. G., RoeschS. C., HechtD. B., and ChaffinM. J.. Mixed-Method Study of a Conceptual Model of Evidence-Based Intervention Sustainment Across Multiple Public-Sector Service Settings. Implementation Science, Vol. 9, No. 1, December2014, p. 183.
27.
XerriM. J., NelsonS., and BrunettoY.. Importance of Workplace Relationships and Attitudes Toward Organizational Change in Engineering Asset-Management Organizations. Journal of Management in Engineering, Vol. 31, No. 5, 2015.
28.
Whelan-BerryK. S., and SomervilleK. A.. Linking Change Drivers and the Organizational Change Process: A Review and Synthesis. Journal of Change Management, Vol. 10, No. 2, June2010, pp. 175–193.
29.
ParryW., KirschC., CareyP., and ShawD.. Empirical Development of a Model of Performance Drivers in Organizational Change Projects. Journal of Change Management, Vol. 14, No. 1, January2014, pp. 99–125.
30.
ByR. T.Organisational Change Management: A Critical Review. Journal of Change Management, Vol. 5, No. 4, December2005, pp. 369–380.
31.
van der VoetJ.The Effectiveness and Specificity of Change Management in a Public Organization: Transformational Leadership and a Bureaucratic Organizational Structure. European Management Journal, Vol. 32, No. 3, June2014, pp. 373–382.
32.
ElrodP. D., and TippettD. D.. The “Death Valley” of Change. Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 15, No. 3, June2002, pp. 273–291.
33.
BrandtM., and SommerP.. The 4-by-10 Ruler of Change: A Practical Framework for Managing Change. Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg, Sweden, 2013.
34.
AASHTO Transportation Asset Management Guide: A Focus on Implementation. AASHTO, Washington, D.C., 2011.
35.
ChurchT. W., and NakamuraR. T.. Cleaning Up the Mess: Implementation Strategies in Superfund. Brookings Institution, Washington, D.C., 1993.
36.
van StaverenM. T.Innovative Ways to Implement Risk Management in Infrastructure Projects. In Vulnerability, Uncertainty, and Risk: Quantification, Mitigation, and Management: Proc., Second International Conference on Vulnerability and Risk Analysis and Management (ICVRAM) and the Sixth International Symposium on Uncertainty, Modeling, and Analysis (ISUMA) (BeerM., AuS.-K., and HallJ. W., eds.), Liverpool, United Kingdom, ASCE, Reston, Va., 2014, pp. 389–398.
37.
SelkerH. P.Introduction: The Affordable Care Act as a National Experiment. In The Affordable Care Act as a National Experiment: Health Policy Innovations and Lessons (SelkerH. P. and WasserJ. S., eds.), Springer Science+Business Media, New York.
38.
HannaA. S., LynchJ. C., and El AsmarM.. Effective Implementation of the Design–Build Delivery System on Transportation Projects. Midwest Regional University Transportation Center, Madison, Wis., 2008.
39.
GlasgowR. E.The RE-AIM Model for Planning, Evaluation and Reporting on Implementation and Dissemination Research. Center for Health Dissemination and Implementation Research and Institute for Health Research, Kaiser Permanente Colorado, 2007.
40.
PetersonA. E., BondG. R., DrakeR. E., McHugoG. J., JonesA. M., and WilliamsJ. R.. Predicting the Long-Term Sustainability of Evidence-Based Practices in Mental Health Care: An 8-Year Longitudinal Analysis. Journal of Behavioral Health Services and Research, Vol. 41, No. 3, July2014, pp. 337–346.
41.
MaurerL. K., MansfieldT. J., LaneL. B., and HunkinsJ.. Blueprint for Sustainability: One Department of Transportation’s Pursuit of Performance-Based Accountability. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2357, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2013, pp. 13–23.
42.
BurnsT., and StalkerG. M.. Mechanistic and Organic Systems of Management. In The Management of Innovation, Oxford University Press, Oxford, United Kingdom, pp. 96–125.
